APPLYING GAME THEORY AND SIGNAL DETECTION THEORY TO CONFLICT ESCALATION: A CASE STUDY OF A POLICE...

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).


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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).


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


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


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


& 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.

http://0-dx.doi.org.biblio.eui.eu/10.1080/03637758609376126

http://0-dx.doi.org.biblio.eui.eu/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.587


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

APPLYING GAME THEORY AND SIGNAL DETECTION THEORY TO CONFLICT ESCALATION: A CASE STUDY OF A POLICE...

Documents

Transcript of APPLYING GAME THEORY AND SIGNAL DETECTION THEORY TO CONFLICT ESCALATION: A CASE STUDY OF A POLICE...