De Dreu and Gross (D&G) investigate psychological, neural, and endocrinological differences between offensive and defensive behavior in two-person games. They are assuming that the same differences apply to many different domains of conflict, including warfare. However, conflicts between groups involve a collective action problem that is absent in conflicts between individuals. The article claims that the collective action problem is most relevant in offensive warfare while groups in a position of defense benefit from endogenously emerging in-group identification, self-sacrifice, and tacit coordination. But this in-group identification, self-sacrifice, and coordination require an explanation. A group defending its territory has a collective action problem, as has the attacking group, and the in-group identification is indeed part of a response to the collective action problem, as I will explain in the following.
A group trying to conquer territory from some other group has a collective action problem if the cost of fighting for the individual warrior exceeds his share of the group-level gain. Likewise, a group defending its territory against an invading enemy has a collective action problem if the cost of fighting for the individual warrior exceeds his share of the averted group-level loss. We cannot make any claim about which group has the highest collective action problem, unless we are able to calculate and quantify all fighting costs, gains, and losses.
In fact, the sharp distinction between offensive and defensive warfare is not always realistic in real world settings. Violent intergroup conflicts have often involved long sequences of escalation and retaliation where offensive and defensive tactics are used by both groups. Such ongoing conflicts may last for generations. The fighting groups may not remember how the conflict started, and they rarely agree on who was the initial aggressor.
A strong group cohesion is necessary for successful fighting. Various forms of group cohesion have been studied in many different research traditions under different names such as solidarity (Inglehart et al. Reference Inglehart, Moaddel and Tessler2006), collectivism (Minkov et al. Reference Minkov, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez, Jandosova, Khassenbekov and Mudd2017), cultural tightness (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011), asabiyya (Turchin Reference Turchin2007), and regality (Fog Reference Fog2017). There is general agreement that group cohesion is increased under conditions of fighting or collective danger, but few scholars have been able to explain the underlying psychological and cultural mechanisms. Recent research finds that the tendency to strengthen group cohesion in case of conflict or other collective danger is controlled by a psychological mechanism that may have evolved exactly because it deals with the collective action problem (Fog Reference Fog2017).
Humans have a psychological tendency to become authoritarian and desire a strong leader in cases of collective danger. This psychological response mechanism has evolved, according to the so-called regality theory, because it helps overcome the collective action problem. The strong leader can reward brave warriors, punish cowards and defectors, impose discipline, and make strategic decisions. The members of such a group will develop a hierarchical political organization, strong group identification, strict religiosity, xenophobia, and intolerance of deviants. The cultural tendencies are quite opposite in groups that live under conditions of peace and security. People in the latter situation will not support a strong leader who might be despotic and take advantage of everyone else. Instead, they will develop an egalitarian and tolerant culture. These two opposing cultural tendencies are called regal and kungic, respectively, for the warlike and peaceful conditions (Fog Reference Fog2017).
The regal tendencies can be observed in groups in offensive and defensive situations alike because collective action is needed in both situations. The regal tendencies are readily arising when a group feels threatened by a militant neighbor group. Perhaps this is what D&G have observed as “endogenously emerging in-group identification.” The regal tendencies may take a little longer time to cultivate in clearly offensive situations. A leader who detects an opportunity for territorial expansion may try to rally support for attacking a neighbor group. The territorial expansion is more advantageous for the leader than for his followers because, if successful, it enables him to rule over more people and a larger territory (Gavrilets & Fortunato Reference Gavrilets and Fortunato2014). There are many examples in history of leaders who have exaggerated or fabricated dangers to rally support for themselves and their imperial ambitions (Fog Reference Fog2017). The history of empires shows that the territorial expansion process is self-amplifying. When the process is started, it may lead to a continuous growth of territory and a more and more regal culture, until the possibilities for expansion have been exhausted and the empire collapses under its own weight (Turchin Reference Turchin2007). The strong group identification and other regal traits are seen not only under defensive conditions, but also in the clearly offensive case of an expanding empire (Fog Reference Fog2017).
De Dreu and Gross (D&G) investigate psychological, neural, and endocrinological differences between offensive and defensive behavior in two-person games. They are assuming that the same differences apply to many different domains of conflict, including warfare. However, conflicts between groups involve a collective action problem that is absent in conflicts between individuals. The article claims that the collective action problem is most relevant in offensive warfare while groups in a position of defense benefit from endogenously emerging in-group identification, self-sacrifice, and tacit coordination. But this in-group identification, self-sacrifice, and coordination require an explanation. A group defending its territory has a collective action problem, as has the attacking group, and the in-group identification is indeed part of a response to the collective action problem, as I will explain in the following.
A group trying to conquer territory from some other group has a collective action problem if the cost of fighting for the individual warrior exceeds his share of the group-level gain. Likewise, a group defending its territory against an invading enemy has a collective action problem if the cost of fighting for the individual warrior exceeds his share of the averted group-level loss. We cannot make any claim about which group has the highest collective action problem, unless we are able to calculate and quantify all fighting costs, gains, and losses.
In fact, the sharp distinction between offensive and defensive warfare is not always realistic in real world settings. Violent intergroup conflicts have often involved long sequences of escalation and retaliation where offensive and defensive tactics are used by both groups. Such ongoing conflicts may last for generations. The fighting groups may not remember how the conflict started, and they rarely agree on who was the initial aggressor.
A strong group cohesion is necessary for successful fighting. Various forms of group cohesion have been studied in many different research traditions under different names such as solidarity (Inglehart et al. Reference Inglehart, Moaddel and Tessler2006), collectivism (Minkov et al. Reference Minkov, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez, Jandosova, Khassenbekov and Mudd2017), cultural tightness (Gelfand et al. Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D'Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr, Fischer, Fülöp, Georgas, Kashima, Kashima, Kim, Lempereur, Marquez, Othman, Overlaet, Panagiotopoulou, Peltzer, Perez-Florizno, Ponomarenko, Realo, Schei, Schmitt, Smith, Soomro, Szabo, Taveesin, Toyama, Van de Vliert, Vohra, Ward and Yamaguchi2011), asabiyya (Turchin Reference Turchin2007), and regality (Fog Reference Fog2017). There is general agreement that group cohesion is increased under conditions of fighting or collective danger, but few scholars have been able to explain the underlying psychological and cultural mechanisms. Recent research finds that the tendency to strengthen group cohesion in case of conflict or other collective danger is controlled by a psychological mechanism that may have evolved exactly because it deals with the collective action problem (Fog Reference Fog2017).
Humans have a psychological tendency to become authoritarian and desire a strong leader in cases of collective danger. This psychological response mechanism has evolved, according to the so-called regality theory, because it helps overcome the collective action problem. The strong leader can reward brave warriors, punish cowards and defectors, impose discipline, and make strategic decisions. The members of such a group will develop a hierarchical political organization, strong group identification, strict religiosity, xenophobia, and intolerance of deviants. The cultural tendencies are quite opposite in groups that live under conditions of peace and security. People in the latter situation will not support a strong leader who might be despotic and take advantage of everyone else. Instead, they will develop an egalitarian and tolerant culture. These two opposing cultural tendencies are called regal and kungic, respectively, for the warlike and peaceful conditions (Fog Reference Fog2017).
The regal tendencies can be observed in groups in offensive and defensive situations alike because collective action is needed in both situations. The regal tendencies are readily arising when a group feels threatened by a militant neighbor group. Perhaps this is what D&G have observed as “endogenously emerging in-group identification.” The regal tendencies may take a little longer time to cultivate in clearly offensive situations. A leader who detects an opportunity for territorial expansion may try to rally support for attacking a neighbor group. The territorial expansion is more advantageous for the leader than for his followers because, if successful, it enables him to rule over more people and a larger territory (Gavrilets & Fortunato Reference Gavrilets and Fortunato2014). There are many examples in history of leaders who have exaggerated or fabricated dangers to rally support for themselves and their imperial ambitions (Fog Reference Fog2017). The history of empires shows that the territorial expansion process is self-amplifying. When the process is started, it may lead to a continuous growth of territory and a more and more regal culture, until the possibilities for expansion have been exhausted and the empire collapses under its own weight (Turchin Reference Turchin2007). The strong group identification and other regal traits are seen not only under defensive conditions, but also in the clearly offensive case of an expanding empire (Fog Reference Fog2017).