Offensive and Defensive Use of Punitive Tactics in Explicit Bargaining

Abstract

This research analyzes the impact of offensive and defensive punitive tactics in two-party bargaining. The basic predictions are that defensive use of punitive tactics produces a lower rate of damaging action by another than does offensive use of punitive tactics, and that higher-power actors use punitive tactics offensively, whereas lower-power actors use them defensively. These predictions were tested in a two-party bargaining setting that allowed parties to exchange offers and counteroffers and to take punitive action against each other. The results generally support the implications of bilateral deterrence; parties facing opponents who took strong offensive measures used more punitive tactics than those who did not, whereas parties facing opponents who took strong retaliatory measures combined with weak offensive measures used fewer punitive tactics