Manual motor conflict situations corresponding to Lewin's Types I, II, and III were presented to different groups of subjects. The situations were so arranged that unless the subject blocked completely there were only three possible modes of resolution: responding to one stimulus object alone, responding to first one and then the other, or making an altogether new response which represented a compromise between the two incompatible responses. Lewin's statement that Type I conflicts (approach-approach) are usually resolved by responding to one or both of the stimulus objects was verified. Indirect verification was given to his statements that Types II (approach-avoidance) and III (avoidance-avoidance) conflicts are resolved by "withdrawal from the field." Both types produced more blocking and compromise responses (III more than II) than did Type I. These results are shown to be consistent with deductions based either on Lewin's field theory or on a set of five postulates deriving from reaction psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)