Social Conflict: The Emergence and Consequences of Struggle and Negotiation

Dreu, De; Carsten, K W

doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002027

Cited by 90 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 254 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in addition to these more benign situations, group life is marked also by conflict when, for example, individuals compete for status and scarce resources. Typically, such conflicts trigger a tendency towards (i) withdrawal and subordination, (ii) matching and compromise, or (iii) aggressive approach (De Dreu, 2010;Deutsch, 1973). Although individuals have an incentive to compete through aggressive approach, their overarching group fares better when conflict is mitigated through withdrawal and compromise (De Dreu, 2010).…”

Section: Current Study: Decision Making In Competitive Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Oxytocin differentially modulates compromise and competitive approach but not withdrawal to antagonists from own vs. rivaling other groups

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Current Study: Decision Making In Competitive Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Oxytocin differentially modulates compromise and competitive approach but not withdrawal to antagonists from own vs. rivaling other groups

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Second, even when people are placed in matrix games that isolate competitive motives from self-interest, most everyone chooses to cooperate, presumably because cooperation is now aligned with self-interest (McClintock & McNeel, 1966). In fact, for the reasons outlined above, researchers label behavior either cooperative or non-cooperative in social dilemmas to avoid implying that non-cooperation was the result of being competitive (De Dreu, 2010;Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977). Therefore, in keeping with the literature on social dilemmas, we focus on sex differences in cooperation and not competition.…”

Section: Sex Differences In Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.

Balliet

Macfarlan

et al. 2011

Psychological Bulletin

284

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is commonly believed that women are kinder and more cooperative than men, there is conflicting evidence for this assertion. Current theories of sex differences in social behavior suggest that it may be useful to examine in what situations men and women are likely to differ in cooperation. Here, we derive predictions from both sociocultural and evolutionary perspectives on context-specific sex differences in cooperation, and we conduct a unique meta-analytic study of 272 effect sizes-sampled across 50 years of research-on social dilemmas to examine several potential moderators. The overall average effect size is not statistically different from zero (d ϭ -0.05), suggesting that men and women do not differ in their overall amounts of cooperation. However, the association between sex and cooperation is moderated by several key features of the social context: Male-male interactions are more cooperative than female-female interactions (d ϭ 0.16), yet women cooperate more than men in mixed-sex interactions (d ϭ -0.22). In repeated interactions, men are more cooperative than women. Women were more cooperative than men in larger groups and in more recent studies, but these differences disappeared after statistically controlling for several study characteristics. We discuss these results in the context of both sociocultural and evolutionary theories of sex differences, stress the need for an integrated biosocial approach, and outline directions for future research.

show abstract

“…Both egoistic and fraternal relative deprivations often motivate competition for relative standing (Crosby, 1976;De Dreu, 2010;Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999;Ten Velden, Beersma, & De Dreu, 2009;Vanneman & Pettigrew, 1972). Marwell, Ratcliff, and Schmitt (1969), for example, randomly assigned participants to either equal or unequal positions by having them play an initial decision-making game.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative deprivation and intergroup competition

Halevy

Chou²,

Cohen

et al. 2010

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments utilized a new experimental paradigm -the IPD-MD game -to study how relative deprivation at the group level affects intergroup competition. The IPD-MD game enables group members to make a costly contribution to either a within-group pool that benefits fellow in-group members, or a between-group pool, which, in addition harms out-group members. We found that when group members were put in a disadvantaged position, either by previous actions of the out-group (Experiment 1) or by random misfortune (Experiment 2), they contributed substantially more to the competitive between-group pool. This destructive behavior both minimized inequality between the groups and reduced collective efficiency. Our results underscore the conditions that lead group members to care about relative (rather than absolute) group outcomes and highlight the need to differentiate between the motivation to get ahead and the motivation not to fall behind: the latter, it appears, is what motivates individual participation in destructive intergroup competition.Keywords: Relative deprivation, collective action, intragroup cooperation, intergroup competition, experimental games.On August 28, 1963, 250,000 civil-rights supporters attended the March on Washington, during which Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech. Two conditions had to be met for this remarkable event to have happened, one involving intergroup processes and the other involving intragroup processes. At the intergroup level, enough group members individuals had to feel that their group was unjustly deprived relative to another group in society. At the intragroup level, a sufficient number of these people had to decide that they were willing to pay the personal costs associated with fighting for change (i.e., invest the time and effort required to participate in this rally).The aforementioned historic event was quite exceptional in its magnitude and impact; the two conditions that afforded it, however, appear to be necessary (though not always sufficient) for successful intergroup competition. Social competition emerges "to the extent that one party feels deprived of important outcomes" (De Dreu, 2010, p. 984). Social competition is successful to the extent that group members are willing to pay the personal costs associated with participation in the group's collective action (Bornstein, 2003). The present investigation focuses on both processes and utilizes a new experimental paradigm -the Intergroup Prisoner's Dilemma -Maximizing Difference (IPD-MD) game (Halevy, Bornstein, & Sagiv, 2008), to study how group members react to relative deprivation when intergroup competition entails costly participation in collective action. From Relative Deprivation to Intergroup CompetitionRelative deprivation theory (Bernstein & Crosby, 1980;Crosby, 1976;Davis, 1959) proposes that feelings of resentment, anger, and unrest arise when a person (group) (a) wants something; (b) perceives that another person (group) has the thing they want; (c) feels ent...

show abstract

Social Conflict: The Emergence and Consequences of Struggle and Negotiation

Cited by 90 publications

References 254 publications

Oxytocin differentially modulates compromise and competitive approach but not withdrawal to antagonists from own vs. rivaling other groups

Oxytocin differentially modulates compromise and competitive approach but not withdrawal to antagonists from own vs. rivaling other groups

Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.

Relative deprivation and intergroup competition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About