skip to main content
10.1145/1841853.1841876acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicicConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The cultural determinants of strategic bias: a study of conflict resolution in an interactive computer game

Published:19 August 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

We examine the impact of individuals' religious and political affiliations on the conflict resolution strategies they employ. Participants in the U.S., Israel, and Qatar played the interactive computer game, PeaceMaker [15], with the objective of satisfying constituents on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the role of the Palestinian President, we find that participants tended to take actions favoring those constituents with whom they shared cultural affiliation. Oppositely, when playing the role of the Israeli Prime Minister, participants exhibited comparatively greater bias toward constituents with whom they did not share cultural affiliation. We interpret this difference in light of minority-majority group membership, and the assertion of in-group interests versus perspective-taking of out-group interests. Finally, we discuss the potential of interactive computer games to study cross-cultural interaction in other dynamic environments characterized by uncertainty and complex interdependencies.

References

  1. Agnew, R. Foundation for a general strain theory. Criminology, 30, 1 (1992), 47--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Atran, S., Axelrod, R., and Davis, R. Sacred barriers to conflict resolution. Science, 317 (2007), 1039--1040.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., and Fehr, E. Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442, 7105 (2006), 912--915.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Brewer, M.B. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 2 (1979), 307--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Cehajic, S., Brown, R., and González, R. What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 12 (2009), 715--729.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., and Saguy, T. Commonality and the complexity of 'we': Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3 (2009), 3--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Dubin, R. Deviant behavior and social structure: Continuities in social theory. American Sociological Review, 24, 2 (1959), 147--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Durkheim, E. On the normality of crime. In Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegele, K., and Pitts, J. (eds.), Theories of Society: 872--875. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Goette, L., Huffman, D., and Meier, S. The impact of group membership on cooperation and norm enforcement: Evidence using random assignment to real social groups. American Economic Review, 96, 2 (2006), 212--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Gonzalez, C., and Czlonka, L. Games for peace: Empirical investigations with PeaceMaker. In Cannon-Bowers, J., and Bowers, C. (eds.), Serious Game Design and Development: Technologies for Training and Learning: 134--149. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonzalez, C., and Saner, L.D. Thinking or feeling? Effects of decision making personality in conflict resolution. In Brinken, J.V., Konietzny, H., and Meadows, M. (eds.), Emotional Gaming. In press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonzalez, C., Vanyukov, P., and Martin, M.K.. The Use of microworlds to study dynamic decision making. Computers in Human Behavior, 21 (2005), 273--286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., and Sagiv, L. 'In-group love' and 'out-group hate' as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict -- A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19, 4 (2008), 405--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Halperin, E., Bar-Tal, D., Sharvit, K., Rosler, N., and Raviv, A. Socio-psychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research, 47 (2010), 59--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. ImpactGames. PeaceMaker {Computer Software}. Pittsburgh, PA (http://www.peacemakergame.com/), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jost, J.T., Banaji, M.R., and Nosek, B.A. A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 6 (2004), 881--919.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Kelman, H.C. Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57 (2006), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kelman, H.C. The interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian national identities: The role of the other in existential conflicts. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 3 (1999), 581--600.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kelman, H.C. The political psychology of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: How can we overcome the barriers to a negotiated solution? Political Psychology, 8, 3 (1987), 347--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Leach, C.W., Iyer, A., and Pedersen, A. Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (2006), 1232--1245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Merton, R.K. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 5 (1938), 672--682.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Mi'Ari, M. Attitudes of Palestinians toward normalization with Israel. Journal of Peace Research, 36 (1999), 339--348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Robinson, R.J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., and Ross, L. Actual versus assumed differences in construal: 'Naive realism' in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 3 (1995), 404--417.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Roccas, S., Klar, Y., and Liviatan, I. The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group's moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (2006), 698--711.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Sidanius, J., and Pratto, F. The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In Sniderman, P.M., Tetlock, P.E., and Carmines, E.G. (eds.), Prejudice, Politics, and the American Dilemma: 173--211. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Smooha, S. Israel: Pluralism and Conflict. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Smooha, S. Arabs and Jews in Israel: Change and Continuity in Mutual Intolerance. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., and Pyszczynski, T. A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In Zanna, M.E.P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 91--159. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Stern, J. Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Tajfel, H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33 (1982), 1--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Tarrant, M., Dazeley, S., and Cottom, T. Social categorization and empathy for outgroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48 (2009), 427--446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Turner, J.C. Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 1 (1975), 5--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The cultural determinants of strategic bias: a study of conflict resolution in an interactive computer game

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ICIC '10: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Intercultural collaboration
          August 2010
          300 pages
          ISBN:9781450301084
          DOI:10.1145/1841853

          Copyright © 2010 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 19 August 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          ICIC '10 Paper Acceptance Rate47of77submissions,61%Overall Acceptance Rate47of77submissions,61%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader