Recent work on decision making and planning for autonomous driving has made use of game theoretic methods to model interaction between agents. We demonstrate that methods based on the Stackelberg game formulation of this problem are susceptible to an issue that we refer to as conflict. Our results show that when conflict occurs, it causes sub-optimal and potentially dangerous behaviour. In response, we develop a theoretical framework for analysing the extent to which such methods are impacted by conflict, and apply this framework to several existing approaches modelling interaction between agents. Moreover, we propose Augmented Altruism, a novel approach to modelling interaction between players in a Stackelberg game, and show that it is less prone to conflict than previous techniques. Finally, we investigate the behavioural assumptions that underpin our approach by performing experiments with human participants. The results show that our model explains human decision-making better than existing game-theoretic models of interactive driving.