Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T15:54:19.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do people always invest less in attack than defense? Possible qualifying factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Ori Weisel Open the ORCID record for Ori Weisel [Opens in a new window]
Ori Weisel*
Affiliation:
Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 6997801. oriw@tauex.tau.ac.ilhttps://en-coller.tau.ac.il/profile/oriw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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 respective costs of defense and attack, and the way that conflict is framed and perceived, may make attacking more attractive than defending.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e144
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bornstein, G. (2003) Intergroup conflict: Individual, group, and collective interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7(2):129–45.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Gross, J., Meder, Z., Griffin, M. R., Prochazkova, E., Krikeb, J. & Columbus, S. (2016a) In-group defense, out-group aggression, and coordination failure in intergroup conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113:10524–29.Google Scholar
Weisel, O. & Zultan, R. (2016) Social motives in intergroup conflict: Group identity and perceived target of threat. European Economic Review 90:122–33. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.01.004.Google Scholar