.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Applying game theory and interpersonal circumplex models to evaluations of outcomes of dyadic disagreements
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
K
DOI：10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104691.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Two studies integrated personality and game theory models to elucidate how people approach disagreements. Four potential outcomes of dyadic disagreements are Yielding (only self makes concessions), Dominating (only partner makes concessions), Compromising (both make concessions), and Clashing (neither makes concessions). Participants (N = 725) evaluated each outcome's expected payoff in hypothetical disagreements from the Evaluations of Disagreement Outcomes Scales and real disagreements from their everyday lives. They also completed interpersonal circumplex measures of values and problems. More communal and less agentic values or problems-that prioritize mutuality and harmony over gaining advantage-predicted evaluating compromising and yielding more positively and clashing more negatively. Evolutionary game theory simulations showed how these interpersonal and evaluative dispositions can dynamically shape the outcomes of disagreement interactions.
Keywords:
Dyadic interaction
Interpersonal circumplex
Game theory
Conflict
Personality
Agency
Communion
Journal
IF:
3.1
Papers:
134
Citations:
1.1W
Organization
Cited Papers