Abstract:In international conflicts a land power is motivated to wage wars for expansion, but engaging in an enduring war is costly. Therefore, the decision of war and peace is of ultimate importance and has been studied intensively under game theory by analyzing pay-offs of different actions. Regarding such tension, we demonstrate that perceptual grouping, although completely irrelevant to those pay-offs, can nevertheless provide salient visual common sense as mutually acknowledged ‘rallying point’. Therefore, it significantly reduces the conflicts between powers, facilitating peace around the border of perceptual groups. To prove this, we designed a two-player game which highlights three fundamental principles of land power competition. Players’ wealth increases with expansion of lands. However, war is expensive even for the winner. Troops consume more supplies as they march away from capital. Players’ goal is not to annihilate the opponent but to acquire maximum wealth. Participants were divided into two groups. One played in a battlefield divided into two perceptual groups marked by colors, while the other’s battlefield is homochromatic without grouping. The colors were completely irrelevant to rules of the game. Compared with non-perceptual-grouping condition, more wealth is accumulated in perceptual-grouping condition with lower frequency of battle, indicating an eased tension overall. Players were more inclined to withdraw their troops from frontline for mutual benefits, manifesting weaker attack intention while reducing cost of supplies. This effect is largely implicit as almost all the participants failed to report the influence of color groups on their decisions. Our findings provide strong evidence that perceptual grouping as a purely visual phenomenon can nevertheless influence complex human conflicts. It suggests that the equilibrium of powers in the world may be implicitly and subtly influenced by humans’ perceptual grouping of territory.

Camouflaged liability: How the distinction between civilians and soldiers influences moral judgement of permissible harm in war

What I don't know can hurt you: Collateral combat damage seems more acceptable when bystander victims are unidentified

Cognitive and Neural Bases of Decision-Making Causing Civilian Casualties During Intergroup Conflict

Is It Fair to Kill One to Save Five? How Just World Beliefs Shape Sacrificial Moral Decision-making

Probability, measurement mismatches, and sacrificial moral decision-making

Standing-up against moral violations: The predicting role of attribution, kinship, and severity

Reckless endangerment warfare

Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants

Cognitive and neural bases of collateral damage during intergroup conflict

Ethnocentrism and the value of a human life.

Perceptual Grouping for War and Peace

Perceptual Gestalt at War

An Asymmetric Effect: Physical and Simulated Confederate's Mere Presence Induce a Preference for Deontological Over Utilitarian Judgment.

Civilian Casualty Mitigation and the Rationalization of Killing

Moral Judgment and Empathic/Deontological Guilt

Harming kin to save strangers: further evidence for abnormally utilitarian moral judgments after ventromedial prefrontal damage

Should it stay, or swerve? Trading off lives in dilemma situations involving autonomous cars

Choosing between bad and worse: investigating choice in moral dilemmas through the lens of control

Commanding or Being a Simple Intermediary: How Does It Affect Moral Behavior and Related Brain Mechanisms?

Neural correlations of the influence of self-relevance on moral decision-making involving a trade-off between harm and reward

When Do Observers Deprioritize Due Process for the Perpetrator and Prioritize Safety for the Victim in Response to Information-Poor Allegations of Harm?