Prosociality as a foundation for intergroup conflict.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show how biological and sociocultural mechanisms that promote prosocial preferences and beliefs create in-group bounded, parochial cooperation, and, sometimes,parochial competition.
Abstract: Intergroup conflict can be modeled as a two-level game of strategy in which prosociality can take the form of trust and cooperation within groups or between groups. We review recent work, from our own laboratory and that of others, that shows how biological and sociocultural mechanisms that promote prosocial preferences and beliefs create in-group bounded, parochial cooperation, and, sometimes, parochial competition. We show when and how parochial cooperation and competition intensify rather than mitigate intergroup conflict.
Citations
More filters
01 Feb 2022
TL;DR: Oxytocin is a peptide molecule with a multitude of physiological and behavioral functions, including social bonding, sexual behavior, birth and maternal behavior, which has been called "the love hormone" as discussed by the authors .
Abstract: Oxytocin is a peptide molecule with a multitude of physiological and behavioral functions. Based on its association with reproduction - including social bonding, sexual behavior, birth and maternal behavior - oxytocin also has been called "the love hormone." This essay specifically examines association and parallels between oxytocin and love. However, many myths and gaps in knowledge remain concerning both. A few of these are described here and we hypothesize that the potential benefits of both love and oxytocin may be better understood in light of interactions with more ancient systems, including specifically vasopressin and the immune system. Oxytocin is anti-inflammatory and is associated with recently evolved, social solutions to a variety of challenges necessary for mammalian survival and reproduction. The shared functions of oxytocin and love have profound implications for health and longevity, including the prevention and treatment of excess inflammation and related disorders, especially those occurring in early life and during periods of chronic threat or disease.
12 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors provide a coherent framework by modeling intergroup conflicts as multi-level games of strategy in which individuals within groups cooperate to compete with (individuals in) other groups for scarce resources, such as territory, food, mating opportunities, power and influence.
Abstract: Although uniquely destructive and wasteful, intergroup conflict and warfare are not confined to humans. They are seen across a range of group-living species, from social insects, fishes and birds to mammals, including nonhuman primates. With its unique collection of theory, research and review contributions from biology, anthropology and economics, this theme issue provides novel insights into intergroup conflict across taxa. Here, we introduce and organize this theme issue on the origins and consequences of intergroup conflict. We provide a coherent framework by modelling intergroup conflicts as multi-level games of strategy in which individuals within groups cooperate to compete with (individuals in) other groups for scarce resources, such as territory, food, mating opportunities, power and influence. Within this framework, we identify cross-species mechanisms and consequences of (participating in) intergroup conflict. We conclude by highlighting crosscutting innovations in the study of intergroup conflict set forth by individual contributions. These include, among others, insights on how within-group heterogeneities and leadership relate to group conflict, how intergroup conflict shapes social organization and how climate change and environmental degradation transition intergroup relations from peaceful coexistence to violent conflict. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Intergroup conflict across taxa’.
8 citations
Abstract: The conflict between social groups is widespread, often imposing significant costs across multiple groups. The social insects make an ideal system for investigating inter-group relationships, because their interaction types span the full harming–helping continuum, from aggressive conflict, to mutual tolerance, to cooperation between spatially separate groups. Here we review inter-group conflict in the social insects and the various means by which they reduce the costs of conflict, including individual or colony-level avoidance, ritualistic behaviours and even group fusion. At the opposite extreme of the harming–helping continuum, social insect groups may peacefully exchange resources and thus cooperate between groups in a manner rare outside human societies. We discuss the role of population viscosity in favouring inter-group cooperation. We present a model encompassing intra- and inter-group interactions, and local and long-distance dispersal. We show that in this multi-level population structure, the increased likelihood of cooperative partners being kin is balanced by increased kin competition, such that neither cooperation (helping) nor conflict (harming) is favoured. This model provides a baseline context in which other intra- and inter-group processes act, tipping the balance toward or away from conflict. We discuss future directions for research into the ecological factors shaping the evolution of inter-group interactions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Intergroup conflict across taxa’.
5 citations
TL;DR: The authors identified the neurohormone oxytocin as pivotal to the neurobiological regulation of intergroup conflict in distinctly different group-living vertebrates, including fishes, birds, rodents, nonhuman primates and humans.
Abstract: Across vertebrate species, intergroup conflict confronts individuals with a tension between group interests best served by participation in conflict and personal interest best served by not participating. Here, we identify the neurohormone oxytocin as pivotal to the neurobiological regulation of this tension in distinctly different group-living vertebrates, including fishes, birds, rodents, non-human primates and humans. In the context of intergroup conflict, a review of emerging work on pro-sociality suggests that oxytocin and its fish and birds homologues, isotocin and mesotocin, respectively, can elicit participation in group conflict and aggression. This is because it amplifies (i) concern for the interests of genetically related or culturally similar 'in-group' others and (ii) willingness to defend against outside intruders and enemy conspecifics. Across a range of social vertebrates, oxytocin can induce aggressive behaviour to 'tend-and-defend' the in-group during intergroup contests. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.
5 citations
TL;DR: This article found that ingroup bias largely manifests as positive concern for ingroup members combined with no concern for outgroup members, whereas group homogeneity is the primary driver of concerns for others in their study's context.
Abstract: Humans often favour ingroup members over others, a bias that drives discrimination and intergroup conflicts. Hostile relations between groups and homogeneity within groups may affect such ingroup bias. In an experiment with members of three natural groups in Ethiopia, we vary intergroup relations (neutral versus enmity) and exploit the natural variation in the homogeneity of groups (homogeneous versus heterogeneous) to identify their effect on in- and outgroup concerns. We find that ingroup bias largely manifests as positive concern for ingroup members combined with no concern for outgroup members. Enmity has no effect on ingroup bias, whereas ingroup concern is amplified in homogeneous groups. Group homogeneity, thus, is the primary driver of concerns for others in our study’s context. Our results are relevant to understanding the consequences of exclusionary group identities. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Intergroup conflict across taxa’.
3 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Support is found for the hypothesis that intergroup discrimination in cooperation is the result of ingroup favoritism rather than outgroup derogation, and situations that contain interdependence result in stronger ingroups favoritism.
Abstract: Although theory suggests individuals are more willing to incur a personal cost to benefit ingroup members, compared to outgroup members, there is inconsistent evidence in support of this perspective. Applying meta-analytic techniques, we harness a relatively recent explosion of research on intergroup discrimination in cooperative decision making to address several fundamental unresolved issues. First, summarizing evidence across studies, we find a small to medium effect size indicating that people are more cooperative with ingroup, compared to outgroup, members (d = 0.32). Second, we forward and test predictions about the conditions that moderate ingroup favoritism from 2 influential perspectives: a social identity approach and a bounded generalized reciprocity perspective. Although we find evidence for a slight tendency for ingroup favoritism through categorization with no mutual interdependence between group members (e.g., dictator games; d = 0.19), situations that contain interdependence result in stronger ingroup favoritism (e.g., social dilemmas; d = 0.42). We also find that ingroup favoritism is stronger when there is common (vs. unilateral) knowledge of group membership, and stronger during simultaneous (vs. sequential) exchanges. Third, we find support for the hypothesis that intergroup discrimination in cooperation is the result of ingroup favoritism rather than outgroup derogation. Finally, we test for additional moderators of ingroup favoritism, such as the percentage of men in the sample, experimental versus natural groups, and the country of participants. We discuss the implications of these findings for theoretical perspectives on ingroup favoritism, address implications for the methodologies used to study this phenomenon, and suggest directions for future research.
582 citations
TL;DR: The results of an experiment with 91 Japanese participants confirmed the hypothesis that players of a Prisoner's Dilemma game would cooperate more with an in-group member than with an outgroup member in the simultaneous game but not in the sequential game.
Abstract: The results of an experiment with 91 Japanese participants confirmed the hypothesis that players of a Prisoner's Dilemma game would cooperate more with an in-group member than with an out-group member in the simultaneous game but not in the sequential game. The game used in the experiment was constructed such that each player gave his or her partner a portion of his or her own endowment of 300 yen. The group membership was created on the basis of participant's preferences for Klee's or Kandinski's paintings; each participant played the game once with an in-group member and once with an out-group member. In the simultaneous game, the two players decided simultaneously how much to give to the partner without knowing what the partner would do. In the sequential game, the first player made the decision; then the second player followed with full information on the first player's behavior. All the participants in the sequential game in fact took the role of the first player. The differential effect of the partner's group membership had been predicted on the basis of Yamagishi and his colleagues' argument that expectations of generalized reciprocity from in-group members is the source of in-group favoritism in a minimal group. A group is clearly distinguished from a mere aggregate of people. People who sit in the waiting area of an airport, for example, hardly constitute a group, nor do all people who wear eyeglasses. They share certain characteristics such as sitting in the same place or wearing eyeglasses, but this does not make them a group. The defining feature
412 citations
TL;DR: The biological mechanisms governing this shift in parental motivation in mammals, where giving birth leads from an aversion to infant stimuli to irresistible attraction is reviewed, are reviewed.
Abstract: Parents know the transformative nature of having and caring for a child. Among many mammals, giving birth leads from an aversion to infant stimuli to irresistible attraction. Here, we review the biological mechanisms governing this shift in parental motivation in mammals. Estrogen and progesterone prepare the uterus for embryo implantation and placental development. Prolactin stimulates milk production, whereas oxytocin initiates labor and triggers milk ejection during nursing. These same molecules, interacting with dopamine, also activate specific neural pathways to motivate parents to nurture, bond with, and protect their offspring. Parenting in turn shapes the neural development of the infant social brain. Recent work suggests that many of the principles governing parental behavior and its effect on infant development are conserved from rodent to humans.
369 citations
TL;DR: This article argued that the allocations in the standard minimal group paradigm (MGP) can be best interpreted as instrumental, rational behaviour aimed at maximizing the economic self-interests of the subjects rather than efforts on their part to strive for a positive social identity as SIT has claimed.
Abstract: After a conceptual and methodological critique of Social Identity Theory (SIT), it is argued, in sharp contrast to SIT but consistent with a Behavioural Interaction Model (BIM), that the allocations in the standard Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP) —which provide the main evidence for SIT— can be best reinterpreted as instrumental, rational behaviour aimed at maximizing the economic self-interests of the subjects rather than efforts on their part to strive for a positive social identity as SIT has claimed. Explicit social categorization appears to be only one of the many unit-forming factors which may affect allocations within and between group boundaries in the MGP.
Group polarization effects indicate that groups, guided by their perceived interdependence on the recipients of their allocations seem more rational and effective than their individual members prior to the group discussion in maximizing their economic outcomes.
Finally, it is concluded that BIM provides probably a more parsimonious explanation of all the usualfindings obtained by the standard MGP than SIT.
269 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that neither psychological nor biological levels can claim causal or explanatory priority, and that a holistic research strategy is necessary for progress in the study of mental disorders.
Abstract: In the past decades, reductionism has dominated both research directions and funding policies in clinical psychology and psychiatry. The intense search for the biological basis of mental disorders, however, has not resulted in conclusive reductionist explanations of psychopathology. Recently, network models have been proposed as an alternative framework for the analysis of mental disorders, in which mental disorders arise from the causal interplay between symptoms. In this target article, we show that this conceptualization can help explain why reductionist approaches in psychiatry and clinical psychology are on the wrong track. First, symptom networks preclude the identification of a common cause of symptomatology with a neurobiological condition; in symptom networks, there is no such common cause. Second, symptom network relations depend on the content of mental states and, as such, feature intentionality. Third, the strength of network relations is highly likely to depend partially on cultural and historical contexts as well as external mechanisms in the environment. Taken together, these properties suggest that, if mental disorders are indeed networks of causally related symptoms, reductionist accounts cannot achieve the level of success associated with reductionist disease models in modern medicine. As an alternative strategy, we propose to interpret network structures in terms of D. C. Dennett's (1987) notion of real patterns, and suggest that, instead of being reducible to a biological basis, mental disorders feature biological and psychological factors that are deeply intertwined in feedback loops. This suggests that neither psychological nor biological levels can claim causal or explanatory priority, and that a holistic research strategy is necessary for progress in the study of mental disorders.
250 citations