Power to disengage and to coerce Sample Clauses

Power to disengage and to coerce. Our target article focused on conflicts without options for so-called disengagement. In the AD-G, attackers can choose to attack more or less forcefully, and defenders can choose to invest more or less in defense. In contests (e.g., the AD-G with contin- uous action space), such conflict expenditures model the effort that antagonists invest in their goal pursuit (i.e., victory or sur- vival). Theoretically, such conflict expenditures can reflect the number of troops being mobilized, the mounting of defensive structures, or the metabolic energy spent on, for example, running away. Nonetheless, commentators correctly note that antagonists oftentimes have or create additional options, including those for disengagement. Such disengagement options have been built into games of strategy. A good example is the PD-Alt (Huffmeier & Mazei; Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx 1975) in which antagonists can choose the “withdrawal” option that secures better outcomes than unilat- eral cooperation but worse outcomes than unilateral competition. Antagonists opting for such withdrawal thus reduce interdepen- dency (Bacharach & Xxxxxx 1981; Xxxxxxx et al. 2000), protecting against the risk of being exploited but also foregoing the benefits of mutual cooperation or exploitation (Gross & De Dreu 2019a; Yamagishi 1988). Expanding the strategy space for defenders by allowing a choice between fighting back and running away would enable a more fine- grained analysis of the neural and emotional responses triggered in defenders. Particularly interesting in this regard is XxXxxxxxxx & Xxxx’x distinction between the anxiolytic-sensitive Behavioral Inhibition System that mediates defensive attention and arousal, and the panicolytic system that mediates fight-flight-freeze responses. It helps to decompose a vigilant defense from the out- xxxx anger that defenders may experience when facing the threat of attack (Andrews, Huddy, Xxxxx, Xxx, & Xxxxxx [Xxxxxxx et al.]). Expanding the strategy space with disengagement options would also allow the detection of trait-based differences in threat responding, with some individuals being more likely to protect themselves by fighting and others by withdrawing and disengaging from the relationship. The neuropsychological model sketched in XxXxxxxxxx & Corr can serve as an excellent starting point for uncovering such individual differences and the model’s underlying biology (also see Paiva, Coelho, Paison, Ribeiro, Almeida, Xxxxxxxx-Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx-Xxxxxxx, & Xxxxxxx ...