will first attempt to resolve the conflict by exemption, i.e., by assigning one definition a higher priority than that accorded to others. (This can be done either by exempting a particular type of event or a particular person from a more general definition.) Where this is not possible, he will attempt to achieve a compromise solution by which he can act in partial conformity to both (or all) definitions of the situation. When even this is not possible, he will seek to withdraw from the situation, unless otherwise constrained. If constrained, he will behave inconsistently, wavering between the two alternative definitions, until new action intervenes to structure the situation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edward Gross (1956) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: