Although many theories mention distractions by conflicting alternatives as a problem for self-regulation, motivational conflicts are rarely considered when explaining impairments in learning. In two studies, we investigate the assumption of motivational interference theory that students show different amounts of impairments in learning depending on the presence and motivational strength of conflicting alternatives. In Study 1 (N = 221), the subjective value attributed to a respective alternative in a study--leisure conflict scenario partially accounted for differences in self-regulated learning while controlling for interindividual differences. Study 2 (N = 112) demonstrated that this pattern applies to both when the respective alternatives refer to "liking to" (want conflicts) and "having to" (should conflicts) do something. Moreover, it is demonstrated that impairments due to motivational conflict are higher than impairments inherent in the studying activity itself (baseline). The results emphasise the importance of concurring action alternatives for explaining difficulties in self-regulated learning.