In their target article, De Dreu and Gross (D&G) point out important asymmetries between attack and defense that have been unduly neglected in most previous research on intergroup conflict. We generally agree with their conclusions and appreciate the comprehensive survey of theoretical and empirical results they present. However, we highlight that simplified models of asymmetric attacker-defender interactions such as those devised and discussed by D&G miss one crucial aspect of real-world intergroup conflicts: the endogenous and often subjective nature of the attacker and defender roles. The authors mention that real attack-defense relationships exhibit temporal dynamics, implying that attacker and defender roles can alternate between parties over time. Yet their analyses presume that clear identification of an attacking party and a defending party is possible. In the following, we point out three structural aspects of and two psychological phenomena observable in intergroup conflicts, all suggesting that the roles of attacker and defender are more ambiguous than claimed by D&G. We think that future work toward more comprehensive theories of the forms and functions of conflict will benefit from accounting for these ambiguities and the endogenous assumption of roles they allow.
Structurally, a first observation is that many, if not most, of the tools and skills that humans have developed for use in intergroup conflicts, that is, weapons and fighting tactics, cannot be classified as serving exclusively offensive or defensive purposes (see, e.g., Glowacki et al. Reference Glowacki, Wilson and Wrangham2017). Instead, they can usually be used to either end, opening enough interpretational leeway for parties to arm without sending a clear signal of offensive or defensive intentions. Second, real-world conflicts, especially those between groups, are rarely decided in a single showdown. Instead, such conflicts usually consist of a series of attacks and counterattacks, ambushes and sieges, and various other types of violent encounters that can continue for long periods. In such continuing series of skirmishes, the roles of attacker and defender are blurred and blended. Third, even in one-shot encounters in which one party clearly makes the first move, the intention of this aggressor can still be defensive: offensive action can be used to pre-emptively defend (e.g., Böhm et al. Reference Böhm, Rusch and Güreck2016; Halevy Reference Halevy2017; Rusch Reference Rusch2014a).
In addition to these structural ambiguities, at least two psychological phenomena may further bias the conflicting parties’ perceptions of who is attacking and who is defending. First, individuals have reliably been found to report greater levels of fear of exploitation when interacting with groups as compared with interindividual interaction (so called “schema-based distrust”; e.g., Wildschut et al. Reference Wildschut, Insko, Pinter, Yzerbyt, Judd and Corneille2003). This tendency likely amplifies defense-oriented preemptive engagement in intergroup conflicts. Second, framing the own group as the defender represents a purposeful psychological mechanism: It mobilizes greater support and decreases free-riding within the own camp ex ante, that is, in the light of looming conflicts (see, e.g., Abbink & Haan Reference Abbink and de Haan2014; Doğan et al. Reference Doğan, Glowacki and Rusch2018; Walker & Bailey Reference Walker and Bailey2013). Intriguingly, furthermore, claiming the defender role for the own group also has benefits ex post: It reduces the likelihood of being viewed as a depraved and/or threatening aggressor by third parties (a logic that can even result in so-called “competitive victimhood”; for a review, see Young and Sullivan Reference Young and Sullivan2016).
In summary, we stress that the attacker and defender roles in asymmetric intergroup conflict that D&G mostly treat as objectively and exogenously fixed are structurally more ambiguous and their perception is likely to be subjectively biased, allowing for endogenous selection into each role. Paradoxically, thus, all conflict parties can tend toward conceiving of themselves as being on the defensive side.
Investigating the psychological mechanisms underlying such self-selection into the defending role in intergroup conflicts appears as a promising direction for future research to us – not least because, as reviewed in the target article, defensive intentions trigger a higher willingness to engage in intergroup conflicts, which thus become harder to resolve.
In their target article, De Dreu and Gross (D&G) point out important asymmetries between attack and defense that have been unduly neglected in most previous research on intergroup conflict. We generally agree with their conclusions and appreciate the comprehensive survey of theoretical and empirical results they present. However, we highlight that simplified models of asymmetric attacker-defender interactions such as those devised and discussed by D&G miss one crucial aspect of real-world intergroup conflicts: the endogenous and often subjective nature of the attacker and defender roles. The authors mention that real attack-defense relationships exhibit temporal dynamics, implying that attacker and defender roles can alternate between parties over time. Yet their analyses presume that clear identification of an attacking party and a defending party is possible. In the following, we point out three structural aspects of and two psychological phenomena observable in intergroup conflicts, all suggesting that the roles of attacker and defender are more ambiguous than claimed by D&G. We think that future work toward more comprehensive theories of the forms and functions of conflict will benefit from accounting for these ambiguities and the endogenous assumption of roles they allow.
Structurally, a first observation is that many, if not most, of the tools and skills that humans have developed for use in intergroup conflicts, that is, weapons and fighting tactics, cannot be classified as serving exclusively offensive or defensive purposes (see, e.g., Glowacki et al. Reference Glowacki, Wilson and Wrangham2017). Instead, they can usually be used to either end, opening enough interpretational leeway for parties to arm without sending a clear signal of offensive or defensive intentions. Second, real-world conflicts, especially those between groups, are rarely decided in a single showdown. Instead, such conflicts usually consist of a series of attacks and counterattacks, ambushes and sieges, and various other types of violent encounters that can continue for long periods. In such continuing series of skirmishes, the roles of attacker and defender are blurred and blended. Third, even in one-shot encounters in which one party clearly makes the first move, the intention of this aggressor can still be defensive: offensive action can be used to pre-emptively defend (e.g., Böhm et al. Reference Böhm, Rusch and Güreck2016; Halevy Reference Halevy2017; Rusch Reference Rusch2014a).
In addition to these structural ambiguities, at least two psychological phenomena may further bias the conflicting parties’ perceptions of who is attacking and who is defending. First, individuals have reliably been found to report greater levels of fear of exploitation when interacting with groups as compared with interindividual interaction (so called “schema-based distrust”; e.g., Wildschut et al. Reference Wildschut, Insko, Pinter, Yzerbyt, Judd and Corneille2003). This tendency likely amplifies defense-oriented preemptive engagement in intergroup conflicts. Second, framing the own group as the defender represents a purposeful psychological mechanism: It mobilizes greater support and decreases free-riding within the own camp ex ante, that is, in the light of looming conflicts (see, e.g., Abbink & Haan Reference Abbink and de Haan2014; Doğan et al. Reference Doğan, Glowacki and Rusch2018; Walker & Bailey Reference Walker and Bailey2013). Intriguingly, furthermore, claiming the defender role for the own group also has benefits ex post: It reduces the likelihood of being viewed as a depraved and/or threatening aggressor by third parties (a logic that can even result in so-called “competitive victimhood”; for a review, see Young and Sullivan Reference Young and Sullivan2016).
In summary, we stress that the attacker and defender roles in asymmetric intergroup conflict that D&G mostly treat as objectively and exogenously fixed are structurally more ambiguous and their perception is likely to be subjectively biased, allowing for endogenous selection into each role. Paradoxically, thus, all conflict parties can tend toward conceiving of themselves as being on the defensive side.
Investigating the psychological mechanisms underlying such self-selection into the defending role in intergroup conflicts appears as a promising direction for future research to us – not least because, as reviewed in the target article, defensive intentions trigger a higher willingness to engage in intergroup conflicts, which thus become harder to resolve.