Attack versus defense: A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict

Catherine Hafer

doi:10.1017/S0140525X19000888

Attack versus defense: A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict

Catherine Hafer

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

Is there a strategic mechanism that explains role-contingent differences in conflict behavior? I sketch a theory in which differences in optimal behavior for attackers and defenders arise under initially symmetric conditions through the dynamic accumulation of differences in the distributions of traits in the subpopulations of potential opponents.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	e123
Journal	The Behavioral and brain sciences
Volume	42
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19000888
State	Published - Aug 13 2019

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Physiology
Behavioral Neuroscience

Access to Document

10.1017/S0140525X19000888

Cite this

@article{b1610ba938e640e48bbb66ea8d6b7690,

title = "Attack versus defense: A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict",

abstract = "Is there a strategic mechanism that explains role-contingent differences in conflict behavior? I sketch a theory in which differences in optimal behavior for attackers and defenders arise under initially symmetric conditions through the dynamic accumulation of differences in the distributions of traits in the subpopulations of potential opponents.",

author = "Catherine Hafer",

year = "2019",

month = aug,

day = "13",

doi = "10.1017/S0140525X19000888",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "42",

pages = "e123",

journal = "The Behavioral and brain sciences",

issn = "0140-525X",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attack versus defense

T2 - A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict

AU - Hafer, Catherine

PY - 2019/8/13

Y1 - 2019/8/13

N2 - Is there a strategic mechanism that explains role-contingent differences in conflict behavior? I sketch a theory in which differences in optimal behavior for attackers and defenders arise under initially symmetric conditions through the dynamic accumulation of differences in the distributions of traits in the subpopulations of potential opponents.

AB - Is there a strategic mechanism that explains role-contingent differences in conflict behavior? I sketch a theory in which differences in optimal behavior for attackers and defenders arise under initially symmetric conditions through the dynamic accumulation of differences in the distributions of traits in the subpopulations of potential opponents.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071350687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071350687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0140525X19000888

DO - 10.1017/S0140525X19000888

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 31407989

AN - SCOPUS:85071350687

SN - 0140-525X

VL - 42

SP - e123

JO - The Behavioral and brain sciences

JF - The Behavioral and brain sciences

ER -

Attack versus defense: A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this