Avoidance Behavior in Conflict Situations

98 Pages·04.924 MB·English

by  French, Elizabeth Godbeer

This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received 67-11,381
FRENCH, Elizabeth Godbeer, 1916-
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS.
Yale University, Ph.D„ 1942
Psychology, experimental
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
© Copyright by
ELIZABETH GODBZZR FRENCH
1967
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Avoidance Behavior in Conflict Situations
tgr
Elizabeth Godbeer French
An essay presented to the Faculty and the Graduate School of
iale University in candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Digest
The present investigation was an attempt to determine under lhat conditions
going-out-of-the-fleld or escape responses occur in conflict situations. Two
types of conflict, the double approach-avoidance in vbich there is instigation
to approach and avoid each of two goals, and the single approach-avoidance
in which there is instigation to approach and avoid a single goal, were studied.
The experimental groups were established in the following way. The subjects
were divided into six matched groups on the basis of their behavior in a pre­
liminary observation period. Then, in the firs t p art of the experimental
period, a mildly pleasant affect for two tasks was artificially induced in
the subjects of two of the groups, a neutral affect for the same tasks in the
subjects of two groups, and an unpleasant affect for the tasks in the subjects
of two groups. When th is had been accomplished, one group possessing each
type of affect was instructed to select one of the tasks and work longer on
it, and the other group of each lype was told which one to do. Thus double
approach-avoidance conflicts in which the instigation was prim arily approach,
in which i t was equal, and in which i t was prim arily avoidance were estab­
lished in three of the groups. Similar groups were established for the
single approach-avoidance type. After the subjects had been instructed as to
th eir further work they were told that the experimenter would have to be gone
from the room for a period of time twice as long as was required for the
completion of the task but that they were to ilnish i t and wait for her.
Their behavior during th is period was observed through a one way vision
mirror and recorded at five second intervals. In the room during the entire
period were, as w ell-as the tasks, several games placed apparently at random,
which were intended to serve as instigators extrinsic to the conflict situar-
tion.
The results showed that the subjects who had to choose between two un­
pleasant alternatives made the greatest response to the extrinsic objects
before they began a task; those who had to do one unpleasant task showed
the next greatest; those who had to do one neutral, next; those who had to
choose between two neutral, next; and those who had only pleasant affect
made no such responses. The amount of oscillation, m otility, and blocking
at the moment of decision were found to increase in the same order. Except
for the order of the two neutral groups, these results were in accord with
the predictions, based on the stimulus response principles, that the amount
of response to the extrinsic instigator and other manifestations of behavior
disruption would increase writh the number and relative strength of the
avoidance instigations present. The reversal Is^discussed in terms of the
affect present. It was further demonstrated that the oscillation, m otility
and blocking occurred prim arily just before a choice was made and at the
time the approach instigation was becoming stronger due to the nearness of
the time lim it. The possibility of generalizing from th is experiment to life
situations is disc vis sed.
The behavior to be expected after a task was selected and some work had
been done on it is discussed in terms of the original affect for the task and
the probable effect of the behavior that affect had caused. It was found that
the stimulus response principles, which took into account the fact that be­
havior is a sequence and not a series of isolated events, were able to pre­
dict accurately what this subsequent behavior would be. It was expected that
the subject with strong instigation to avoid at the beginning would have
equally strong instigation to avoid a fte r a task was started bub that his Initial
delay,caused by the strong avoidance,would not leave him time enough to leave th
task again. Those who had mild instigation to avoid,on the other hand,would star
soon enough so th at they would be able to leave the task from time to time snd
s till finish before the lim it. This was what actually occurred.The possibilities
of prediction from the stimulus response principles and from the field theoreti­
cal system of Lewin are compared.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgment
The w riter wishe s to acknowledge her indebtedness to
Professor Robert R. Sears for his aid during the formulation of
the problem and the course of the investigation as well as his
helpful criticism of the manuscript.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Contents
Digest
1
Introduction
The Present Problem 7
Procedure 19
Measurement 27
28
Results
Discussion 53
i
Appendix
i
A. Individual data
B. Summary of the stimulus response work on conflict x iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Avoidance Behavior in Conflict Situations
w* "*■
I
Introduction
This investigation is an attempt to analyse experimentally the
escape, or as Lewin (1935) describes it, the "going out of the field"
response that occurs in certain types of conflict situations. That
such responses do occur, or w ill unless specifically prevented, in
conflicts where avoidance instigation is sufficiently strong, has been
recognised by many experimenters. Since they desired to study the re­
solution of the conflict they took some pains to prevent the occurrence
of such behavior. Thus knowledge of the subject is for the most part
based on casual observations and such theoretical discussions as that
of Lewin.
Theoretically, according to Lewin, "going out of the field"
should not occur where the conflict situation involves two positive
goals, but i t may be expected when the choice is between two negative
goals, or when the individual wishes to approach some goal but is
afraid or prevented from doing so by some barrier. In the case of the
child ifco has to decide whether to go on a picnic or play with his
friends (Type 1 co n flict> a ll vectors are diagrammed as pointing in the
direction of the goal and a stable equilibrium exists at the point of
choice. He diagrams the situation of the child #10 wants to fetch a
rubber swan from the water bub is afraid (Type 2 conflict) as consisting
of a convergent fie ld corresponding to the positive valence of the swan,
overlaid by a second fieLd vtiich corresponds to the negative valence of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
the water. According to the diagram the child must more to-the
point of equilibrium between the two field s. This point w ill approach
and retreat from the water according to the momentary oscillations of
the situation, and such oscillations w ill be reflected in the behavior
of the child. Leaving the fie ld occurs after repeated attempts to
overcome the barrier. This is usually not permanent at firs t, but
after repeated returns the child w ill leave not to return again. A
third type of conflict is exenplified by the case of the child forced
to do a disagreeable task under the threat of punishment. Here, since
the vectors point away from th eir respective goals, the child is forced
out of the fie ld once he leaves the point of equilibrium. Thus he w ill
always go out of the field if not prevented.
This type of behavior may be either physical, actually leaving
the situation bodLly, or i t may be psychological in th at the child
occupies himself with something else or "encysts".
Lewin discusses going out of the field from a practical point of
view in his chapter on reward and punishment (1935). He points out,
for example, that parents who use the threat of punishment to force
their children to perform a hated task mast be careful to erect a
barrier around the total situation if the threat of punishment is to be
effective. He mentions running away, concealing from the adult the fact
that some other circumstance made the completion of the task unnecessary,
and fantasying completion, as possible means used by the child to leave
the field. The cases he describes involve a ll of these methods in
various combinations. If the barrier is very firm and the conflict very
severe, there may be no alternative^ le ft for the child but suicide.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Following the approach of Lewin, Dernbo (1931) found that in
her experiment on anger, wheih a ll the real solutions had been ex­
hausted, the subjects tended to resort to fantasy solutions. Fajans
(1933) found in a success and failure experiment, that consolation or
a substitute for real success very often was as effective as actual
success far the young child.
A1 alternative approach to the field theoretical one, and
one that w ill possibly explain more of the data and in more detail,
is the stimulus response interpretation. Conflict behavior has been
analysed theoretically and observed experimentally from this point of
view by M iller (1937, 1942), Brown (1940, 1942), Hovland and Sears
(1938,1941), and others, who have secured a certain amount of evidence
relevant to the present problem.^
A conflict situation is defined as one in which instigation
to make incompatible responses is present. These may be approach
responses, i.e ., going toward a goal or performing an act; or they may
be avoidance responses, i.e ., running away from a given point or
attempting to escape performing a given act. Instigation to these two
types of responses may appear in various combinations, and ■various types
of conflict are distinguished on the basis of these combinations.
Hovland and Sears (1938) have distinguished four types of
conflict on th is basis, the firs t three of fhich correspond with Lewin’s
types mentioned above. In Type 1, described as an approach-approach
conflict, there is simultaneous instigation to two incompatitie^approach
responses. In Type 2 (approach-avoidance) there is instigation to
1. This work is summarized in the appendix. The findings perepent t*
the present problem of going out of the field w ill be prejgjpMted^here,
as w ell as an experiment by Brown (1942) in which he actually dealt
with the problem.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I
approach and avoid a singl e goal* In Type 3 (avoidance-avoidance) .,
two inconpatible avcd. dance reaponaea are aimultaneou sly inetigated*
The fourth type, Which is not mentioned by Lewin, ia a combination
of the previous types. This occurs when there is both approach and
avoidance instigation to each of two incompatible responses. This
type is called a double approach-avoidance, or a Type 4 conflict*
Of these four types, only two commonly occur in uncomplicated
form in human subjects. These are the single approach-avoidance and
the double approach-avoidance. Those which appear on the surface to be
pure approach-approach or avoi dance-avoidanc e types are usually found,
on analysis, to be cases of double approach-avoidance. (Hovland and
Sears, 1938, Godbeer, 1940, M iller, 1942). For practical purposes,
then, there are two types. The double approach-avoidance may vary in
its resemblance to the pure approach-approach or the pure avoidance-
avoidance type depending on the relative strength of the instigations
present*
In Type 1 conflict, or Type 4 conflict th at closely resembles
it, no behavior disruption was expected or found (H&viand'aqd3Se&rs,
1938, Klebanoff, 1939)* When avcidance instigation becomes a little
stronger, some hesitation appears (Godbeer, 1940), but a choice may
s till be made* When the avoidance instigation is equal to that of
approach, resolution of the conflict becomes d ifficu lt and blocking and
oscillation occur at the choice point (Hovland and Sears, 1938)* As
the instigation to avoid continues to increase in strength, so that the
situation comes to simulate the avoidanc e-avoidance type, blocking be­
comes a more frequent type of response, and resolution is more d ifficu lt.
(Hovland and Sears, 1938, Klebanoff, 1939* Wearac^ntt Hovland, 1941, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.