Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:26:31.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the endogeneity of attacker and defender roles in asymmetric conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Hannes Rusch Open the ORCID record for Hannes Rusch [Opens in a new window]  and
Robert Böhm Open the ORCID record for Robert Böhm [Opens in a new window]
Hannes Rusch
Affiliation:
Public Economics Group, School of Business and Economics, University of Marburg, 35032 Marburg, [email protected] School of Management, TU München, 80333 Munich, Germany
Robert Böhm
Affiliation:
School of Business and Economics, RWTH Aachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that the roles of attacker and defender in asymmetric intergroup conflict are structurally ambiguous and their perception is likely to be subjectively biased. Although this allows for endogenous selection into each role, we argue that claiming the role of the defender likely is more advantageous for conflict participants.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e139
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

Abbink, K. & de Haan, T. (2014) Trust on the brink of Armageddon: The first-strike game. European Economic Review 67:190–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.01.009.Google Scholar
Böhm, R., Rusch, H. & Güreck, O. (2016) What makes people go to war? Defensive intentions motivate retaliatory and preemptive intergroup aggression. Evolution and Human Behavior 37(1):29–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.06.005.Google Scholar
Doğan, G., Glowacki, L. & Rusch, H. (2018) Spoils division rules shape aggression between natural groups. Nature Human Behaviour 2(5):322–26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0338-z.Google Scholar
Glowacki, L., Wilson, M. & Wrangham, R. (2017) The evolutionary anthropology of war. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Advance online publication. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.014.Google Scholar
Halevy, N. (2017) Preemptive strikes: Fear, hope, and defensive aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 112(2):224–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000077.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. (2014a) The two sides of warfare: An extended model of altruistic behavior in ancestral human intergroup conflict. Human Nature 25(3):359–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-014-9199-yGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. S. & Bailey, D. H. (2013) Body counts in lowland South American violence. Evolution and Human Behavior 34(1):29–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.08.003.Google Scholar
Wildschut, T., Insko, C. A. & Pinter, B. (2003) The perception of outgroup threat: Content and activation of the outgroup schema. In: The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism, ed. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Judd, C. M. & Corneille, O., pp. 335–59. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Young, I. F. & Sullivan, D. (2016) Competitive victimhood: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Current Opinion in Psychology 11:30–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.004.Google Scholar