Do you want to read the rest of this article?
See all ›
77 CitationsSee all ›
42 ReferencesSocial 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.
- ... 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. ...
- ... In extending CLASH to the domain of intergroup relations, some scholars have argued that intergroup relations are especially prone to conflict (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2010;Reinders Folmer, Klapwijk, De Cremer, & van Lange, 2012;Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009). The reason is that relative to interpersonal interactions (even among strangers), intergroup interactions are strongly affected by a hostile mindset by which individuals (a) become motivated by competition or even spite (i.e., orientated towards making their own group obtain better outcomes than the other group), and (b) come to distrust others, believing that members of the other group are similarly oriented toward competition or even spite. ...... 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? ...
- ... 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. ...
- ... However, in the case of repeated interactions, the individuals make their decisions based on the behavior of the other. Employing the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game,Yamagishi and Mifune (2009)studied the ingroup favoritism of undergraduate students. They observed that the players cooperated signifi cantly more with those belonging to their own group than with those belonging to the other group, a behavior that was much more pronounced in men than in women, thus demonstrating that in men this mechanism favors ingroup solidarity. ...... However, in the case of repeated interactions, the individuals make their decisions based on the behavior of the other. Employing the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game, Yamagishi and Mifune (2009) studied the ingroup favoritism of undergraduate students. They observed that the players cooperated signifi cantly more with those belonging to their own group than with those belonging to the other group, a behavior that was much more pronounced in men than in women, thus demonstrating that in men this mechanism favors ingroup solidarity. ...
- ... On the contrary, when someone is identified as the member of an outgroup, derogation and hostility are aroused and individual characteristics are overlooked (even if information is presented) in favour of attributes previously assigned to the outgroup as a whole (Sporer, 2001). Narratives of members of groups and of intergroup relations build the perception of the outgroup and impact further interactions, either positively (Yamagishi and Mifune, 2009; White, Abu-Rayya andWeitzel, 2014;Shkurko, 2015) or negatively, favouring essentialisms and stereotypes (Montiel and de Guzman, 2011; Zourrig, Chebat and Toffoli, 2015; Vala,Waldzus and Calheiros, 2016) leading to prejudice, discrimination and hate. Narratives have proven their impact on social identities and intergroup relations (Somers, 1992) and, particularly, on just-world beliefs (Appel, 2008). ...
- ... Although empirical evidence of in-group favoritism's independence from out-group hostility is lacking, there is much to suggest these variables are qualitatively distinct. Distinct characteristics of in-group favoritism, in contrast to out-group hostility, have been revealed in a number of previous studies including in the use of economic games ( De Dreu, 2010;Halevy, Bornstein, & Sagiv, 2008;Weisel & Bö hm, 2015;Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009). Halevy, Bornstein, and Sagiv (2008), for example, reported that pregame communication with in-group members increased intragroup cooperation but did not affect intergroup competition, suggesting participants were motivated to help the in-group rather than harm the outgroup. ...
- ... This result is important in that it allows us to test the main predictions of the expectation of reciprocity hypothesis. In other words, given that the reputation manipulation managed to eliminate in-group bias in expectations, one could check whether this also leads to the elimination of in-group bias in the actual game of resource allocation.The results of the experiment in the high-reputation condition do not comply with the predictions of the expectation of reciprocity hypothesis (Yamagishi, Jin, & Kiyonari, 1999;Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009). In this condition, even though participants expected on average the same amount of contribution from in-group and out-group partners, they still chose to allocate more money to the in-group. ...... In a series of valuable papers, Yamagashi and his colleagues, among others, have argued that in-group favoritism is contingent on the expectation of reciprocal cooperation from in-group member (Jin and Yamagishi 1997;Kiyonari and Yamagishi 2004;Yamagishi, Jin, & Kiyonari, 1999;Yamagishi & Mifune, 2008, 2009). It has been also claimed that the dependency of in-group favoritism on expected cooperation is ―the product of an evolutionary game in which intragroup cooperation enhances one's reputation within the group‖ (Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009;p.230). Against this standpoint, we have argued in this paper that the evolutionary perspective does not necessarily lead to this conclusion—an argument that we have developed in reference to the distinction between the evolutionary and the proximate (psychological) causes of in-group favoritism. ...... And, we have further maintained that the results of the Prisoner's Dilemma game experiment in this study, where we manipulate the cooperative reputation of in-group and out-group partners, are consistent with our position. The expectation of reciprocity hypothesis of in-group favoritism has actually a noble idea behind it—that ―[i]dentifying oneself with a social category should not play an important role in our lives unless the social category is a source of some tangible outcomes‖ (Yamagishi & Mifune, 2009; p.25). We certainly agree with the argument that if one expects certain benefits from her association with a social category, this will increase her identification with this group, and hence also the chances that she displays discriminatory behavior in favor of the fellow group members. ...
- ... Burke et al. (2015) reported that intergroup conflict is more prevalent in warmer cultures. 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 tends to lead to a sharper differentiation between us and Response/Van Lange et al.: Aggression and violence around the world them (see also Gelfand et al. 2004;Yamagishi & Mifune 2009). Thus, it is possible that warmth is predictive of inter- group hostility, but with a simultaneous tendency to help those that belong to the in-group, tend to be similar to the self, or are otherwise psychologically close. ...
- ... Burke et al. (2015) reported that intergroup conflict is more prevalent in warmer cultures. 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 tends to lead to a sharper differentiation between us and Response/Van Lange et al.: Aggression and violence around the world them (see also Gelfand et al. 2004;Yamagishi & Mifune 2009). Thus, it is possible that warmth is predictive of intergroup hostility, but with a simultaneous tendency to help those that belong to the in-group, tend to be similar to the self, or are otherwise psychologically close. ...
- ... Burke et al. (2015) reported that intergroup conflict is more prevalent in warmer cultures. 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 tends to lead to a sharper differentiation between us and Response/Van Lange et al.: Aggression and violence around the world them (see also Gelfand et al. 2004;Yamagishi & Mifune 2009). Thus, it is possible that warmth is predictive of intergroup hostility, but with a simultaneous tendency to help those that belong to the in-group, tend to be similar to the self, or are otherwise psychologically close. ...
Project
The purpose of this project is to elucidate the psychological mechanism of aggressive behavior toward outgroup members. Currently, I have done some experiments using preemptive strike game in minim…" [more]
Article
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... [Show full abstract]
Article
Japanese (N = 48) and New Zealander (N = 55) participants were first assigned to one of two minimal groups, and then played a prisoner's dilemma game twice with an ingroup member and twice with an outgroup member. In one of the two games they played with an ingroup (or outgroup) member, participants and their partner knew one another's group memberships (mutual-knowledge condition). In the... [Show full abstract]
Article
To test the hypothesis that sensitivity to monitoring drives people to act altruistically toward members of their own community, two experiments investigated whether an eye-like painting promotes altruism toward in-group members, but not toward out-group members. Participants played the role of dictator in a dictator game with another participant (a recipient) who was from the minimal in-group... [Show full abstract]
Article
We tested the reputation maintenance hypothesis of ingroup favoritism. Ninety-two non-student participants played one-shot prisoner's dilemma games with an ingroup and an outgroup partner with minimal groups, and showed ingroup favoritism only when the participant and his/her partner knew each other's group membership (common knowledge condition). The ingroup favoritism observed in the common... [Show full abstract]
Chapter
Humans think, communicate, and behave to adapt to a particular social ecology, and by doing so they collectively create, maintain, and change the very ecology (i.e., social niche) they adapt to. The niche construction approach to culture analyzes how people induce each other to think and behave in particular ways by behaving in particular ways themselves. The best support to this approach is... [Show full abstract]