Multicriteria conflict arises in pairwise comparisons, where each alternative outperforms the other one on some criterion, which imposes a trade-off. Comparing two alternatives can be difficult if their respective advantages are of high magnitude (the attribute spread is large). In this paper, we investigate to which extent conflict in a comparison situation can lead decision makers to express incomplete preferences, that is, to refuse to compare the two alternatives, or to be unable to compare them with confidence. We report on an experiment in which subjects expressed preferences on pairs of alternatives involving varying conflicts. Results show that depending on whether the participants are allowed to express incomplete preferences or not, attribute spread has a different effect: a large attribute spread increases the frequency of incomparability statements, when available, while it increases the use of indifference statements when only indifference and preference answers are permitted. These results lead us to derive some implications for preference elicitation methods involving comparison tasks.