Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:21:35.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The political complexity of attack and defense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Talbot M. Andrews Open the ORCID record for Talbot M. Andrews [Opens in a new window] ,
Leonie Huddy ,
Reuben Kline ,
H. Hannah Nam  and
Katherine Sawyer
Talbot M. Andrews
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. talbot.andrews@stonybrook.edu leonie.Huddy@stonybrook.edureuben.kline@stonybrook.edu hannah.nam@stonybrook.edukatherine.sawyer@stonybrook.eduhttps://you.stonybrook.edu/talbotmandrews/ https://you.stonybrook.edu/leonie/ https://sites.google.com/site/reubenckline/ https://www.hhannahnam.com/
Leonie Huddy
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. talbot.andrews@stonybrook.edu leonie.Huddy@stonybrook.edureuben.kline@stonybrook.edu hannah.nam@stonybrook.edukatherine.sawyer@stonybrook.eduhttps://you.stonybrook.edu/talbotmandrews/ https://you.stonybrook.edu/leonie/ https://sites.google.com/site/reubenckline/ https://www.hhannahnam.com/
Reuben Kline
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. talbot.andrews@stonybrook.edu leonie.Huddy@stonybrook.edureuben.kline@stonybrook.edu hannah.nam@stonybrook.edukatherine.sawyer@stonybrook.eduhttps://you.stonybrook.edu/talbotmandrews/ https://you.stonybrook.edu/leonie/ https://sites.google.com/site/reubenckline/ https://www.hhannahnam.com/
H. Hannah Nam
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. talbot.andrews@stonybrook.edu leonie.Huddy@stonybrook.edureuben.kline@stonybrook.edu hannah.nam@stonybrook.edukatherine.sawyer@stonybrook.eduhttps://you.stonybrook.edu/talbotmandrews/ https://you.stonybrook.edu/leonie/ https://sites.google.com/site/reubenckline/ https://www.hhannahnam.com/
Katherine Sawyer
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. talbot.andrews@stonybrook.edu leonie.Huddy@stonybrook.edureuben.kline@stonybrook.edu hannah.nam@stonybrook.edukatherine.sawyer@stonybrook.eduhttps://you.stonybrook.edu/talbotmandrews/ https://you.stonybrook.edu/leonie/ https://sites.google.com/site/reubenckline/ https://www.hhannahnam.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Dreu and Gross's distinction between attack and defense is complicated in real-world conflicts because competing leaders construe their position as one of defense, and power imbalances place status quo challengers in a defensive position. Their account of defense as vigilant avoidance is incomplete because it avoids a reference to anger which transforms anxious avoidance into collective and unified action.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e117
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

References

Aldrich, J. H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J. & Sharp, K. T. (2006) Foreign policy and the electoral connection. Annual Review of Political Science 9:477–502.Google Scholar
Althaus, S. L. & Largio, D. M. (2004) When Osama became Saddam: Origins and consequences of the change in America's public enemy# 1. PS: Political Science & Politics 37(4):795–99.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, L. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004) Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion 4(2):107.Google Scholar
Böhm, R., Rusch, H. & Güreck, O. (2016) What makes people go to war? Defensive intentions motivate retaliatory and preemptive intergroup aggression. Evolution and Human Behavior 37(1):29–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.06.005.Google Scholar
Carver, C. S. 2004. Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system. Emotion 4(1):3–22.Google Scholar
Crofoot, M. C. & Gilby, I. C. (2012) Cheating monkeys undermine group strength in enemy territory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109(2):501–505.Google Scholar
Feldman, S., Huddy, L. & Marcus, G. E. (2015) Going to war in Iraq: When citizens and the press matter. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gelpi, C. (1997) Democratic diversions: Governmental structure and the externalization of domestic conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(2):255–82.Google Scholar
Glowacki, L. & Wrangham, R.W. (2013) The role of rewards in motivating participation in simple warfare. Human Nature 24(4):444–60. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-013-9178-8.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. & Allen, J. J. (1998) Anger and frontal brain activity: EEG asymmetry consistent with approach motivation despite negative affective valence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(5):1310–16.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. & Sigelman, J. (2001) State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(5):797–803.Google Scholar
Herrmann, R. K., Tetlock, P. E. & Visser, P. S. (1999) Mass public decisions on go to war: A cognitive-interactionist framework. American Political Science Review 93(3):553–73.Google Scholar
Huddy, L., Mason, L. & Aarøe, L. (2015) Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review 109(1):1–17.Google Scholar
Jentleson, B. W. (1992) The pretty prudent public: Post post-Vietnam American opinion on the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly 36(1):49–74.Google Scholar
Jentleson, B. W. & Britton, R. L. (1998) Still pretty prudent: Post-Cold War American public opinion on the use of military force. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(4):395–417.Google Scholar
Kitchen, D. M. & Beehner, J. C. (2007) Factors affecting individual participation in group-level aggression among non-human primates. Behaviour 144(12):1551–81.Google Scholar
Klandermans, P. G. & van Stekelenburg, J. (2013) Social movements and the dynamics of collective action. In: The Oxford handbook of political psychology, ed. Huddy, L., Sears, D. O. & Levy, J. S., 2nd edition, pp. 774–812.Google Scholar
Kull, S., Ramsay, C. & Lewis, E. (2003) Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly 118(4):569–98.Google Scholar
Liberman, P. & Skitka, L. J. (2017) Revenge in US Public Support for War against Iraq. Public Opinion Quarterly 81(3):636–60.Google Scholar
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T. & Smith, E. R. (2000) Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(4):602–16.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. (2013) Asymmetries in altruistic behavior during violent intergroup conflict. Evolutionary Psychology 11(5):973–93.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. (2014b) The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: a review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1794):20141539.Google Scholar
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. (2008) Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin 134(4):504.Google Scholar