scarcity and disputing: zeroing‐in on compromise decisions¹

This paper examines critically the ways in which the concepts “compromise” and “zero‐sum game” have been used to describe the outcomes of disputes. In particular, it questions the assumption that disputants with multiplex ties will try to compromise their differences, because their goal will be maintenance of the relationship, rather than “winning.” A re‐analysis of case materials from three societies indicates that many persons in multiplex relations seek and obtain zero‐sum outcomes to disputes. It is suggested that this can be explained if (1) the goals of the disputants are distinguished from the goals of the third party, and (2) the relative rank and power of the disputants is considered. It is further suggested that people with on‐going relations will seek zero‐sum outcomes to disputes when they are attempting to gain control over land or some other resource in a scarcity situation, because control over that resource is a crucial factor in maintaining and altering power differences.