There are times when we know something needs to change, yet we still feel pulled toward what is familiar. You might want to leave a job that no longer fits while worrying about giving up stability. You may know a relationship needs to shift while still caring deeply about the person. You might finally receive the opportunity you have worked toward — and suddenly question whether you want it at all.
We often interpret this tension as indecision or overthinking. Sometimes we are harder on ourselves and call it self-sabotage. But holding conflicting feelings about something important is a normal psychological experience known as ambivalence.
Ambivalence occurs when we hold competing feelings, beliefs, or evaluations about the same situation. Research suggests it can feel particularly uncomfortable when we are faced with actually making a decision, because choosing one direction often means accepting the uncertainty or loss associated with the other (van Harreveld et al., 2009).
Why Knowing What You Want Isn't Always Enough
We like to think decisions should follow a simple process: figure out what we want, weigh the options, make the choice. But our emotional experiences do not always line up neatly with what makes sense on paper.
There can be a difference between what we think about a situation and how we feel about it. Research on cognitive-affective inconsistency suggests that when our thoughts and feelings about something do not align, the connection between our overall attitude and what we actually do can become less straightforward (Conner et al., 2021).
This can help explain why someone can genuinely want change and still hesitate when the opportunity arrives.
Our histories also come into the room with us. A decision about taking a professional risk may connect to earlier experiences with failure, financial instability, or expectations about success. Setting a boundary may seem reasonable intellectually while feeling uncomfortable emotionally because maintaining relationships has historically required keeping the peace. Leaving something familiar may bring relief and grief at the same time.
The decision in front of us may be happening today, but not every response to it began today.
Listening to the Conflict Differently
Parts-based approaches, including Internal Family Systems (IFS), offer another way to think about these competing responses. Rather than assuming one side represents what we really want and the other needs to be eliminated, parts work creates space to understand what each response may be trying to communicate.
One part may want freedom while another values security. One may be ready for something different while another remembers what happened the last time you took a risk. One may know a boundary is necessary while another worries about what that boundary could mean for the relationship.
IFS is increasingly being studied as a therapeutic approach, with preliminary and emerging research supporting its use with concerns including depression and trauma-related symptoms (Haddock et al., 2017; Comeau et al., 2026). The value of a parts-based perspective in moments of ambivalence is that it allows us to approach internal conflict with curiosity rather than immediately deciding one response is the problem. For a broader look at how this kind of reflective work unfolds, individual counseling can provide a grounded space to explore it.
Making Room for More Than One Truth
Not every hesitation is a warning that you should stop, just as not every desire to move forward means that you should.
Sometimes hesitation gives us information.
Instead of asking, Why can't I just make a decision? it may be more useful to explore what makes the decision difficult. What feels important about moving forward? What feels important about staying where you are? What are you afraid you might lose? What are you hoping might change?
Therapy can create room to explore those questions without rushing toward an answer. An integrative approach can consider the thoughts surrounding a decision, the emotions connected to it, previous experiences that may be influencing the present, and even what happens physically when you imagine one choice versus another.
Clarity does not always mean every part of you agrees.
Sometimes clarity is understanding why part of you wants to move forward, why another part is hesitant, and having enough information to decide which direction fits your life now.
References
Comeau, A., et al. (2026). A randomized controlled trial of an online group-based Internal Family Systems treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder: The Program for Alleviating and Resolving Trauma and Stress (PARTS) study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0002089
Conner, M., Wilding, S., van Harreveld, F., & Dalege, J. (2021). Cognitive-affective inconsistency and ambivalence: Impact on the overall attitude-behavior relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(4), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220945900
Haddock, S. A., Weiler, L. M., Trump, L. J., & Henry, K. L. (2017). The efficacy of Internal Family Systems therapy in the treatment of depression among female college students: A pilot study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12184
van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & de Liver, Y. N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308324518
Ready to take the next step?
Schedule a consultation to discuss how we can support you.