Navigating the Tug-of-War: Kurt Lewin’s Approach-Avoidance Theory

In the complex landscape of human psychology, the question “To approach or to avoid?” serves as a pivotal crossroads in our decision-making processes. At its core lies Kurt Lewin’s Approach-Avoidance Theory, which elegantly captures the tug-of-war between our desires and fears. This theory reveals that we are often drawn toward goals that promise fulfillment and happiness while simultaneously repelled by potential risks and consequences. Understanding this dynamic is not just an academic exercise; it resonates with our everyday choices—whether deciding on a new career path or navigating personal relationships—making it essential for grasping how we function as individuals.

As we delve deeper into Lewin’s insights, we uncover the intricate layers of motivation that shape our actions. The interplay of attraction and avoidance creates a rich tapestry of emotional responses, highlighting why some decisions leave us paralyzed with indecision or fraught with anxiety. By exploring key concepts like valence, tension, and psychological distance, this article will illuminate how these elements influence not only personal outcomes but also broader societal behaviors. Join us as we navigate through Lewin’s groundbreaking theory to better understand the forces at play in our emotional lives—a journey that promises to enhance both self-awareness and interpersonal connections.

Introduction to Approach-Avoidance Theory

Kurt Lewin’s approach-avoidance theory explores the conflict that arises when a goal or event has both positive and negative aspects.

Lewin explains that the directional motivation “the valence imparts to the child’s behavior varies extremely, according to the content of the wants and needs.” Lewin divides these influencing valences into two groups, defined by “the sort of initial behavior they elicit: the positive valences, those effecting approach; and the negative, or those producing withdrawal or retreat (Lewin, 1935).

Randolph Nesse posits that emotions are “either positive or negative because only situations with threats or opportunities influence fitness.” Positive emotions “encourage organisms to seek out and stay in situations that offer opportunities to do things that are good for their genes.” In contrast, the negative emotions “motivate avoidance of and escape from situations that involve threat or loss.” Ultimately, the adaptiveness of an emotional push or pull “depends entirely on the situation” (Nesse, 2019). Sometimes we need to approach and explore; other times we should turn and run like hell.

Approaching opportunities and fleeing from danger are the two most basic adaptive behavioral responses. With avoidance, we preserve life, and with approach we enhance life. Dina van Dijk, Tali Seger-Guttmann and Daniel Heller explain that avoidance motivation “facilitates survival and protection by driving individuals away from negative stimuli such as life threat, whereas approach motivation facilitates thriving and growth by driving individuals towards positive stimuli such as desirable prospect” (van Dijk et al., 2013).

We can see the waves of influence from Lewin’s approach-avoidance theory throughout psychology research. It still has a notable impact on many of the theories today.

Key Concepts of Approach-Avoidance Theory

Approach-Avoidance Conflict

Kurt Lewin’s approach-avoidance theory explores the dynamics of decision-making, particularly when an individual faces a choice that has both positive and negative aspects. The approach-avoidance conflict arises when a person is simultaneously attracted to and repelled by the same goal or situation.

In this context, “approach” refers to the elements that draw a person towards a particular outcome—these could be rewards, benefits, or desires associated with achieving a goal. Conversely, “avoidance” pertains to the aspects that create reluctance or fear—potential risks, losses, or negative consequences tied to pursuing that same goal.

For example, consider someone contemplating taking a new job. The attraction (approach) may include higher pay and better career opportunities; however, there might also be significant drawbacks (avoidance), such as relocation stress and uncertainty about fitting into a new work environment.

Lewin posited that as individuals weigh these conflicting forces, they experience tension which can lead to indecision or anxiety. The closer one gets to making the decision (the point of commitment), the more pronounced this conflict can become: feelings of excitement may intensify alongside fears of failure.

Ultimately, understanding approach-avoidance conflicts helps in recognizing how people navigate complex choices in their lives and highlights the importance of balancing competing motivations in decision-making processes.

Magnitude of Valence

In Kurt Lewin’s approach-avoidance theory, the concept of “magnitude of valence” plays a crucial role in understanding how individuals evaluate and make decisions about goals that have both positive (approach) and negative (avoidance) aspects.

Magnitude of Valence refers to the strength or intensity of the positive and negative feelings associated with a particular goal. This can be thought of as how much an individual desires something versus how much they fear or want to avoid it. In essence, it represents the emotional weight that each aspect carries when faced with a decision.

• Positive Valence (Approach): If a goal has high positive valence, it means that its rewards—such as happiness, success, or fulfillment—are perceived as very desirable. For instance, if someone is considering applying for their dream job, the excitement about potential salary increases and career advancement contributes significantly to this positive valence.
• Negative Valence (Avoidance): Conversely, high negative valence indicates strong aversion towards certain outcomes tied to pursuing that goal. Continuing with the previous example, if there are fears related to job instability or relocating away from family and friends, these concerns contribute significantly to avoidance motivation.

---

The interplay between these two magnitudes influences decision-making:

• When the magnitude of positive valence outweighs negative valence significantly, individuals may feel more inclined to pursue the goal despite possible risks.
• On the other hand, if negative valences are stronger than positive ones—or become increasingly pronounced as one approaches making a decision—individuals may experience heightened anxiety and ultimately choose not to pursue that option at all.

---

As people navigate approach-avoidance conflicts influenced by varying magnitudes of valences, they assess whether pursuing an opportunity is worth facing potential negatives based on their emotional responses. Understanding this balance helps clarify why people might vacillate between wanting something intensely while simultaneously fearing its consequences before reaching a final decision.

State of Tension

Lewin presented a foundational hypothesis on the role of stress in motivating behaviors. In Lewin’s literature, it is translated as tension. Later researchers built on this hypothesis, creating what we now refer to as the stress response.

Clark Hull wrote that when any of “the commodities or conditions necessary for individual or species survival are lacking, or when they deviate materially from the optimum, a state of primary need is said to exist.” Accordingly, the need motivates action in the organism. Or as Hull puts it: “The need will be reduced or eliminated only through the action on the environment of a particular sequence of movements made by the organism” (Hull, 1943).

Bessel van der Kolk, MD, explains that we need “to register and act on our physical sensations to keep our bodies safe. Realizing we’re cold compels us to put on a sweater; feeling hungry or spacey tells us our blood sugar is low and spurs us to get a snack; the pressure of a full bladder sends us to the bathroom” (Van der Kolk, 2015).

Gabor Maté M.D. explains in his fabulous book When the Body Says No that when we encounter events, a stress response helps “preserve internal stability.” A stress response may “be triggered in reaction to any attack—physical, biological, chemical or psychological—or in response to any perception of attack or threat, conscious or unconscious” (Maté, 2011). Basically, an external stimuli creates a positive or negative valence and the biological system responds to bring the body back to a homeostatic state.

See Homeostasis for more on this topic

Lewin’s Model of Tension

Lewin posits that the tension begins with the perception of an object or event (stimuli). The stimuli than creates a sequence of events.

1. It causes “the formation of a definite tense psychical system which did not previously exist. Such an experience immediately produces an intentions, or awakens a desire, which was not previously present.
2. “An already existing state of tension, which may go back to a purpose, a need, or a half-finished activity, is interested in a certain object or event, which is experienced as an attraction (or repulsion), in such a way that this particular tense system now obtains control of the motorium. We shall say of such objects that they possess a ‘valence.’”
3. “Valences of this sort operate at the same time (as do certain experiences) as field forces in the sense that they steer psychical processes…”
4. “Certain activities, caused by the valences, lead to satiation processes or to the carrying out of intentions and hence to the reduction of the tensions in the basic system involved to an equilibrium at a lower level of tension” (Lewin, 1935, p. 51).

---

Lewin’s presentation of tension and behavioral response in 1935 appears very similar to Clark Hull’s Drive reduction theory presented in 1943.

See Drive Reduction Theory for more on this topic

Tension and Conflicting Goals

The simple presentation of drive reduction theory undermines the complex nature of life. We understand how the simple sensation of being thirsty motivates action to get a drink of water, which in turn reduced the bodily tension of being thirsty. However, much of modern life choices are not simple. Goals require a sequence of behaviors, each stage with its own challenges. To add to the complexity, we are not single minded. We have many conscious and unconscious goals that elicit positive and negative valence and drive approach and avoiding behaviors.

When different goals collide, the internal struggle between approach and avoidance amplifies the tension. Leon Festinger, the brilliant social psychologist behind the theory of cognitive dissonance, explained that becoming “aware of conflicts between our beliefs and our actions, or between two simultaneously coexisting beliefs, violates the natural human striving for mental harmony, or consonance” (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 59).

Festinger explained that our opinions and attitudes “tend to exist in clusters that are internally consistent.” However, we have plenty of exceptions to this rule. Festinger theorizes that when “such inconsistencies are found to exist…they capture our interest primarily because they stand in sharp contrast against a background of consistency” (Festinger, 1957, p. 1). Basically, research suggests that conflict enhances tension (stress).

Lewin’s Three Types of Conflict

Lewin defines conflict as “the opposition of approximately equally strong field forces” (Lewin, 1935, p. 88).

Lewin presented three types of conflict.

• Positive-Positive: The child stands between two positive valences. He has to choose perhaps between going on a picnic and playing with his comrades. In this type of conflict situation decision is usually relatively easy.
• Positive-Negative: The child faces something that has simultaneously both a positive and a negative valence. He wants, for example to climb a tree, but is afraid.
• Negative-Negative: The third type of conflict situation occurs when the child stands between two negative valences, for example, when it is sought by threat of punishment to move a child to do a task he does not want to do (Lewin, 1935, pp. 88-91).

---

We can see shadows of Lewin’s type of conflicts in daily life. Whether we are buying a house, applying for a job, or committing to a relationship, each major decisions has built in conflicts. In the face of these challenges, decisions get lost in the mess of conflicting desires, forced trade-offs, and limited experience.

Paul Kurtz wrote:

“Humans are capable of autonomous behavior. Reason enables us to make intelligent choices. It thus can be an effective source of harmony, essential for the good life, by helping us to adjudicate between our conflicting desires and competing values” (Kurtz, 1997, p. 72).

Maturity entails the skill of balance, compromise, and priorities in the face of opposing demands.

See Opposing Demands for more information on this topic

Psychological Distance

Psychological distance is the perceived space or separation between an individual and a goal, event, or decision. This concept plays a significant role in how people evaluate and react to choices that contain both positive (approach) and negative (avoidance) aspects. In psychology, we refer to this as goal gradient. Basically, the closer you are to a goal, the stronger the motivation to reach it. Interruption of goal-directed behavior is a source of tension; the closer the goal, the greater the tension (Staub, 1992).

Key Aspects of Psychological Distance:

• Temporal Distance: This involves how far away an event is in time. The closer an outcome is temporally, the more immediate its consequences feel, which can amplify emotional responses related to both attraction and avoidance. For instance, if someone has an upcoming presentation tomorrow, they may experience heightened anxiety about it compared to if it were scheduled for next month.
• Spatial Distance: This relates to physical proximity to a goal or situation. If individuals are physically closer to something desirable but also potentially threatening—like attending a social gathering where they want to meet new friends but fear social rejection—they may feel stronger emotions linked with both approach and avoidance.
• Social Distance: This aspect pertains to how connected or distant one feels from others involved in a situation or decision-making process. For example, decisions involving loved ones may elicit different emotional reactions than those involving strangers due to higher personal relevance or concern.
• Hypothetical vs. Real Situations: Psychological distance can be influenced by whether situations are viewed as hypothetical scenarios versus real-life events requiring action now. Hypothetical scenarios often allow for greater emotional detachment and can lessen feelings of urgency associated with either pursuing or avoiding certain outcomes.

Role of Psychological Distance in Approach-Avoidance Conflicts:

• When psychological distance is perceived as large (meaning there’s significant separation), individuals might engage more readily with potential rewards without feeling overwhelmed by fears associated with risks.
• Conversely, when psychological distance decreases (the goal becomes imminent), the weight of conflicting emotions increases; individuals often face intensified approach-avoidance conflict because they must confront their desires alongside their fears more directly.

---

Ultimately, understanding psychological distance helps clarify why people respond differently based on their perceptions of closeness regarding goals—they navigate complexities around motivation through varying degrees of immediacy concerning rewards and threats inherent in their decisions.

Approach-Avoidance Theory in Action

Meet Alex, a talented software engineer who has been working at a small startup for the past three years. Alex enjoys the dynamic environment, close-knit team, and the thrill of building innovative products. However, lately, Alex has been feeling restless. The startup’s financial stability is uncertain, and the workload has become overwhelming.

One sunny morning, Alex receives an unexpected email—an enticing job offer from a well-established tech giant. The offer promises a substantial salary increase, comprehensive benefits, and the chance to work on cutting-edge projects. Alex’s heart races with excitement—the prospect of stability and career growth is alluring.

The Conflict

But there’s a catch. The new job would require relocating to a different city, leaving behind friends, family, and the familiar startup culture. Alex’s mind swirls with conflicting thoughts:

1. Approach (Positive Aspects):
   • Financial Security: The higher salary would ease financial stress.
   • Career Growth: Working at a renowned company could open doors to exciting opportunities.
   • Stability: No more sleepless nights worrying about the startup’s survival.
2. Avoidance (Negative Aspects):
   • Emotional Ties: Leaving behind colleagues and the startup feels like abandoning a close-knit family.
   • Fear of Change: Moving to a new city is daunting—new routines, new friends, and an unfamiliar environment.
   • Risk of Regret: What if the grass isn’t greener on the other side?

---

As days pass, Alex oscillates between excitement and anxiety. The tension builds—a classic approach-avoidance conflict. The startup’s camaraderie pulls Alex back, while the allure of stability pushes forward. Alex’s mind becomes a battleground of desires and fears.

The Resolution

One evening, sitting by the window, Alex reflects. The startup’s late-night coding sessions, the laughter during brainstorming meetings—they are part of Alex’s identity. But growth and stability matter too. Alex decides to weigh the valence of each aspect carefully.

In the end, Alex accepts the new job offer. The financial security and career prospects win out. Yet, as the moving truck pulls away from the old apartment, Alex glances back, feeling a pang of loss. The approach-avoidance conflict leaves its mark—a bittersweet blend of excitement and nostalgia.

And so, Alex embarks on a new journey, torn between what was left behind and what lies ahead—a testament to the intricate dance of human decision-making.

---

Remember, we all face our own approach-avoidance conflicts, whether big or small. 

Associated Concepts

• Pleasure Principle: This theory presents the instinctual drive that seeks immediate gratification of basic needs and desires. It suggests that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the primary motivation for our behaviors.
• Evolutionary Psychology: This is the study of how human behavior and cognition can be explained by evolutionary principles. It seeks to understand how traits and behaviors that are universal across cultures may have originated in our evolutionary past, and how they contribute to our survival and reproduction.
• Prospect Theory: This theory describes the way people make decisions under uncertainty. It suggests that individuals evaluate potential losses and gains relative to a reference point, rather than in absolute terms.
• Cognitive Dissonance: This concept refers to the mental discomfort or tension experienced when a person holds conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or values, or when their behavior contradicts their beliefs.
• Behavioral Activation System (BAS): This is a neurological network, regulates goal-directed behavior, motivation, and reward processing. It interacts independently with the Behavioral Inhibition System, affecting personality and psychopathology.
• Achievement-Goal Theory: This motivation theory provides a psychological framework that aims to understand how individuals’ beliefs about competence and the reasons behind their actions influence their behavior and motivation.
• Regulatory Focus Theory: This theory proposes that individuals differ in basic priorities for regulating emotion. He suggests that individuals are either promotion focused with an emphasis on growth, or prevention focused with an emphasis on safety and security.
• Motivational Orientation: This refers to an individual’s underlying motivation to accomplish tasks, goals, or activities. It reflects the underlying motivations that drive a person’s behavior and influence their choices.
• Hedonic Principle: This principle, central to human motivation, drives individuals to seek pleasure and avoid pain. The pursuit of positive experiences and avoidance of negative ones shapes decision-making and emotional regulation.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we conclude our exploration of Kurt Lewin’s Approach-Avoidance Theory, it becomes evident that the dance between attraction and repulsion is not merely a psychological phenomenon—it’s an essential part of what makes us human. Just as our motivations sway like pendulums, so too does our capacity for growth hinge on our ability to navigate this tension. Each decision we face invites us to weigh the benefits against potential risks, shaping not only our individual journeys but also influencing how we connect with others in society. By gaining insight into these conflicting desires, we empower ourselves to make choices that align with our true values and aspirations.

In embracing the intricacies of approach and avoidance, we cultivate resilience and self-awareness in a world rife with uncertainty. The emotional responses elicited by this dynamic equip us to better understand ourselves and those around us—allowing curiosity to flourish amid fear. As you reflect on your own approach-avoidance conflicts, remember that each choice presents an opportunity for learning and growth. By harnessing the insights from Lewin’s theory, you can transform moments of indecision into stepping stones toward personal development—a testament to the profound complexity of the human psyche in its continuous quest for balance amidst life’s myriad challenges.

Last Update: August 27, 2025

References:

Banaji, M. R., Greenwald, A. G. (2016). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Bantam; Reprint edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Festinger, Leon (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press; Anniversary ed. edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Hull, Clark L. (1943). Principles of Behavior: an Introduction to Behavior Theory. Appleton-Century.
(Return to Main Text)

Kurtz, Paul (1997). The Courage to Become: The Virtues of Humanism. Praeger; Reprint paperback edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Lewin, Kurt (1935). A dynamic Theory of Personality. Journal of Personality, 6(4), 337–369. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1935-03995-000
(Return to Main Text)

Nesse, Randolph M. (2019). Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry. ‎Dutton; 1st edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Staub, Ervin (1992). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. ‎Cambridge University Press; Revised ed. edition.
(Return to Main Text)

Van Dijk, Dina Seger-Guttmann, Tali & Heller, Daniel (2013). Life-Threatening Event Reduces Subjective Well-Being Through Activating Avoidance Motivation: A Longitudinal Study. Emotion, 13(2), 216-225. DOI: 10.1037/a0029973
(Return to Main Text)