Conflict is a part of our daily lives because our interests can clash with other people’s interests. Decision-making processes can get affected by countless various factors such as gender, age,...Show moreConflict is a part of our daily lives because our interests can clash with other people’s interests. Decision-making processes can get affected by countless various factors such as gender, age, personality traits, empathy… However, what still remains unclear about decision-making is how these various factors affect the decision-making process and each other especially in a conflict scenario. This paper investigates decision-making in an asymmetric conflict scenario, specifically Machiavellianism and its relationship with aggression. Our hypothesis proposed that the relationship between Machiavellianism and Attacker’s Aggression would be positively correlated. The relationship between these variables was tested in an online decision-making experiment called the Attacker and Defender Contest. In the experiment; both sides had to decide how much to invest in either attacking or defending based on their role. Both the attacker and defender’s decisions at the end affected the reward amount that they would receive. After running the experiment, the data was analyzed. The alternative hypothesis was rejected due to insignificant results and negligibly small effect sizes. The null-findings’ possible reasons were discussed under the topics of publication bias, confirmation bias, external distractions, confounding variables. The paper concluded that a laboratory setting, controlling external distractions and taking confounding variables into consideration is important for future research.Show less
Appeasement has been both beneficial and risky in asymmetrical conflicts. Appeasement as a response to the threat of aggression can be a successful strategy by containing aggression but can also be...Show moreAppeasement has been both beneficial and risky in asymmetrical conflicts. Appeasement as a response to the threat of aggression can be a successful strategy by containing aggression but can also be exploited by the opposing party. However, research is lacking in the field of whether gender differences influence behaviour towards appeasement. Males have been shown to be more risk-taking and use more costly aggression compared to females. Gender may therefore be influential to behaviour in conflicts involving appeasing effects. This paper explores the behaviour of male and female attackers' aggression in asymmetrical conflict through a transfer attacker-defender contest (TAD-C). We hypothesized that aggression would decrease with increasing levels of transfer, and that males would respond more aggressively to increasing levels of transfer than females. The strategy method was used where 279 participants were assigned an attacker or defender role. Attackers first received a transfer of Monetary Units (MU) at seven different levels from the defender, in addition to the initial 30 MU. Based on this, they decided on a conflict investment toward the defender. Lastly, attackers declared their expected investment from defenders. Attackers’ aggression was measured based on their conflict investment to seven levels of transfer. The repeated measures analysis of variance conveyed there were no significant differences between male and female attacker aggression toward increasing levels of transfers from the defending party. In conclusion, no significant gender differences in behaviour towards appeasement were found. Thus, the study questions whether gender differences exist in appeasement conflicts and decision making practices.Show less
People who score high on the personality trait Machiavellianism do not shy away from exploiting others for their own benefit. Here, we investigated the effect of Machiavellianism on attacker...Show morePeople who score high on the personality trait Machiavellianism do not shy away from exploiting others for their own benefit. Here, we investigated the effect of Machiavellianism on attacker exploitation. We hypothesized that attackers high on Machiavellianism will exploit their economic opponent and thus invest more into conflict. To test our hypothesis, we used the economic Attacker-Defender Contest (AD-C), an experimental game created for studying conflict. In the game, if the attacker invests more into conflict than the defender, they take what the defender had left after they invested, hereby exploiting the defender. In an online experiment, 301 participants completed the AD-C as either an attacker or a defender. We assessed Machiavellianism by means of the Short Dark Triad (SD3) measure. A simple linear regression led to the conclusion that Machiavellianism is unrelated to attacker conflict investment. Interestingly, we did find an effect of Machiavellianism on attackers’ expectation of the defenders’ conflict investment. Attackers’ expectation, in turn, strongly affected conflict investment. The effect of Machiavellianism on expected investment connects to previous research, showing that Machiavellianism evokes expectations of selfish feelings in others. However, the concrete reason as to why Machiavellianism relates to expectation, but not conflict investment, remains unclear. Recommendations for future research include conducting research in an economic organization.Show less
