Zero-sum conflict contexts make groups treat any concession as weakness on all issues

Evidence

Three reasons for this competitive intensity are worth elaborating. The first stems from the context in which the inter-group contest may assume a zero-sum nature. The chronic nature of many civil wars means that they can be all-consuming and have a fundamental impact on how a state or society is organized. Such conflicts are often contested on multiple levels, from direct military and political confrontations to more insidious forms of conflict on the cultural and symbolic fronts (Harrison, 1995). In a zero-sum context, groups and sub-groups will be tempted to promote or defend their cause in relation to all issues. A peace process and its potential to upset the established ‘conflict order’ is likely to antagonize already heightened sensitivities. Thus, contemplating negotiation or concessions on one issue, however minor, may be interpreted as a weakness on more substantive issues. — Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Roger Macginty, Ethnic Outbidding and Party…, 37

Categorization

• DEFINE: Lays out the zero-sum mechanism that defines intra-group outbidding dynamics.
• XREF: Connects to the threatened-privilege / anticipatory status-threat mechanism from the reader’s research program — zero-sum beliefs among a dominant group. — connects to: Zero-sum competition over resources produces ethnocentrism and intergroup hostility — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 136; Most people treat power as a zero-sum contest between groups. — Andrew L. Whitehead, American Idolatry, 224

Related

• Zero-sum competition over resources produces ethnocentrism and intergroup hostility (similarity 0.85)
• Most people treat power as a zero-sum contest between groups. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Zero-sum competition over resources produces ethnocentrism and intergroup hostility #expands (0.90) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 136