Post on 02-Apr-2023
Citation:
Honeycutt, J. M., & Eldredge, J. H. (2015, in press). Applying game
theory and signal detection theory to conflict escalation: A case study of
a police investigator viewing a domestic argument. In Y. Baek (Ed.), Game
Theory: Perspectives, Applications and Challenges. NY: Nova Science
Chapter
APPLYING GAME THEORY AND SIGNAL
DETECTION THEORY TO CONFLICT
ESCALATION: A CASE STUDY OF A POLICE
INVESTIGATOR VIEWING A DOMESTIC
ARGUMENT
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge Louisiana State University
ABSTRACT
Human communication can be characterized in terms of game theory
as competing motivations in a social game in which one person desires
“winning” in terms of obtaining compliance. Another theory, signal-
detection theory posits that decision making takes place on a continuum
of uncertainty in which many decision are made with complete certainty
while others have higher levels of ambiguity and stress. The purpose of
this case study is to explore the analysis of conflict escalation by a police
detective with experience in domestic violence cases viewed a videotaped
session depicting marital conflict in which a wife comes home after a
long day at work only to criticize her partner for violating expectations of
a good meal. The police detective was asked to stop the video at any time
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge 2
and to write down the verbal and nonverbal (NV) signals that people put
out to indicate that conflict is escalating and that they may lash out. These
signals are sometimes referred to as costly signals, a concept from
evolutionary biology. A content analysis was done of verbal and
nonverbal cues as well as the timing of the signals in terms of how often
they were noticed. The case study presents a summary of the verbal (e.g.,
sarcasm) and nonverbal codes (e.g., contempt, breathing) that the
detective noticed. Since the detective has expertise with conflict
escalation, we argue that this case study sets up a standard of comparison
for future research with peoples with various degrees of abuse in their
abuse ranging from those who have suffered a great deal of verbal and
physical abuse to those who have very little experience with coercive
conflict tactics. Results are discussed in terms of game and signal
detection theories from an evolutionary perspective.
INTRODUCTION
Conflict and disagreements occur in everyday interaction ranging from
petty disagreements over what to eat to more serious arguments about values.
Signal detection and game theory can be used to explain conflict escalation.
The starting point for signal detection theory is that nearly all reasoning and
decision making takes place in the presence of some uncertainty. Signal
detection theory provides a precise language and graphic notation for
analyzing decision making in the presence of uncertainty. The general
approach of signal detection theory has direct application for us in terms of
sensory experiments. We are interested in the signals that experts notice in the
detection of escalating conflict and potential abuse. Indeed, numerous CSI
type shows present dramas where emotional, verbal or physical abuse is
suspected, but collaborative, corroborating evidence is needed. False
accusations can be made in the form of false hits where non abusers are
suspected of abuse, as well as misses in which “where real” abusers are not
suspected.
Game theory can be used in an interactive fashion as each type of signal
(evidence) is noticed and a decision is made if it reflects conflict or it does not;
each signal can be thought of as a turn in the iterated game. Game thoery also
offers a way to analyze many different kinds of decision problems.
Applying Game Theory and Signal Detection Theory … 3
INFORMATION AND CRITERION
Imagine that the hospital staff of an emergency room sees a person with
bruises and welts on her arms. She says that she feel off her bike while
mountain biking. Does the staff believe her? They may wonder about abuse.
Interpreting visual imagery may be hard and it can take training. Because the
task is so hard, there is always some uncertainty as to the causal mechanism.
Attribution theory is operating here as the person giving her account provides
a situational attribution (e.g., It was my fault for falling off the bike due to
rough terrain). Conversely, the hospital staff may make an internal attribution
in terms of wondering if the bruises were due to abuse by somewhat else. This
is an internal attribution because the cause of the behavior is attributed to the
woman for not reporting that she was abused or is afraid of the so-called
abuser. Either she is truthful (yes) or not. From the staff’s perspective, there
are three possible outcomes even though a fourth one is theoretically possible.
1. Hit (coercion is confirmed by outside sources and the investigative
staff says "yes, it was coercion''),
2. miss (coercion is confirmed and staff accepts the victim’s situational
attribution as the staff says "no, my suspicions were wrong''),
3. false alarm (the situational attribution is true, but the staff says "It was
due to abuse."), and
4. correct rejection (no bruises and staff says "no"). This option is not
possible given the scenario described above.
Hits and correct rejections are good. False alarms and misses are bad
because mistakes can result in unjustified accusations. For example, think of
the recent controversy in the Ferguson case in Missouri where differing
accounts of conflict escalation were reported by witnesses and police officers;
(http://www.npr.org/2014/08/22/342470785/in-new-york-and-ferguson-two-
deaths-two-different-responses).
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge 4
Figure 1. Hit and Misses in Game Theory on Detecting Abuse.
There are two main components to detecting abuse in game theoretical
terms: procuring information and deciding what you will accept as a standard
for evidence.
Information procurement: There is information in the bruises based on
location and swelling for visual inspection. Additionally, running diagnostic
tests for tissue abrasion can be used. Regardless, acquiring more information is
good. The effect of information is to increase the likelihood of getting either a
hit or a correct rejection, while reducing the likelihood of an outcome in the
two error boxes. Standard for acceptance: The second component of rendering
a judgment is the standards that you will use to decide if abuse has or has not
occurred. In addition to relying on signals you may use your experience or
schema as well as intuition to judge the veracity of the signals that you
observe. . This is where attribution theory in terms of correspondent inference
theory plays a role as different types of attribution may be made.
Correspondent inferences state that people make inferences about signals by
interpreting the context of behavior. Indeed, people make judgments on the
basis of three factors; degree of choice, expectedness of behavior, and effects
of someone’s behaviors (Markus, 2008). Different investigators may feel that
the different types of errors are not equal. For example, a person may feel that
missing an opportunity for correct diagnosis of abuse may mean the difference
between life and death. A false alarm, on the other hand, may result in the
feeling that the staff did the right thing anyway so they may choose to make an
error toward ``yes'' (coercion present) decisions. Other staff, however, may
feel that unnecessary suspicions are very bad (expensive in terms of time or
investigation, stress, etc.). Sometimes, these life decisions are portrayed in CSI
dramas on American detective shows as staff presents their opinions while
Applying Game Theory and Signal Detection Theory … 5
working on a case. Hence, some investigators may choose to be more
conservative and say ``no'' (no coercion) more often.
These arguments are not about information. Two investigators, with
equally good training, looking at the same cues will have the same
information; but they may have a different bias/criteria resulting in a different
standard of acceptance. Next, let’s examine signal detection theory and game
theory together.
Signal Detection and Game Theory
Honeycutt, Sheldon, Pence, and Hatcher (2014) have conducted research
on game theory and conflict escalation. They note that when viewers watch an
escalating conflict, game theory posits that people’s cultural scripts for conflict
resolution involve a “tit for tat” strategy. This game strategy is also referred to
as “quid-pro-quo” and reflects equivalent retaliation (Rapoport, 1966).
A person using this strategy initially cooperates and responds in kind to a
competitor’s prior action. If the competitor was previously was cooperative,
the person is cooperative as well as the inverse; if the competitor defects, then
the player will defect as well.
According to Axelrod (1997) “tit for tat” is effective because it is nice and
forgiving. A forgiving strategy is one which reciprocates co-operation if one’s
opponent does so; unforgiving strategies produce isolation and end co-
operative encounters. In general, people believe that forgiveness is good, and
retaliation is bad (McCullough, 2008). However, the implicit script of how the
conflict will unfold does not meet people’s expectations of rationalized
argument (Honeycutt & Bryan, 2011). Indeed, the act of matching the
partner’s aggression is no longer reflective of the conflict itself, but of the
anger and intensity of said conflict. Ito, Miller and Pollock (1996) suggest that
people respond in a “tit for tat” fashion because of a cognitive belief in eye-
for-an-eye. Yet, does a trained police detective sense forgiving moves as
conflict escalates? Our case study answers this question.
Research by Sukwinder, Shergill, Bays, Frith, and Wolpert (2003) used
tit-for-tat experiments in which pairs of subjects were told to give as good as
they got when being rapped on the fingers. The study revealed that violence
escalated rapidly, with subjects increasing the force they used by 38 percent on
each turn.
Other studies supported the fact that people, unlike “rational economic
man”, value egalitarian outcomes to some extent (Henrich et al., 2005).
Furthermore, research on abusive relationships reveals people are more likely
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge 6
to remain in these relationships to the extent that they are more dependent
when they have high investments (e.g., children) and poor alternatives (e.g.,
low job training, education) (Jacobson & Gottman, 1998).
In addition to the concept of tit-for-tat, it is important to briefly review
possible motivations for retaliation. Felson (1984) discusses how individuals
are strongly motivated to maintain a favorable image in social situations. For
example, verbal aggression in the form of an insult portrays the receiver in a
negative light and the person retaliates in order to save face and to prevent
future attack as well.
According to Zillman’s (2003) framework, an act of verbal aggression
produces a negative emotional reaction (e.g., anger) and a covert verbal
response which facilitates recall of the emotional experience at a later date.
The trace left behind can add to subsequent verbal aggressive acts, and
energize verbal and physical retaliation. Levenson and Gottman’s (1983) study
found that distressed marital couples reciprocated negative affect, which
indicates that both individuals have become linked physiologically, and are
locked into a pattern of destructive interaction.
According to Rogers and Farace (1975)’s escalating symmetry, the
attempt to control is met with an attempt to control (“like begets like”). Hence,
this reflects tit for tat in terms of game theory. Coercion is matched. Yet, what
happens when experts with experience in abuse detection are asked to view an
argument between two partners (husband and wife in this case)? “Tit for tat” is
important because it can be used to explain the reasons partners retaliate. Yet,
partners may decide to forgive each other or continue using physical and
verbal aggression. Honeycutt and his colleagues (2014) state the following in
regard to forgiveness:
A forgiving strategy is one which readily returns to co-operation if
one’s opponent does so; unforgiving strategies produce isolation and end
co-operative encounters. In general, people believe that forgiveness is
good, and retaliation is bad (McCullough, 2008). However, the implicit
script of how the conflict will unfold does not meet people’s expectations
of rationalized argument (Honeycutt & Bryan, 2011). Indeed, the act of
matching the partner’s aggression is no longer reflective of the conflict
itself, but of the anger and intensity of said conflict. Ito, Miller and
Pollock (1996) suggest that people respond in a “tit for tat” fashion
because of a cognitive belief in eye-for-an-eye. Other studies reveal that
people value egalitarian outcomes to some extent (Henrich et al., 2005).
Additionally, research on abusive relationships reveals people are more
Applying Game Theory and Signal Detection Theory … 7
likely to remain in these relationships to the extent that they are more
dependent when they have high investments (e.g., children) and poor
alternatives (e.g., low job training, education) (Jacobson & Gottman,
1998).
This gives rise to a critical question. Do experts have developed cognitive
schemata for noticing the signs of abuse earlier in the process as it unfolds? A
case study is presented here based on the expertise of a former police detective
who has experience in investigating allegations of domestic violence.
CASE STUDY
We used a female, police detective with 23 years of experience in
examining abuse and special victims. Her vast experience includes cases in the
southern part of the United States and in the Rocky Mountain States. She
provided oral history data for a different study examining the strategic use of
interviewing procedures to calm and comfort victims. Hence, she values her
record of successful arrests for special victims.
DESCRIPTION OF THE VIDEO
All procedures were approved by the appropriate Institutional Review
Board. The police detective watched a five-scene video depicting an escalating
marital conflict in which the wife initiated conflict. She was given a choice of
two types of conflict initiation to view (husband or wife-initiated conflict). The
video was made by the performance studies division of the communication
studies department and contained a couple from performance studies. The
video was based on the domestic violence scenes describe by Honeycutt and
his colleagues (2014).
The video portrays increasing verbal coercion in which hostile language
serves as a “trigger” for the release of impulsive aggressive responses. The
first scene starts with verbal aggression while the last scene culminates in
physical violence.
In the first scene, the wife comes home tired after a long day at work, just
to find her husband watching TV. The wife is frustrated with him for being
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge 8
unable to find work under the current economic conditions and criticizes his
cooking. Indeed, Gottman and his long legacy of research in the corrosive
behaviors of couples who fight is legendary and is reflected in the video (see,
www.gottman.com; Gottman, 1994; 2011; Gottman & Silver, 2012). The
husband could respond to the criticism with a number of strategies including
defensiveness, contempt, or hostility which erodes the trust and is corrosive to
intimacy (Honeycutt, 2014).
In the second scene, she continues criticizing his meal, and he withdraws
to the bedroom to watch television. The wife then follows him in the third
scene, and they both start arguing. The forth scene culminates in verbal
aggression, and the fifth scene in physical violence with the wife throwing a
vase at her husband before he manages to run out of the room. As he reaches
the front door, the wife shoves him into the door. He breaks free and leaves.
Procedure
The following instructions were given to the police detective:
Conflict and disagreements occur in everyday interaction ranging
from petty disagreements over what to eat to more serious arguments
about values. We are interested in the verbal and nonverbal (NV) signals
that people put out to indicate that conflict is raising and that they may
lash out. This is sometimes referred to as costly signals. We want you to
watch a short, two-minute video clip involving a husband and wife in
which conflict gradually rises.
Pause the tape when you first notice a verbal (some statement) or
nonverbal signal (e.g., facial expression, tone of voice, gesture, and body
movement) that signifies conflict. After writing down what these signals
are in your own words, continue the tape until the next signal and pause
again. Indeed, you may stop the tape at any time to write down a signal.
Stop the tape as many times as you notice aggressive signals.
There was a log sheet that was provided after the instructions which
contained columns for the tape stop count in terms of when a signal was
detected. There was a column for verbal and nonverbal signals where these
could be written down and codified.
Applying Game Theory and Signal Detection Theory … 9
Verbal and Nonverbal Costly Signals
The detective reported a total 13 signals as summarized in Table 1. Three
of these involved verbal cues including vocalics or paralanguage in the form of
sarcasm. The first signal was the sarcasm of wife’s voice which occurred 12
seconds into the video. One of the main differences between the analysis of the
detective and the analyses of laypeople is that the detective noticed this early
sarcasm as the almost immediate initiation of conflict while the laypeople
assessed conflict as beginning later in the video. Simultaneous to the vocal cue
was a nonverbal cue in terms of exhalation. She exhales when she sees him on
the couch with eyes glanced upward. The second cue that was reported
occurred 36 seconds later in which there was sneering about how long it took.
Essentially, this sneering reflects verbal contempt as noted by Gottman. Verbal
characteristics include attacking your partner’s self-concept with the desire to
insult or verbally abuse him/her, hostile humor, mockery or ridicule.
Nonverbal cues are seen in body language and voice tone through sneering,
rolling your eyes and curling your upper lip (Gottman, 1994; Honeycutt,
2014).
The third cue involves raised eyebrows and hostile voice tone at 1:02
seconds in the conflict. Her facial expression reveals anger and frustration.
This cue also reflects contempt.
The fourth cue is criticism. Gottman and Silver (2012) note how criticisms
are productive in conflict while complaints should be avoided. A criticism is
focused while a complaint is an attack on a person’s personality or character
traits. Indeed, complaining about one's spouse is normal. Yet the way that we
express these complaints is very important. The problem arises when
complaints turn into criticisms. An example of the difference between a
complaint and a criticism as noted in Honeycutt (2015, p. 157) is the
following:
Complaint: "You told me earlier that you're too tired to go the
concert. I'm disappointed because I thought we could share the quality
time."
Criticism: "Why are you so selfish? It was really nasty of you to lead
me on. You should have told me earlier that you were too tired to go to
the concert."
The fifth cue is continued complaining while the sixth cue is profanity.
This cue reflects verbal aggression as noted by Straus (1979, 2007) over a
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge 10
quarter of a century period and the legacy of research started by Infante, &
Wigley (1986) over 40 years ago. Verbally aggressive messages degrade
another's personality, skills, and physical appearance. Conversely,
argumentativeness is defined as the presentation and defense of one’s positions
on controversial issues while attacking the positions taken by others on issues.
The locus of attack is the message, not the other person. (Honeycutt, 2015).
This is contrary to other definitions of arguing that involve yelling, taunting,
and anger. Hence, argumentativeness is constructive while verbal aggression is
destructive (Infante & Rancer, 1996). Numerous studies find that arguing often
precedes family violence. For example, using path analysis, Honeycutt and
Bryan (2011) found that verbal aggression was associated with physical
coercion (B = .59). However, when imagined interactions were included in the
model as a mediator between verbal aggression and coercion, the magnitude
dwindled. Imagined interactions also predicted physical coercion (B = .38),
suggesting that replaying and anticipating conflict scenes is part of aggression.
Honeycutt and Bryan (2011) discuss how the meditational model provides
support for Jacobson and Gottman’s (1998) profile of the pit-bull batterer.
The majority of batterers fit this profile: There is a slow buildup of anger.
Hence, the conflict slowly escalates, giving these batterers time to ruminate
and plan their strike. The pit bull model is in opposition to the snake model of
batterer escalation behavior, in which the batterer strikes quickly with little
warning.
Criticism involves personal attacks on a person’s self-worth. It can be a
type of verbal belligerence. We see this in Table 1 in terms of verbal cue six
and nonverbal cue 10. Conversely, complaining about the meal is more
constructive as it is focused (e.g., The meal does not have much spice). As
Gottman notes, the problem with criticism is that, when it becomes pervasive,
it results in the other horsemen. Hence, in game theory terms, using a criticism
can be responded with a counter-complaint which is characteristic of unhappy
marriages compared to happy marital partners who are more likely to use
validation sequences (e.g., a complaint is responded to with an agreement or
further inquiry about why the partner feels that way); see Gottman & Silver,
2012; http://www.gottmanblog.com/2013/04/the-four-horsemen-recognizing-
criticism.html
Table 1 also reveals contempt which is the most corrosive behavior.
Nonverbal cues are eye rolls, lip burrowing, and clinched teeth (Ekman &
Heider, 1988 and nonverbal cues 8-10). Verbal cues include sarcasm, ridicule,
and cynicism as well as name-calling, sneering, mockery, and hostile humor
(see verbal cue 6).
Applying Game Theory and Signal Detection Theory … 11
Finally, withdrawal is briefly noted in nonverbal cue 13 in Table 1 in
which he leaves the home. This cue also reveals his closed, tight lip reflecting
contempt. Withdrawal is also referred to as stonewalling. Some people may
think that they are trying to deescalate, but Gottman and Silver (2012) provide
examples of how withdrawal may be seen as communicating disapproval, cold
distance, and psychological separation. Persons often stonewall during
conversations by not responding to prior comments and respond with stony
silence, monosyllabic mutterings, or changing the subject.
Table 1. Verbal and Nonverbal Signals in Applying Signal Detection
Theory to Escalating Aggression
We also asked the police detective about reciprocity and matching of
forgiving and hostile moves. The detective was inclined to notice reciprocity
of criticisms which reflect reflects Gottman’s (1994) notion of cross-criticisms
in which a criticism is matched. Conversely, more quality relationships are
Verbal and Nonverbal Signals in Applying Signal Detection Theory to Escalating Aggression
Verbal Cues Time of Occurrence (Minutes/.second s) 1. Sarcasm .12 2. Sneering & ridicule .48 3. Hostile voice tone 1:02 4. Meal criticism 1:13 - 1:18 5. Continued criticizing 1:31 - 1:51 6. Uses profanity & defensiveness & 2:00 - 2:06
Calls her a “bitch”; Uses “you always” statement
Nonverbal Cues
7. Exhales, eye glance upward .12 8. Contempt through raised eyebrows 1:02
& facial expression; Hostile voice tone 9. Object adaptors as utensils are 1:18 - 1:22
thrown down; exhales; upward eye glance
10. Exhales, sharp eye glances & 1:31 - 1:51 Criticizes & is “bitchy” Walks away, Withdraws & then is then quiet
11. Shows dejection through face 1:56 12. Hands on hips, Raised voice volume 2:00 - 2:16
Shows defensiveness through eye glances Leaves & grabs his shirt; She throws a vase in terms of an object adaptor
13. She pushes him & he turns with a tight 2:27 closed lip while going out the door
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge 12
characterized by validation sequences in which a statement about a problem or
a criticism is responded to with an agreement, a follow-up question asking
probing for more elaboration. Hence, the response “validates” the partner’s
prior statement. More is said on this in the ensuing discussion.
CONCLUSION
The concepts presented in this chapter are important in understanding how
the theoretical foundations of communication are applied in concrete situations
people face in the real world, specifically in the area of domestic conflict and
violence. This chapter explains that game theory can be used to explain how
hospital staff uses available information to form a judgment about whether a
patient may be the victim of domestic abuse. This chapter also explains how
signal detection theory can provide an important method of understanding why
and when conflicts will escalate. Although these explanations of how theory
can be applied are interesting, the main contribution of this chapter is not
simply explanation, but verification that practitioners in the field are actually
applying theory.
The main contribution of this chapter is in the case study of a detective
assessing a video-taped instance of domestic conflict and violence. The
detective’s assessment of thirteen verbal and nonverbal cues leading to conflict
escalation verifies that practitioners are utilizing the theoretical models
communication scholars have developed. Specifically her assessment reflects
the application of theories of conflict escalation by Gottman (1994), Gottman
and Silver (2004), and Honeycutt (2014) to domestic violence. This case study
and this chapter represent an important final step in the applied
communication research process, verification that the theory is actually
useable by practitioners to make people’s lives better.
The detective said she noticed the matching of complaints more than the
matching of conflict tactics. This observation reinforces Gottman’s (1994)
classical findings in which unhappy couples have less reciprocated laughter
but more reciprocity of negativity such that negativity is an absorbing state in
which there is a lack of validation in terms of positive responses, deficiency of
negotiation and compromise and what he called a “contracting sequence” in
which partners propose a solution to a problem and both agree on the solution.
Recall that the detective commented how she noticed defensiveness in which
the partners defended themselves against criticisms. Moreover, there was
Applying Game Theory and Signal Detection Theory … 13
nonverbal contempt in terms of sarcasm and voice tone designed to reinforce
the disagreement.
It is interesting that the detective’s observations reflect Gottman’s (1994)
notion of the four horsemen of the apocalypse which are corrosive behaviors
resulting in divorce. The behaviors are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and
withdrawal. Interestingly, these behaviors create a cascading sequence of
responses in which one partner expresses criticism and the other partner
responds with defensiveness, causing the first partner to react to the
defensiveness with contempt, sarcasm, and/or hostility with their partner,
eventually withdrawing from, or stonewalling, the conversation. We see this in
terms of conflict escalcation. The actions and reactions clearly represent game
theory moves in deciding how to react while arguing. As Gottman argues (no
pun intended), arguing in and of itself does not predict relationship problems;
rather is how one argues including being rational and accepting of another’s
influence (Gottman, 1994). Indeed, Honeycutt, Woods, and Fontenot (1993)
presents four rules for conflict resolution including rationality, showing
positive understanding, being concise, and consideration.
REFERENCES
Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of
competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Ekman, P & Heider, K.G. (1988). The Universality of Contempt Expression:
A Replication. Motivation and Emotion, 12,303-308.doi;
10.1007/BF00993116
Felson, R. B. (1984). An interactionist approach to aggression. In J. T.
Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological
research. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gottman, J.M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottman, J.M. (2011). The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for
Couples. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Gottman, J. and Silver, N. (2012). What Makes Love Last. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., et al.
(2005). Economic man in cross-cultural perspective. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 28, 795-855.
Honeycutt, J.M. (2015). Predicting divorce and skills for effective
communicating: The legacy of John Gottman’s research. In J. Honeycutt
James M. Honeycutt and Judson H. Eldredge 14
& L. Hatcher (Eds.), Diversity in Family communication (pps. 155-165)..
San Diego, CA: Cognella.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Bryan, S. P. (2011). Scripts and communication for
relationships. New York: Peter Lang.
Honeycutt, J. M., Sheldon, P., Pence, M. E., & Hatcher, L. C.
(2014). Predicting aggression, conciliation, and concurrent
rumination in escalating conflict. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. doi: 10.1177/0886260514532717. First published
online on May 8, 2014. Honeycutt, J. M., Woods, B. L., & Fontenot, K. (1993). The endorsement of
communication conflict rules as a function of engagement, marriage, and
marital ideology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 285-
304. doi:10.1177/026540759301000208
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and
verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research.
In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 19, 319-351.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An
interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs,
53, 61-69. doi: 10.1080/03637758609376126
Ito, T. A., Miller, N., & Pollock, V. E. (1996). A meta-analysis on the
moderating effects of inhibitory cues, triggering events, and self-focused
attention. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 60-82. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.120.1.60
Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women: New
insights into ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster
Kassin, Fein, Markus. Social Psychology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning,
2008.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983).. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 587-597. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.45.3.587
McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness
instinct. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rapoport, A. (1966). Two-person game theory: the essential ideas. Ann Arbor,
University of Michigan Press.
Applying Game Theory and Signal Detection Theory … 15
Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in
dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research,
1, 222-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00270.x
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The
conflict tactics scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
doi:10.2307/351733
Straus, M. A. (2007). Conflict tactics scales. In N. A. Jackson (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence (p. 191). New York, London:
Routledge.
Sukwinder, S. Shergill, P. M., Bays, P. M., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M.
(2003). Two eyes for an eye: The neuroscience of force escalation.
Science, 301, 187. doi:10.1126/science.1085327
Zillmann, D. (2003). Theory of affective dynamics: Communication and
emotion. In J. Bryant, D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Essays
in Honor of Dolf Zillmann (pp. 553-558). New York: Guilford