Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T05:44:31.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fear can promote competition, defensive aggression, and dominance complementarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2023

Nir Halevy Open the ORCID record for Nir Halevy [Opens in a new window]
Nir Halevy*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA nhalevy@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fear can undermine cooperation. It may discourage individuals from collaborating with others because of concerns about potential exploitation; prompt them to engage in defensive aggression by launching a preemptive strike; and propel power-seeking individuals to act dominantly rather than compassionately. Therefore, accumulated evidence requires a more contextualized consideration of the link between fear and cooperation in adults.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e63
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. 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

Balliet, D., Tybur, J. M., & Van Lange, P. A. (2017). Functional interdependence theory: An evolutionary account of social situations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(4), 361–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, N. (2017). Preemptive strikes: Fear, hope, and defensive aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 224–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halevy, N., Chou, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2012). Mind games: The mental representation of conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 132–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halevy, N., & Katz, J. J. (2013). Conflict templates: Thinking through interdependence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, N., & Phillips, L. T. (2015). Conflict templates in negotiations, disputes, joint decisions, and tournaments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(1), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Paranoid cognition in social systems: Thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuwabara, K. (2005). Nothing to fear but fear itself: Fear of fear, fear of greed and gender effects in two-person asymmetric social dilemmas. Social Forces, 84(2), 1257–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. K., & Case, C. R. (2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Series Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 54, pp. 129–180). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rapoport, A., & Chammah, A. M. (1966). The game of chicken. American Behavioral Scientist, 10(3), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict: With a new preface by the author. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Simunovic, D., Mifune, N., & Yamagishi, T. (2013). Preemptive strike: An experimental study of fear-based aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1120–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (2004). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiedens, L. Z., & Jimenez, M. C. (2003). Assimilation for affiliation and contrast for control: Complementary self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1049–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 698–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar