Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T01:09:59.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How do we know who may replace each other in triadic conflict roles?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Lotte Thomsen Open the ORCID record for Lotte Thomsen [Opens in a new window]
Lotte Thomsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway lotte.thomsen@psykologi.uio.no Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Center for the Experimental-Philosophical Study of Discrimination, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Group representations need not reduce to triadic conflict roles, although we infer group membership from them. A conceptual primitive of <group> as one solidary, bounded unity or clique may motivate and facilitate reasoning about cooperative group interactions in context with and without intergroup conflict and may also be necessary for representing which agents would replace one another in a triadic conflict.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e124
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. 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

Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. Free Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A. P., Thomsen, L., & Thein, S. M. (2009). Differently embodying different relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(7), 1294–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lope de Vega, F. (1619/1977). Fuenteovejuna. Editorial Ramon Soprena, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Thomsen, L. (2020). Egalitarianism: Psychological and socio-ecological foundations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 146–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, L. (2020). The developmental origins of social hierarchy: How infants and young children mentally represent and respond to power and status. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, L., & Carey, S. (2013). Core cognition of relational models. In Banaji, M. R. & Gelman, S. A. (Eds.), Navigating the social world: What infants, children and other species can teach us (pp. 17–22). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, L., & Fiske, A. P. (2018). Communal sharing/identity fusion does not require reflection on episodic memory of shared experience or trauma–and usually generates kindness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18001784CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331(6016), 477–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehouse, H. (2018). Dying for the group: Towards a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18000249CrossRefGoogle Scholar