Conflict can profoundly affect individuals and their groups. Oftentimes, conflict involves a
clash between one side seeking change and increased gains through victory and the other …

Abstract The contribution by De Dreu and Gross oversimplifies the complexity of the topic. I
provide counterarguments that undermine the two sweeping contentions on which the …

This commentary complements the article by De Dreu and Gross (2019) from the
perspectives of behavioral economics and game theory. It aims to provide a bridge between …

We argue that how players perceive the attack-defense game might matter far more than its
actual underlying structure in determining the outcomes of intergroup conflict. Leaders can …

Abstract De Dreu and Gross predict that attackers will have more difficulty winning conflicts
than defenders. As their analysis is presumed to capture the dynamics of decentralized …

Current psychological perspectives emphasize “attack” and “defense” as the behavioral
mechanisms underlying conflict. Here, we extend this view by highlighting the relevance of …

In many conflict situations, defense is easier to mobilize than attack. However, a number of
factors, namely, the initial endowments available to each side, the stakes of the conflict, the …

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 …

The target article focuses on how attacker-defender conflicts are fought. This commentary
complements it by considering how attacker-defender conflicts may be resolved at the …

We argue that the roles of attacker and defender in asymmetric intergroup conflict are
structurally ambiguous and their perception likely to be subjectively biased. While this allows …