Which strategy involves conflicting parties maximizing their own gains at the expense of the other?

The strategy that involves conflicting parties maximizing their own gains at the expense of the other is distributive bargaining. This approach is typically rooted in a zero-sum context, where one party's gain is viewed as the other party's loss. In this scenario, individuals or groups are often competing for a fixed resource or pie, and the negotiation focuses on dividing that resource to their own advantage.

Distributive bargaining is characterized by adversarial negotiations where each party aims to secure the best possible outcome for themselves, often leading to a win-lose situation. Tactics employed may include withholding information, making aggressive demands, or utilizing strategic concessions to pressure the other party.

In contrast, integrative bargaining seeks mutually beneficial solutions and focuses on collaboration rather than competition. Compromise involves both parties giving up something to reach an agreement, while mediation introduces a neutral third party to facilitate discussion and find a resolution that satisfies both sides. Therefore, the key distinction lies in the competitive nature of distributive bargaining, wherein maximization of one's own benefits is prioritized above maintaining a relationship or considering the counterpart's needs.