Abstract
Two types of intergroup conflicts modeled as team games, a game of assurance where the groups' incentive to compete is purely fear and a game of chicken where the groups' incentive to compete is purely greed, are examined. The games involved competition between two 3-person groups. The players discussed the game with other in-group members, then met with the members of the out-group for a between-group discussion, and finally had a within-group discussion before deciding individually whether to contribute to their group's collective effort vis-à-vis the out-group. Results show that all groups playing the assurance game achieved the collectively efficient outcome of zero contribution, whereas groups playing the chicken game maintained a highly inefficient contribution rate of 78%. Communication between groups is highly effective in bringing about a peaceful resolution if the conflict is motivated by fear and useless if the conflict is motivated by greed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
