Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:25:14.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symmetric conflicts also allow for the investigation of attack and defense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Joachim Hüffmeier Open the ORCID record for Joachim Hüffmeier [Opens in a new window]  and
Jens Mazei
Joachim Hüffmeier
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany. [email protected]@tu-dortmund.dehttps://www.fk12.tu-dortmund.de/cms/psych/de/Home/Mitarbeiter/psychologie_ifp/Hueffmeier_Joachim.htmlhttp://www.psych.tu-dortmund.de/cms/psych/de/Home/Mitarbeiter/psychologie_ifp/Mazei_Jens.html
Jens Mazei
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany. [email protected]@tu-dortmund.dehttps://www.fk12.tu-dortmund.de/cms/psych/de/Home/Mitarbeiter/psychologie_ifp/Hueffmeier_Joachim.htmlhttp://www.psych.tu-dortmund.de/cms/psych/de/Home/Mitarbeiter/psychologie_ifp/Mazei_Jens.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Dreu and Gross argue that only asymmetric games allow the motives underlying defense and attack to be disentangled. However, the Prisoner's Dilemma Game Alt matrix (PDG-Alt matrix), a modified symmetric PDG, also allows these motives to be disentangled. Studies using the PDG-Alt matrix produced findings contradicting a central claim of De Dreu and Gross.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e125
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

Hüffmeier, J., Zerres, A., Freund, P. A., Backhaus, K., Trötschel, R. & Hertel, G. (2018) Strong or weak synergy? Revising the assumption of team-related advantages in integrative negotiations. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206318770245,Google Scholar
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Drigotas, S. M., Graetz, K. A., Kennedy, J., Cox, C. & Bornstein, G. (1993) The role of communication in interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37:108–38. doi:10.1177/0022002793037001005.Google Scholar
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R., Pinter, B., Finkel, E. J., Brazil, D. M., Cecil, C. L. & Montoya, M. R. (2001) Interindividual–intergroup discontinuity reduction through the anticipation of future interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80:95–111. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.95.Google Scholar
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J. & Graetz, K. A. (1990) Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:68–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.68.Google Scholar
Robert, C. & Carnevale, P. J. (1997) Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72:256–79. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2738.Google Scholar
Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S., Smith, V. A. & Dahl, K. (1993) Individual-group discontinuity: Further evidence for mediation by fear and greed. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19:419–31. doi:10.1177/0146167293194007.Google Scholar
Zerres, A. & Hüffmeier, J. (2011) Too many cooks spoil the soup. Die Betriebswirtschaft 71:559–75.Google Scholar