Social exchange and solidarity: in-group love or out-group hate?
Abstract
Men exhibit a stronger tendency to favor the in-group over the out-group than women. We examined if this male-specific "coalitional psychology" represents in-group love or out-group hatred. One hundred thirty-three college freshmen played a Prisoner's Dilemma Game with a member of their own group and a member of another group. Both groups consisted of same sex participants. An in-group bias -- cooperation at a higher level with the in-group than the out-group -- based on expectations of cooperation from the in-group was observed for both men and women. When such expectations were experimentally eliminated, women did not show any in-group bias whereas men still exhibited an in-group bias. The male-specific in-group bias in this condition was found to be a product of intra-group cooperation rather than inter-group competition. These findings suggest that the male-specific coalitional psychology catered more toward within-group solidarity than promotion of aggression against the out-group.
- A large body of research links testosterone and cortisol to male-male competition. Yet, little work has explored acute steroid hormone responses to coalitional, physical competition during middle childhood. Here, we investigate testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), androstenedione, and cortisol release among ethnically Chinese boys in Hong Kong (N = 102), aged 8–11 years, during a soccer match (n = 84) and an intrasquad soccer scrimmage (n = 81), with 63 participants competing in both treatments. The soccer match and intrasquad soccer scrimmage represented out-group and in-group treatments, respectively. Results revealed that testosterone showed no measurable change. DHEA increased during both treatments in the majority of participants and the degree of change had no relation to independent variables (e.g., performance, age, treatment, outcome) or covariate measures (Body Mass Index, Pubertal Development Scale). Most boys experienced androstenedione increases during match play, but no significant differences during the intrasquad soccer scrimmage competitions. The magnitude of change differed significantly between treatments and was positively associated with age. These latter findings suggest boys’ androstenedione responses may be sensitive to competitor type (i.e., unknown competitors vs. peers). For most subjects, cortisol significantly increased during match play, decreased during the intrasquad soccer scrimmage, and differed significantly between treatments, suggesting each treatment promoted a different psychological state among competitors. Cortisol/DHEA molar ratio decreased during the intrasquad scrimmage, suggestive of a more relaxed mental state. These data shed new light on potential proximate mechanisms associated with coalitional competition among prepubescent boys, with relevance to adrenarche and life history theory.
- ... Several cognitive biases would predict that potential referrers are more likely to consider strangers to be less qualified than friends. In particular, in-group bias in conjunction with out-group homogeneity bias would lead to an expected increase in the likelihood that referrers would estimate friends to be higher quality relative to strangers when evaluating the same candidate (Yamagishi and Mifune 2009). For instance, even when comparing the exact same candidate with the exact same information available regarding the candidate's quality, friends may still automatically assume a higher baseline of quality from simply the positive association of their friendship. ...Many organizations use employee referral programs to incentivize employees to refer potential applicants from their social networks. Employers frequently offer a monetary bonus to employees who refer an applicant, and this is often contingent on whether the person is then hired and retained for a given length of time. In deciding whether to refer someone, referrers face a potential role conflict, as they need to balance their motivations for helping connections find job opportunities with concerns regarding their reputations with their employers. To the extent that monetary incentives shift an employee's considerations away from finding the best matches for the employer, referral bonuses may increase the chances that lower-quality candidates are referred. Using a survey vignette experiment, we find that even a small referral bonus increases the likelihood that referrers will refer lower-quality candidates, and they are more likely to refer people they do not know well. We further discuss theoretical and practical implications regarding the efficiency of incentivized referral programs in producing quality applicant pools for employers.
- ... (Batson, 2011;Cialdini, 1991;Maner, Luce, Neuberg, Cialdini, Brown, & Sagarin, 2002;Harbaugh, 1998) (Batson, Dyck, Brandt, Batson, Powell, McMaster, & Griffitt, 1988;Batson, 2011 (Hein, Silani, Preuschoff, Batson, & Singer, 2010;Masten, Morelli, & Eisenberger, 2011 (Davis, 1994;Eisenberg, Guthrie, Cumberland, Murphy, Shepard, Zhou, & Carlo, 2002;Eisenberg & Miller, 1987) 2005;Brewer, 1979;Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). 내집단원에 대한 우호적 태도는 공감 수준에도 영향을 미친다 (Hein 등, 2010;Strümer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006 Brewer, 1979;Brewer, 1999;Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009 37-54. ...Altruism requires representing and valuing others' welfare. In the present study, we designed the Altruistic Learning task (AL task) to measure individual differences in valuing another person's welfare and examined its relationship with dispositional empathy (Experiment 1) as well as ingroup bias/parochial altruism (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants performed the AL task in which they made choices between a pair of stimuli with different reward probabilities (30% vs. 70%) to reduce the amount of stress for themselves or their peer participants. The task consisted of three within-subject conditions (i.e. SELF, BOTH, and OTHER conditions) where different types of outcome (i.e. points for self, for both, and for other) were associated with three different pairs of stimuli. The amount of value that each participant attached to a given outcome can be measured with the frequency of choosing the higher reward probability option (HRP option). The results showed that participants who scored higher in personal distress and empathic concern measured by IRI (Davis, 1983) were more likely to choose the HRP option in the BOTH and OTHER conditions, indicating the role of emotional empathy iin the process of valuing other-regarding outcomes. In Experiment 2, we employed the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, 1970) and compared choices for an ingroup member with those for an outgroup member in the AL task. We employed the same experimental design as the Experiment 1, except for having INGROUP and OUTGROUP conditions, instead of previous BOTH and OTHER conditions. The choice frequency for the HRP option was higher in the SELF and INGROUP conditions than the OUTGROUP condition, indicating ingroup bias of the participants in valuing welfare of others. Our findings demonstrated that the AL task can be a useful and valid measure of individual differences in altruism.
- Research on groups in organizations has regularly identified the presence of favoritism toward members of one’s ingroup. Identity with a social group helps understand this bias, yet the mechanisms that may undermine the process have not been well documented. This study investigates the effect that not adhering to group expectations has on the positive bias otherwise awarded ingroup members, thus extending the literature on social identity theory and intragroup dynamics. Given that ingroup members, as compared to outgroup members, are expected to reciprocate loyalty and trust, this study examines what happens to the bias for the ingroup member that does not adhere to group expectations. Results from an intergroup negotiation experiment support the hypotheses that breaching group norms minimizes the ingroup bias effect. More importantly, results revealed a reversal of the ingroup bias, whereby ingroup members who did not uphold group expectations were evaluated more negatively than outgroup members.
- ... It may sound like a paradox, but we suggest that aggression does not exclude prosociality, trust, or closeness. It is possible that a strong sense of "in-group love" may sometimes go hand in hand with some "out-group hate," because an emphasis on collectivism and in-group favoritism tends to lead to a sharper differentiation between "us" and "them" (see also Gelfand et al., 2004;Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009). So, what have we learned? ...Aggression and violence levels generally increase as one moves closer to the equator, but why? We developed a new theoretical model, CLimate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans (CLASH; van Lange, Rinderu, & Bushman, 2017b, 2017c), to understand differences within and between countries in aggression and violence in terms of differences in climate. Colder temperatures, and especially larger degrees of seasonal variation in climate, call for individuals and groups to adopt a slower life history strategy, revealed in a greater focus on the future (vs. present) and a stronger focus on self-control—variables that are known to inhibit aggression and violence. Other variables (e.g., wealth, income inequality, parasite stress) are also linked to both climate differences and to aggression and violence differences. When people think of the consequences of climate change, they rarely think of the impact on aggression and violence levels, but they should. CLASH has broad implications for the effects of climate change on intergroup conflict.
- ... In the absence of specific motives for outgroup hate, individuals from different groups interact only as individuals. 5 The results of experiments conducted on cooperation and group identity are consistent with this theory ( Ahmed, 2007;Yamagishi and Mifune, 2009). However, other factors may be at work in the interaction between individuals with different identities. ...Recent studies provide evidence that immigration has a significant positive effect on the vote for parties with anti-immigration agendas. However, this result does not emerge if we apply the same empirical analysis to the UK, whether in the case of Brexit, or if we consider support for Ukip or the political intentions expressed in the BES survey. To account for this and other fragmented evidence in the literature on personal attitudes towards immigration, we formulate the hypothesis that the increase in anti-immigration views resulting from an increased number of immigrants in a neighbourhood is a temporary effect. Different underlying mechanisms may be at the root of such negative short-run effects, such as material concerns about the adjustment cost of new migration flows, or prejudicial attitudes, both denoting a "hate at first sight" effect. We build an econometric strategy to test for the existence of such a short-run effect in the case of Brexit and then assess the robustness of our result using a panel of the vote for Ukip and individual data from the BES survey. The evidence robustly supports our hypothesis and provides a basis for further analysis.
- The factors underlying to the ingroup favoritism and outgroup indifference/hostility are broadly studied by social psychology, where studies report that, for example, individuals trust more and associate positive words to members of the same group. The study of these factors can help in understand phenomena such as prejudice and ethonocentrism. However, a systematic search in the databases Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scielo, and Lilacs for the keywords related to group bias showed a studies shortage for this topic in Brazil. Besides, in the studies retrieved, just one fitted into evolutionary perspective and no study has approached the neuroendocrine mechanisms of the group bias. Therefore, the objective of this study was to discuss the group bias through the biological perspective, explaining the evolutionary hypothesis to the evolution of these behaviors, the methods applied to study this topic, and the neuroendocrine basis and neural substrates mediating them.
- The factors underlying to the ingroup favoritism and outgroup indifference/hostility are broadly studied by social psychology, where studies report that, for example, individuals trust more and associate positive words to members of the same group. The study of these factors can help in understand phenomena such as prejudice and ethonocentrism. However, a systematic search in the databases Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scielo, and Lilacs for the keywords related to group bias showed a studies shortage for this topic in Brazil. Besides, in the studies retrieved, just one fitted into evolutionary perspective and no study has approached the neuroendocrine mechanisms of the group bias. Therefore, the objective of this study was to discuss the group bias through the biological perspective, explaining the evolutionary hypothesis to the evolution of these behaviors, the methods applied to study this topic, and the neuroendocrine basis and neural substrates mediating them.
- One pervasive facet of human interactions is the tendency to favor ingroups over outgroups. Remarkably, this tendency has been observed even when individuals are assigned to minimal groups based on arbitrary markers. Why is mere categorization into a minimal group sufficient to elicit some degree of ingroup favoritism? We consider several accounts that have been proposed in answer to this question and then test one particular account, which holds that ingroup favoritism reflects in part an abstract and early-emerging sociomoral expectation of ingroup support. In violation-of-expectation experiments with 17-mo-old infants, unfamiliar women were first identified (using novel labels) as belonging to the same group, to different groups, or to unspecified groups. Next, one woman needed instrumental assistance to achieve her goal, and another woman either provided the necessary assistance (help event) or chose not to do so (ignore event). When the two women belonged to the same group, infants looked significantly longer if shown the ignore as opposed to the help event; when the two women belonged to different groups or to unspecified groups, however, infants looked equally at the two events. Together, these results indicate that infants view helping as expected among individuals from the same group, but as optional otherwise. As such, the results demonstrate that from an early age, an abstract expectation of ingroup support contributes to ingroup favoritism in human interactions.
- This contribution will explore how face-work strategies (Goffman, 1967b: 12) can serve the purpose of rationalizing injustice in legal discourse. Due to its links to primal human cognitive biases, face-work can be used as an ideological instrument to influence behaviour. By minimizing the effects of injustice on the general public’s perception, face-work can go beyond social interactions to impact social relations, reverse the effects of a justice threat – that is, lenient or no punishment for criminal acts – and reinforce the social order, that is, the hierarchies of power between dominated and dominating social categories and the institutions organizing those hierarchies and regulating behaviour. It will be argued that, to do so, the goals of criminal justice must be reinterpreted by those with the power to enforce legal rules – judges – for specific cases where the victim is a member of a disprivileged group and the perpetrator is a member of a dominant group. When the awareness of an innocent victim and of an unpunished criminal would challenge the belief that the world is a just place, where personal investments render personal benefits, face-work becomes a resource to restore and protect those beliefs by rationalizing a justice threat at the expense of the victim. A particularly controversial judgment on a sexual assault case will be analysed to identify character presentation and representation strategies and to reveal the subtleties of ideological manipulation in legal discourse. It will be argued that both voice and silence intertwine in discourse to reinterpret the empirical world and the social rules to protect the belief that the world is a fair place, where investments in one’s own and society’s futures and wellbeing yield stability and prosperity for all (what is known as the ‘just-world hypothesis’). It is further argued that the presence and absence of signs and meanings are orchestrated specifically to positively (re)present the perpetrator and negatively (re)present the victim where the victim is a member of a disprivileged group – in the case under study, women – and the perpetrator is a member of a dominant social group. By analysing the sentence delivered in the case People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner, the intersections of discourse and power relations will be explored to shed further light on “the ways in which meaning is mobilized in the social world and serves thereby to bolster up individuals or groups who occupy positions of power” (Thompson, 1990: 56).
- The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
- Discussions of violence observe that dispute resolution in stateless societies often involves vengeance and collective responsibility for harm. These patterns are typically attributed to a distinctive cultural world-view emphasizing collectivism. Collective hostility is also a common theme in studies of stateless domains within industrial societies, where it is seen as a social pathology. Yet vengeance can also be understood as a purposeful sanction against collective aggression, rather than as a culturally prescribed response to aggression in general. Court records from Corsica are used to assess the rate at which murder was avenged, the determinants of revenge, and patterns in the kin relationships involved. Vengeance was rare and typically occurred when the original incident involved collaboration or violence against nondisputants. Vengeance rarely extended beyond the nuclear family. When it did, correspondingly distant kin of the original victim acted as avengers. Moreover, selection of vengeance targets was based on specific acts of solidarity, not on abstract collective responsibility. Accordingly, acts of revenge were calibrated to demonstrate that the aggrieved family's cohesiveness equalled that displayed by the offender's group. Viewed in this way, vendettas are highly strategic yet altruistic acts-calling into question the conventional notion that rational action is selfish.
- Ingroup bias found in the Minimal Group Paradigm is an important finding for theories of intergroup relations. However, explanation of the finding is controversial. In this study, we contrast the Social Identity Theory explanation of ingroup bias with / a new alternative hypothesis. We argue that ingroup bias is a result of subjects employing a self-interested quasi-strategy in an attempt to gain greater material i benefits for themselves. Although the strategy cannot be successful, we argue that the interdependence situation characteristic of the Minimal Group Paradigm deceives I subjects into believing it can be successful. Consequently, when subjects are not t dependent on other subjects for their own rewards in the Minima1 Group Paradigm, I ingroup bias disappears. Results of our experiment support the interdependence
- Three varieties of differential intergroup social allocation were examined in a sample of American students as a function of degree of in-group legitimacy, self-esteem, sex, and social dominance orientation within a standard minimal-groups experimental paradigm. The results are consistent with both social identity theory and much previous research in this area: The greater the in-group identification, the greater the allocation of social value in favor of the in-group. The results are also consistent with the expectations of social dominance theory and show that, even after the effects of gender, self-esteem, and in-group identification were considered, the greater the social dominance orientation, the greater the allocation of social value in favor of the in-group. For two of the three indexes of social value, there was a statistically significant interaction between in-group identification and social dominance orientation. Subjects showing strong acceptance of their in-group classification and who had relatively high levels of social dominance orientation displayed greater in-group bias.
- Two explanations of why shared group membership promotes cooperation in social dilemmas were compared. According to the fear-greed model of social identity proposed by Simpson (2006), shared group membership reduces greed but not fear and, thus, should promote altruistic behavior toward in-group members in the absence of fear. According to the group heuristic model proposed by Yamagishi and colleagues, altruistic behavior toward in-group members is a 'ticket' to enter a generalized exchange system; people are not predicted to behave altruistically when it is made salient that no system of generalized exchange operates in the group. We tested these models in a dictator game experiment with two conditions. In the common knowledge condition, either model predicts greater altruism toward in-group recipients. In the unilateral knowledge condition - when the dictator knows the group membership of the recipient, but the recipient does not know the membership of the dictator - the fear-greed model predicts greater altruism toward in-group recipients. In contrast, the group heuristic model does not predict such in-group bias in altruism. The results of the experiment support the group heuristic model.
- Sociological explanations of group conflict usually presuppose that the various factors that breed hostility between collectivities also generate internal solidarity. Outside of the protest literature, studies of conflict therefore pay little attention to the collective-action problem facing groups in contention, and therefore overestimate the likelihood of group conflict: Intergroup struggle is implicitly regarded as a sufficient condition for group participation in violent conflict. Examination of nineteenth-century court documents from Corsica, a society known for its tradition of collectivist feuding, shows that violent incidents typically did not involve groups. The group character of violence-in the form of collaborative use of lethal force and inclusion of disputants' kin-was conditional on collective contention having occurred before violence began. This and other empirical patterns support the view that collective violence occurs when group action fails to convince an adversary to back down. The failure to prevent escalation calls the group's solidarity into question, compelling members to demonstrate that they are able to overcome their collective-action problem.
- Previous evidence suggests that, compared with females, male psychology and behavior is more strongly oriented toward intergroup conflict and competition. This study tested whether male coalitional psychology is so deeply ingrained that it could be activated even by subtle cues in the environment suggesting intergroup conflict. We used a priming method to test if being unwittingly exposed to an offensive message from an outgroup member in one type of intergroup context (i.e., inter-cultural) would enhance male’s and female’s intergroup discrimination in reward allocation in a completely irrelevant intergroup context (i.e., artificial laboratory group). The results showed that, as predicted, the outgroup threat priming enhanced discrimination in men but not women.
