By Friedel Bolle, European University Viadrina, Jonathan Tan, Nottingham University Business School and Daniel Zizzo, University of East Anglia.
Vendettas
Engaging in tit-for-tat vendettas may well destroy your rival but is just as likely to destroy you, according to a new study. Research shows feuding opponents continue to indulge in aggressive retaliation even when they realise they are damaging their own interests. As their blow-for-blow struggle gradually ruins their chances, they might even open a path to success for a third party who can profit from their shared losses. Mrs Thatcher and Michael Heseltine’s drawn-out battle for the Conservative Party leadership serves as a perfect example of the theory.
The unassuming John Major saw off a pair of political powerhouses after neither proved able to rein in their mutually destructive campaigns. Tests carried out by Nottingham University Business School and the Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics pitted rivals against each other in a simple game to study their behaviour. Such was subjects’ determination to crush their opponents—even at the expense of ruining their own chances—around 80% of encounters ended in futile joint defeat. The figure fell to 60% when players were allowed to vent their emotions between rounds by answering a brief questionnaire about how they were feeling.
Research basis
Some 192 volunteers took part in the tests, which were carried out using computers. In each experiment two players were given an initial probability of winning a £10 cash prize. In some cases both had an equal chance, while in others one began with an advantage. Each could then take turns to “steal” a percentage of his opponent’s winning probability but in doing so gain only a fraction of that probability himself. A game ended if neither chose to steal or when both were left with less than a 10% probability of claiming the prize. In certain treatments volunteers were invited to pause between rounds to express their emotions by responding to basic questioning about their feelings.
Key findings
- People who find themselves in a situation where a vendetta is allowed to develop are likely to engage in aggressive tit-for-tat acts—even to the cost of their own interests.
- Around four out of five such situations will end in futile joint defeat for the rivals.
- Determination to pursue vendettas is reduced when the feuding parties are given a chance to vent their emotions and channel their negative feelings in an alternative way.
- Employers should consider providing “non-destructive” ways for staff to channel their emotions to reduce the risk of mutually destructive feuds in the workplace.
The results suggest that when vendettas are allowed to develop the rivals involved will pursue their feud well beyond expected and reasonable limits of self-interest – usually resulting in a disastrous outcome for all concerned. Study co-author Dr Jonathan Tan, of Nottingham University Business School, said: “Say two workers competing for a promotion engage in tit-for-tat. In the end neither gets the job because of all the mudslinging that has occurred. “Or say a fight for dominant power over a business degenerates into a series of retaliatory acts – and finishes with the end of a partnership. “Other classic cases relate to first-past-the-post elections or UK political party leadership manoeuvrings – Thatcher and Heseltine, for instance. “The war of attrition between those two ended with Mrs Thatcher resigning as leader and Major – a figure not directly involved in the feud – replacing her. “These examples suggest that when feuds are allowed to develop people may pursue them well beyond what is predicted by rational self-interest. “Our study supports that theory and shows that when such vendettas occur they usually lead to very negative outcomes for everyone involved.” Dr Tan said the research could offer an important insight into how human nature can clash with economic concerns. The fact that the number of mutually destructive games fell when players could vent their feelings between rounds also has important implications.
Dr Tan noted, “This research has obvious potential applications for attempts to reduce the level of conflict in settings such as the workplace,” “The more open subjects were in venting their negative emotions, the less aggressive they were later in terms of pursuing vendettas. “We found venting provides an opportunity for people to channel their feelings, which is an alternative to engaging in destructive behaviour. “Providing non-destructive ways for workers to channel such emotions could therefore be used to cut aggression in the workplace.”
Paul Arkwright
Publisher
