Nature vs Nurture and Game Theory

Areas of thought and research that naturally collide with this project include nature vs. nurture and natural selection and evolution. A great deal of research and debate has been pursued in the area of nature vs. nurture, both on very specific human behaviors and in general terms as it relates to instincts and genetic pre-dispositions. Darwinian theories of natural selection and evolution are another area of study rich in research and directly related to the subject at hand in this review. Although this paper will naturally touch on some aspects of these ideas and theories, an overall review of the literature will not be made here.

Research on negotiating techniques has been studied at length over many years by many people, and recently there has been a great deal of thought put into “Game Theory.” Negotiating decisions may rely on the actions of others or they may be based on one side’s understanding of the situation, with little or no understanding of the other party’s input. The idea of possible cooperation within negotiation adds a complex layer to the mathematical construct some theories are based upon. Game Theory started as a mathematical calculation that allowed for a determination of an optimal outcome given a set of circumstances. “In basic form, game theory is a “rational-choice” model of analysis that posits certain assumptions about the parties’ rationality and common knowledge. Game theory provides a model for understanding and predicting what a “rational” party “ought to do” based on that party’s self-interest, assuming complete or partial knowledge of other parties’ “choices” (Siegfried 69; Dickey 2). Cooperative bargaining theory is a form of game theory in which the players share common concerns (Dickey 3).

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classical matrix showing the motivations of two people in conflict and how a structure can be placed on a negotiation and how cooperation affects outcomes. Tit for Tat (cooperation followed by mimicking moves of the opponent), can be layered within game theory scenarios as a model that could determine behavior. In an effort to predict outcomes and understand negotiator differences, Neale and Bazerman explore the areas of how and why negotiators with a clear and positive negotiating zone can still fail to reach agreement (Neale 49).

Lewicki, in his book on negotiation essentials and theory concludes; “…it appears that several aspects of negotiator cognition are significantly influenced by culture and that negotiators should not assume that findings on negotiator cognition from Western negotiators are universally applicable to other cultures” (246).

The scope of this blog will not include these types of conflict resolution and negotiating analyses, yet it is important to underscore the existence of these theories, behavior strategies, and ways of thinking about conflict resolution, as we move toward looking at the core capacities that may underlie them.