ABSTRACT
Confronting a stronger party to rectify the relationship—or at least make a statement that encourages future efforts to restore just relations—is not usually expected in practice. The lack of opportunity to succeed due to the lack of military or economic power can be intimidating, such that even countries cognizant of the importance of relational security may still yield to the calculus of power. We identify three psychological mechanisms that enable weaker parties to adopt a confrontational approach in order to restore a relationship that is considered to have been violated by the other party. The first mechanism is efficacy for peace, referring to the weaker party’s sense of being able to control the unfolding of the situation and ensure the continuation of peaceful relations. The second is the determination mechanism, which enables the weaker party to resist regardless of the outcome. The third is the legitimacy mechanism, whereupon the weaker party’s decision to resist is imbued with political correctness and lawfulness. We use Taiwan’s political confrontation with China as our case to discover the three psychological mechanisms.
