Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T15:37:42.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic games for the study of peace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024

Robert Böhm Open the ORCID record for Robert Böhm [Opens in a new window]  and
Simon Columbus Open the ORCID record for Simon Columbus [Opens in a new window]
Robert Böhm*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria robert.boehm@univie.ac.at https://www.robertboehm.info/ Department of Psychology and Copenhagen Center for Social Data Science (SODAS), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Simon Columbus
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark simon@simoncolumbus.com http://www.simoncolumbus.com/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Economic games provide models of real-world contexts in which researchers can probe dispositional and structural determinants of intergroup relations. Most intergroup games focus on determinants of aggression between groups and constrain the possibilities for peace. However, paradigms such as the intergroup parochial and universal cooperation game allow for peaceful intergroup relations and can be adapted for the study of peace.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e4
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aaldering, H., & Böhm, R. (2020). Parochial vs. universal cooperation: Introducing a novel economic game of within- and between-group interaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619841627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, M., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Gürerk, Ö. (2016). What makes people go to war? Defensive intentions motivate retaliatory and preemptive intergroup aggression. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, G. (1992). The free-rider problem in intergroup conflicts over step-level and continuous public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, G. (2003). Intergroup conflict: Individual, group, and collective interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_129-145CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, G., & Ben-Yossef, M. (1994). Cooperation in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science (New York, N.Y.), 318, 636–640. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144237CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Columbus, S., Thielmann, I., Zettler, I., & Böhm, R. (2023). Parochial reciprocity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EVOLHUMBEHAV.2023.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Gross, J., Méder, Z., Giffin, M., Prochazkova, E., Krikeb, J., & Columbus, S. (2016). In-group defense, out-group aggression, and coordination failures in intergroup conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 10524–10529. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605115113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guala, F. (2005). The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19, 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771–781. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thielmann, I., Böhm, R., Ott, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2021). Economic games: An introduction and guide for research. Collabra: Psychology, 7, 19004. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.19004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisel, O., & Böhm, R. (2015). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed