Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:12:07.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asymmetric conflict: Structures, strategies, and settlement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Carsten K. W. De Dreu Open the ORCID record for Carsten K. W. De Dreu [Opens in a new window]  and
Jörg Gross Open the ORCID record for Jörg Gross [Opens in a new window]
Carsten K. W. De Dreu
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands. c.k.w.de.dreu@fsw.leidenuniv.nlhttps://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/carsten-de-dreu Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making (CREED), University of Amsterdam, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. mail@joerg-gross.nethttp://www.joerg-gross.net
Jörg Gross
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands. c.k.w.de.dreu@fsw.leidenuniv.nlhttps://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/carsten-de-dreu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our target article modeled conflict within and between groups as an asymmetric game of strategy and developed a framework to explain the evolved neurobiological, psychological, and sociocultural mechanisms underlying attack and defense. Twenty-seven commentaries add insights from diverse disciplines, such as animal biology, evolutionary game theory, human neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, and political science, that collectively extend and supplement this model in three ways. Here we draw attention to the superordinate structure of attack and defense, and its subordinate means to meet the end of status quo maintenance versus change, and we discuss (1) how variations in conflict structure and power disparities between antagonists can impact strategy selection and behavior during attack and defense; (2) how the positions of attack and defense emerge endogenously and are subject to rhetoric and propaganda; and (3) how psychological and economic interventions can transform attacker-defender conflicts into coordination games that allow mutual gains and dispute resolution.

Type
Authors’ Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e145
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelrod, R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Penguin.Google Scholar
Bacharach, S. B. & Lawler, E. J. (1981) Bargaining: Power, politics, and outcomes. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Balliet, D., Tybur, J. M. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017) Functional interdependency theory: An evolutionary account of social situations. Personality and Social Psychology Review 21:361–88.Google Scholar
Balliet, D. P., Wu, J. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) In-group favoritism and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 140(6):1556–81.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. & Raihani, N. (2016) Partner choice versus punishment in human Prisoner's Dilemmas. Evolution and Human Behavior 37:263–71.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, D. (2001) Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict, as it does in the Israeli society? Political Psychology 22:601–27.Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H., Magliozzi, T. & Neale, M. A. (1985) Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35:294–313.Google Scholar
Belot, M., Crawford, V. P. & Heyes, C. (2013) Players of Matching Pennies automatically imitate opponents’ gestures against strong incentives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(8):2763–68.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2011) A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation – Cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin 86:307–24.Google Scholar
Carnevale, P. J. & Pruitt, D. G. (1992) Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology 43:531–82.Google Scholar
Carter, J. R. & Anderton, C. H. (2001) An experimental test of a predator–prey model of appropriation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 45(1): 83–97.Google Scholar
Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Crisp, R. J. & Gross, J. J. (2014) Hope in the Middle East: Malleability beliefs, hope, and the willingness to compromise for peace. Social Psychology and Personality Science 5:67–75.Google Scholar
Crawford, V. P. & Iriberri, N. (2007) Fatal attraction: Salience, naivete, and sophistication in experimental hide-and-seek games. American Economic Review 97:1731–50.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. (1979) Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 205:489–511.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., Shalvi, S. & Handgraaf, M. J. (2011) Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(4):1262–66. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L. & Steinel, W. (2000) Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6):975–87.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Giacomantonio, M., Giffin, M. R. & Vecchiato, G. (2019) Psychological constraints on aggressive predation in economic contests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000531.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. & Giffin, M. R. (2018) Hormonal modulation of attacker-defender contests. Unpublished manuscript, Leiden University.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., Ten Velden, F. S., Van Dijk, E. & Feith, S. W. W. (2010) The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science 328:1408–11.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Gross, J., Meder, Z., Griffin, M. R., Prochazkova, E., Krikeb, J. & Columbus, S. (2016a) In-group defense, out-group aggression, and coordination failure in intergroup conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113:10524–29.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Kret, M. E. & Sligte, I. G. (2016b) Modulating prefrontal control in humans reveals distinct pathways to competitive success and collective waste. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 11:1236–44.Google Scholar
Duffy, J. & Kim, M. (2005) Anarchy in the laboratory (and the role of the state). Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 56:297–329.Google Scholar
Eliaz, K. & Rubinstein, A. (2011) Edgar Allan Poe's riddle: Framing effects in repeated matching pennies games. Games and Economic Behavior 71(1):88–99.Google Scholar
Franke, J., Kanzow, C., Leininger, W. & Schwartz, A. (2013) Effort maximization in asymmetric contest games with heterogeneous contestants. Economic Theory 52(2):589–630.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J. & Realo, A. (1999) Individualism-collectivism and accountability in intergroup negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology 84:721–736.Google Scholar
Giebels, E., De Dreu, C. K. W. & Van de Vliert, E. (2000) Interdependence in negotiation: Impact of exit options and social motives on distributive and integrative negotiation. European Journal of Social Psychology 30:255–72.Google Scholar
Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A. & Palfrey, T. R. (2003) Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games. Games and Economic Behavior 45:97–113.Google Scholar
Gross, J. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2019a) Individual solutions to shared problems create a modern tragedy of the commons. Science Advances 5(4):eaau7296.Google Scholar
Grossman, H. I. & Kim, M. (2002) Predation and accumulation. Journal of Economic Growth 158:393–407.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y. & Murnighan, J. K. (2011) Games groups play: Mental models in intergroup conflict and negotiation. In: Negotiation and groups, eds. Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A. & Overbeck, J. R., pp. 79–107. Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Krebs, T. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2019) Psychological situations illuminate the meaning of human behavior: Recent advances and application to social influence processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 13(2):12437.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Sagiv, L., Roccas, S. & Bornstein, G. (2006) Perceiving intergroup conflict: From game models to mental templates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(12):1674–89.Google Scholar
Halperin, E., Russell, A. G., Trzesniewski, K. H., Gross, J. J. & Dweck, C. S. (2011) Promoting the middle east peace process by changing beliefs about group malleability. Science 333(6050):1767–69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1202925.Google Scholar
Harinck, F., De Dreu, C. K. W. & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000) The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81:329–58.Google Scholar
Harinck, F. & Druckman, D. (2017) Do negotiation interventions matter? Resolving conflicting interests and values. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61:29–55.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. (1991) The paradox of power. Economics & Politics 3:177–200.Google Scholar
Holbrooke, R. (1999) To end a war. Modern Library.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. (2006) Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology 57:1–26.Google Scholar
Lacomba, J., Lagos, F., Reuben, E. & van Winden, F. (2014) On the escalation and de-escalation of conflict. Games and Economic Behavior 86:40–57.Google Scholar
Lax, D. A. & Sebenius, J. K. (1986) The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. Free Press.Google Scholar
Ledgerwood, A., Liviatan, I. & Carnevale, P. J. (2007) Group identity completion and the symbolic value of property. Psychological Science 18:873–78.Google Scholar
Li, X. & Camerer, C. F. (2019) Using visual salience in empirical game theory. Working paper, CalTech.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T. & Holmes, J. G. (1975) The role of situational restrictiveness on self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and empirical extension of Kelley and Stahelski's triangle hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:661–73.Google Scholar
Mulder, L. B., Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D. & Wilke, H. A. M. (2006) When sanctions fail to increase cooperation in social dilemmas: Considering the presence of an alternative option to defect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32:1312–24.Google Scholar
Orbell, J. M. & Dawes, R. M. (1993) Social welfare, cooperators advantage, and the option of not playing the game. American Sociological Review 58:787–800.Google Scholar
Pinkley, R. L. (1995) Impact of knowledge regarding alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiations: Whose knowledge counts? Journal of Applied Psychology 80:403–17.Google Scholar
Pliskin, R. & Halperin, E. (2016) Emotions and emotion regulation in intractable conflict and their relation to the ethos of conflict in Israeli society. In: A social psychology perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ed. Sharvit, K. & Halperin, E.. Peace Psychology Book Series. Springer.Google Scholar
Plous, S. (1985) Perceptual illusions and military realities: The nuclear arms race. Journal of Conflict Resolution 29:363–89.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D. G. (1981) Negotiation. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D.G. (2007) Readiness theory and the Northern Ireland conflict. American Behavioral Scientist 50:1520–41.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D. G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986) Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Random House.Google Scholar
Raiffa, H. (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Belknap.Google Scholar
Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., Ziegler, M., Jones, A. B. & Funder, D. C. (2014) The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107:677.Google Scholar
Ten Velden, F. S., Daughters, K. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2017) Oxytocin promotes intuitive rather than deliberated cooperation with the in-group. Hormones and Behavior 92:164–71.Google Scholar
Von Clausewitz, G. (1832/1984) Von Kriege (transl. Howard, M.). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, R. E. & McKersie, R. (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T. (1988) Exit from the group as an individualistic solution to the free-rider problem in the United States and Japan. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24:530–42.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T. & Kiyonari, T. (2000) The group as the container of generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly 63:116–32.Google Scholar
Zartman, I. W. (1989) Ripe for resolution: Conflict resolution in Africa. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zartman, I. W. (2000) Ripeness: The hurting stalemate and beyond. In: Conflict resolution after the Cold War, ed. Stern, P. C. & Druckman, D., pp. 225–50. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Gross, J., De Dreu, C. K. W. & Ma, Y. (2019) Oxytocin promotes coordinated out-group attack during intergroup conflict in humans. eLife 8; e40698. doi: 10.7554/eLife.40698.Google Scholar