No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The political complexity of attack and defense
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2019
Abstract
De Dreu and Gross's distinction between attack and defense is complicated in real-world conflicts because competing leaders construe their position as one of defense, and power imbalances place status quo challengers in a defensive position. Their account of defense as vigilant avoidance is incomplete because it avoids a reference to anger which transforms anxious avoidance into collective and unified action.
Information
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
Aldrich, J. H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J. & Sharp, K. T. (2006) Foreign policy and the electoral connection. Annual Review of Political Science 9:477–502.Google Scholar
Althaus, S. L. & Largio, D. M. (2004) When Osama became Saddam: Origins and consequences of the change in America's public enemy# 1. PS: Political Science & Politics 37(4):795–99.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, L. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004) Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion 4(2):107.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
Carver, C. S. 2004. Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system. Emotion 4(1):3–22.Google Scholar
Crofoot, M. C. & Gilby, I. C. (2012) Cheating monkeys undermine group strength in enemy territory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109(2):501–505.Google Scholar
Feldman, S., Huddy, L. & Marcus, G. E. (2015) Going to war in Iraq: When citizens and the press matter. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gelpi, C. (1997) Democratic diversions: Governmental structure and the externalization of domestic conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(2):255–82.Google Scholar
Glowacki, L. & Wrangham, R.W. (2013) The role of rewards in motivating participation in simple warfare. Human Nature 24(4):444–60. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-013-9178-8.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. & Allen, J. J. (1998) Anger and frontal brain activity: EEG asymmetry consistent with approach motivation despite negative affective valence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(5):1310–16.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. & Sigelman, J. (2001) State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(5):797–803.Google Scholar
Herrmann, R. K., Tetlock, P. E. & Visser, P. S. (1999) Mass public decisions on go to war: A cognitive-interactionist framework. American Political Science Review 93(3):553–73.Google Scholar
Huddy, L., Mason, L. & Aarøe, L. (2015) Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review 109(1):1–17.Google Scholar
Jentleson, B. W. (1992) The pretty prudent public: Post post-Vietnam American opinion on the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly 36(1):49–74.Google Scholar
Jentleson, B. W. & Britton, R. L. (1998) Still pretty prudent: Post-Cold War American public opinion on the use of military force. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(4):395–417.Google Scholar
Kitchen, D. M. & Beehner, J. C. (2007) Factors affecting individual participation in group-level aggression among non-human primates. Behaviour 144(12):1551–81.Google Scholar
Klandermans, P. G. & van Stekelenburg, J. (2013) Social movements and the dynamics of collective action. In: The Oxford handbook of political psychology, ed. Huddy, L., Sears, D. O. & Levy, J. S., 2nd edition, pp. 774–812.Google Scholar
Kull, S., Ramsay, C. & Lewis, E. (2003) Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly 118(4):569–98.Google Scholar
Liberman, P. & Skitka, L. J. (2017) Revenge in US Public Support for War against Iraq. Public Opinion Quarterly 81(3):636–60.Google Scholar
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T. & Smith, E. R. (2000) Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(4):602–16.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. (2013) Asymmetries in altruistic behavior during violent intergroup conflict. Evolutionary Psychology 11(5):973–93.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. (2014b) The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: a review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1794):20141539.Google Scholar
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. (2008) Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin 134(4):504.Google Scholar
Target article
Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups
Related commentaries (28)
A note on the endogeneity of attacker and defender roles in asymmetric conflicts
Advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members have motivations similar to those of defenders and attackers, but their psychological characteristics are fundamentally different
Attack versus defense: A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict
Behavioural inhibition and valuation of gain/loss are neurally distinct from approach/withdrawal
Between-group attack and defence in an ecological setting: Insights from nonhuman animals
But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children
Collective action problems in offensive and defensive warfare
Do people always invest less in attack than defense? Possible qualifying factors
Emotions in attacker-defender conflicts
Functional sex differences and signal forms have coevolved with conflict
Identity leadership: Managing perceptions of conflict for collective action
Levels of analysis and problems of evidential support in the study of asymmetric conflict
Matching pennies games as asymmetric models of conflict
Moral rigidity as a proximate facilitator of group cohesion and combativeness
Reasons to strike first
Resolving attacker-defender conflicts through intergroup negotiation
Symmetric conflicts also allow for the investigation of attack and defense
The attack and defense games
The attack and defense mechanisms: Perspectives from behavioral economics and game theory
The evolutionarily mismatched nature of modern group makeup and the proposed application of such knowledge on promoting unity among members during times of intergroup conflict
The importance of raiding ecology and sex differences in offensive and defensive warfare
The multiple facets of psychopathy in attack and defense conflicts
The political complexity of attack and defense
Toward the need to discriminate types of attackers and defenders in intergroup conflicts
Towards the elucidation of evolution of out-group aggression
Unraveling the role of oxytocin in the motivational structure of conflict
Using political sanctions to discourage intergroup attacks: Social identity and authority legitimacy
Using the research on intergroup conflict in nonhuman animals to help inform patterns of human intergroup conflict
Author response
Asymmetric conflict: Structures, strategies, and settlement