IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v112y2026ics0167487025000807.html

Conflict frames in the wild: win-lose frames are more common, but mixed and win-win frames are more effective

Author

Listed:
  • Majer, Johann M.
  • Engler, John-Oliver
  • Saxena, Emma
  • Mojzisch, Andreas

Abstract

In controlled studies, conflicts are often interpreted as win-lose situations. Yet, it remains unclear whether this tendency extends to real-world conflicts. To address this question, we examine two competing perspectives on conflict frame prevalence: one assuming that win-lose frames dominate in real-world conflicts and another suggesting that win-win frames are more common. Drawing on conflict resolution and coalition bargaining theory, we test the hypothesis that win-win frames are more effective than win-lose frames in influencing both interdependent counterparts and independent third parties. Results of two archival studies using political participation data reveal that win-lose frames were more frequent in real-world conflicts than win-win frames. However, while win-lose frames were the most common, mixed frames proved to be the most effective in influencing interdependent counterparts. Additionally, both win-win and mixed frames had the strongest impact on independent third parties. Our findings highlight a fundamental gap between how people typically interpret conflict and how effectively conflict frames influence others.

Suggested Citation

  • Majer, Johann M. & Engler, John-Oliver & Saxena, Emma & Mojzisch, Andreas, 2026. "Conflict frames in the wild: win-lose frames are more common, but mixed and win-win frames are more effective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:112:y:2026:i:c:s0167487025000807
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2025.102868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487025000807
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2025.102868?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristian S. Nielsen & Viktoria Cologna & Jan M. Bauer & Sebastian Berger & Cameron Brick & Thomas Dietz & Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Laura Henn & Florian Lange & Paul C. Stern & Kimberly S. Wolske, 2024. "Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 14(4), pages 322-330, April.
    2. Leonardelli, Geoffrey J. & Gu, Jun & McRuer, Geordie & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Galinsky, Adam D., 2019. "Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 64-83.
    3. Daphna Canetti & Ibrahim Khatib & Aviad Rubin & Carly Wayne, 2019. "Framing and fighting: The impact of conflict frames on political attitudes," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 56(6), pages 737-752, November.
    4. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Michele Garagnani & Jaume García-Segarra, 2025. "The framing of elections: cooperation vs. competition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 65(2), pages 363-385, September.
    5. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    6. Hyndman, Kyle, 2023. "Dynamic fairness in repeated bargaining with risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    7. Snijder, Luuk L. & Stallen, Mirre & Gross, Jörg, 2024. "Decision-makers self-servingly navigate the equality-efficiency trade-off of free partner choice in social dilemmas among unequals," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    8. Van Der Linden, Sander & Pearson, Adam R. & Van Boven, Leaf, 2021. "Behavioural climate policy," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 430-438, October.
    9. Wissink, Joeri & Cantiani, Anabela & Ven, Niels van de & Pronk, Tila & Erle, Thorsten M. & Beest, Ilja van, 2023. "Strength‐is‐weakness : The (ir)relevant relation between resources and payoffs in coalition formation," Other publications TiSEM 75683c21-0614-49c7-95a1-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Majer, Johann M. & Zhang, Kai & Zhang, Hong & Höhne, Benjamin P. & Trötschel, Roman, 2022. "Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Megan Earle & Gordon Hodson, 2020. "Questioning white losses and anti-white discrimination in the United States," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 160-168, February.
    12. Kern, Mary C. & Brett, Jeanne M. & Weingart, Laurie R. & Eck, Chase S., 2020. "The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 143-158.
    13. Simon Columbus & Catherine Molho & Francesca Righetti & Daniel Balliet, 2021. "Interdependence and cooperation in daily life," Post-Print hal-03169758, HAL.
    14. Minson, Julia A. & Bendersky, Corinne & de Dreu, Carsten & Halperin, Eran & Schroeder, Juliana, 2023. "Experimental studies of conflict: Challenges, solutions, and advice to junior scholars," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    15. Wissink, Joeri & van Beest, Ilja & Pronk, Tila & van de Ven, Niels, 2021. "What causes the strength-is-weakness effect in coalition formation : Passive adoption or active selection of self-serving allocation rules?," Other publications TiSEM 0c4eea76-6401-45ae-866c-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Thomas Sterner & Edward B. Barbier & Ian Bateman & Inge Bijgaart & Anne-Sophie Crépin & Ottmar Edenhofer & Carolyn Fischer & Wolfgang Habla & John Hassler & Olof Johansson-Stenman & Andreas Lange & St, 2019. "Policy design for the Anthropocene," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 14-21, January.
    17. Van Beest, Ilja & Scheepers, Daan, 2013. "Challenge and threat responses to anger communication in coalition formation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 50-57.
    18. Wendi L. Adair & Jeanne M. Brett, 2005. "The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 33-51, February.
    19. Yossi Maaravi & Orly Idan & Guy Hochman, 2019. "And sympathy is what we need my friend—Polite requests improve negotiation results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    21. Newig, Jens & Jager, Nicolas W. & Challies, Edward & Kochskämper, Elisa, 2023. "Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 82.
    22. Yao, Jingjing & Brett, Jeanne M. & Zhang, Zhi-Xue & Ramirez-Marin, Jimena, 2021. "Multi-issue offers strategy and joint gains in negotiations: How low-trust negotiators get things done," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 9-23.
    23. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng & Yufei Ren, 2014. "Trust, Trustworthiness, and Information Sharing in Supply Chains Bridging China and the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(10), pages 2435-2460, October.
    24. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roman Trötschel & Marie van Treek & Caroline Heydenbluth & Kai Zhang & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "From Claiming to Creating Value: The Psychology of Negotiations on Common Resource Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-26, April.
    2. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    3. Petrowsky, Hannes M. & Boecker, Lea & Escher, Yannik A. & Frech, Marie-Lena & Friese, Malte & Galinsky, Adam D. & Gunia, Brian & Lee, Alice J. & Schaerer, Michael & Schweinsberg, Martin & Soliman, Mei, 2025. "The power and peril of first offers in negotiations: a conceptual, meta-analytic, and experimental synthesis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Eyvindson, Kyle & Hujala, Teppo & Kangas, Annika & Kurttila, Mikko, 2012. "Selecting a forest plan among alternatives: Consistency of preferences within decision support frameworks," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 114-122.
    5. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    6. Kern, Mary C. & Brett, Jeanne M. & Weingart, Laurie R. & Eck, Chase S., 2020. "The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 143-158.
    7. Zhang, Zhi-Xue & Liu, Leigh Anne & Ma, Li, 2021. "Negotiation beliefs: Comparing Americans and the Chinese," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5).
    8. Yao, Jingjing & Brett, Jeanne M. & Zhang, Zhi-Xue & Ramirez-Marin, Jimena, 2021. "Multi-issue offers strategy and joint gains in negotiations: How low-trust negotiators get things done," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 9-23.
    9. Erwin Bulte & John A. List & Daan Van Soest, 2019. "Toward an Understanding of the Welfare Effects of Nudges: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda," NBER Working Papers 26286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Junjun Cheng, 2020. "Bidirectional Relationship Progression in Buyer–Seller Negotiations: Evidence from South Korea," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 293-320, April.
    11. Sergios Tzotzes & Dimitris Milonakis, 2021. "Paradigm Change or Assimilation? The Case of Behavioral Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 53(1), pages 173-192, March.
    12. Karaarslan, Can, 2022. "Social policy, psychology and climate mitigation," Working Papers for Marketing & Management 64, Offenburg University, Department of Media and Information.
    13. Petrik Runst, 2014. "Crisis and belief: confirmation bias and the behavioral political economy of recession," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 376-392, December.
    14. Lisa M. Scheele & Ulrich W. Thonemann & Marco Slikker, 2018. "Designing Incentive Systems for Truthful Forecast Information Sharing Within a Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3690-3713, August.
    15. Dai Quy Le & Daisung Jang, 2023. "Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict Information Search in Negotiation Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 667-699, June.
    16. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.
    17. Gkargkavouzi, Anastasia & Halkou, Panagiota & Halkos, George, 2025. "Behavioural and psychological insights in climate policy," MPRA Paper 125312, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. repec:osf:osfxxx:fqmdu_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    21. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:112:y:2026:i:c:s0167487025000807. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.