scholarly journals Parochial Versus Universal Cooperation: Introducing a Novel Economic Game of Within- and Between-Group Interaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hillie Aaldering ◽  
Robert Böhm
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Intergroup Conflict ◽  
Social Value Orientation ◽  
Group Interactions ◽  
Group Relations ◽  
Group Cooperation ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Natural Groups

Engaging in personally costly within-group cooperation benefits one’s in-group members but also impacts other groups by benefiting, neglecting, or harming out-group members, leading to a range of potential consequences for between-group relations (e.g., collaboration vs. competition). We introduce the Intergroup Parochial and Universal Cooperation (IPUC) game to investigate the prevalence of the individual preferences underlying these different expressions of within-group cooperation: universalism, weak parochialism, and strong parochialism. In two online experiments with natural groups, we show that the IPUC has value beyond existing economic games in measuring these preferences separately. In a third experiment conducted in the lab, we show how dispositional measures traditionally associated with within- and between-group cooperation, that is, social value orientation, social dominance orientation, honesty-humility, and empathic concern, predict different preferences. Thus, the IPUC provides a tool to better understand within- and between-group interactions and to test interventions to overcome intergroup conflict.

System Justification or Social Dominance? A Multilevel Test of the Ideological Motivators of Perceived Discrimination

2021 ◽  
pp. 014616722110360
Author(s):  
Joaquín Bahamondes ◽  
Chris G. Sibley ◽  
Danny Osborne
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Societal Implications ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
High Status ◽  
Majority Group ◽  
Group Members

Although system-justifying beliefs often mitigate perceptions of discrimination, status-based asymmetries in the ideological motivators of perceived discrimination are unknown. Because the content and societal implications of discrimination claims are status-dependant, social dominance orientation (SDO) should motivate perceptions of (reverse) discrimination among members of high-status groups, whereas system justification should motivate the minimization of perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. We tested these hypotheses using multilevel regressions among a nationwide random sample of New Zealand Europeans ( n = 29,169) and ethnic minorities ( n = 5,118). As hypothesized, group-based dominance correlated positively with perceived (reverse) discrimination among ethnic-majority group members, whereas system justification correlated negatively with perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. Furthermore, the proportion of minorities within the region strengthened the victimizing effects of SDO-Dominance, but not SDO-Egalitarianism, among the advantaged. Together, these results reveal status-based asymmetries in the motives underlying perceptions of discrimination and identify a key contextual moderator of this association.

scholarly journals Preference for hierarchy is associated with reduced empathy and increased counter-empathy towards others, especially out-group targets

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson ◽  
Mina Cikara ◽  
Jim Sidanius
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Group Membership ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Group Boundaries ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Prejudicial Attitudes ◽  
Status Differences

The capacity to empathize with others facilitates prosocial behavior. People’s willingness and capacity to empathize, however, is often contingent upon the target’s group membership – people are less empathic towards those they categorize as out-group members. In competitive or threatening intergroup contexts, people may even feel pleasure (counter-empathy) in response to out-group members’ misfortunes. Social dominance orientation (SDO), or the extent to which people prefer and promote group-based inequalities, is an ideological variable that is associated with a competitive view of the world, increased prejudicial attitudes, and decreased empathy. Thus, higher levels of SDO should be associated with reduced empathy and increased counter-empathy in general, but especially towards those whose subjugation maintains group inequalities. Across three studies we show that among White individuals, higher SDO levels are associated with less empathy, and more counter-empathy in response to others’ good and bad fortunes. More importantly, these reductions in empathy and increases in schadenfreude as a function of SDO were significantly stronger for Asian and Black targets than for in-group White targets when group boundaries were made salient prior to the empathy ratings. Finally, in a fourth study we show that this phenomenon is not dependent upon a history of status differences: higher SDO scores were associated with decreased empathy and increased counter-empathy for competitive out-group (relative to in-group) targets in a novel group setting. We discuss implications of these effects for hierarchy maintenance.

scholarly journals Preferences and beliefs in intergroup conflict

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Columbus ◽  
Isabel Thielmann ◽  
Ingo Zettler ◽  
Robert Böhm
Keyword(s):  
Social Identity ◽  
Social Identity Theory ◽  
Identity Theory ◽  
Intergroup Conflict ◽  
Negative Reciprocity ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Natural Groups ◽  
Relative Standing

Participation in intergroup conflict is often framed as a matter of ‘in-group love’ or ‘out-group hate’. Indeed, theoretical accounts including social identity theory and parochial altruism suggest that such group-based preferences are inextricably linked. According to this view, individuals engage in intergroup conflict, including harmful behaviour towards out-group members, in order to improve the relative standing of their in-group. However, individuals may also engage in intergroup conflict to reciprocate beneficial behaviour from their in-group members or harmful behaviour from out-group members. We elicited both preferences towards in-group and out- group members and beliefs about in-group and out-group members’ behaviours prior to playing an experimental conflict game with natural groups (N = 973). In this game, individuals could engage in costly behaviour to either benefit their in-group (without consequences to the out-group) or to both benefit their in-group and harm the out-group. In this setting, both preferences and beliefs contributed to explaining in-group beneficial and out-group harming behaviour. However, beliefs played an overall stronger role than preferences in explaining behaviour. This suggests that participation in intergroup conflict is better explained by positive and negative reciprocity than purely by group-based preferences.

scholarly journals The influence of cooperation and competition on preschoolers' prosociality toward in-group and out-group members

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 202171
Author(s):  
Theo Toppe ◽  
Susanne Hardecker ◽  
Franca Zerres ◽  
Daniel B. M. Haun
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Group Membership ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Children’S Behaviour ◽  
Prosocial Behaviours ◽  
Group Member

Past research suggests that children favour their in-group members over out-group members as indicated by selective prosociality such as sharing or social inclusion. This preregistered study examined how playing a cooperative, competitive or solitary game influences German 4- to 6-year-olds’ in-group bias and their general willingness to act prosocially, independent of the recipient's group membership ( N = 144). After playing the game, experimenters introduced minimal groups and assessed children's sharing with an in-group and an out-group member as well as their social inclusion of an out-group member into an in-group interaction. Furthermore, we assessed children's physical engagement and parents' social dominance orientation (SDO)—a scale indicating the preference for inequality among social groups—to learn more about inter-individual differences in children's prosocial behaviours. Results suggest that children showed a stronger physical engagement while playing competitively as compared with cooperatively or alone. The different gaming contexts did not impact children's subsequent in-group bias or general willingness to act prosocially. Parental SDO was not linked to children's prosocial behaviours. These results indicate that competition can immediately affect children's behaviour while playing but raise doubt on the importance of cooperative and competitive play for children's subsequent intergroup and prosocial behaviour.

Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joke Meeus ◽  
Bart Duriez ◽  
Norbert Vanbeselaere ◽  
Karen Phalet ◽  
Peter Kuppens
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Situational Characteristics ◽  
Situational Effects ◽  
Ingroup Identification ◽  
The Individual

Two research lines have dominated the quest for the antecedents of outgroup attitudes. Whereas the first has viewed outgroup attitudes as a result of individual differences, the second stressed the importance of the intergroup situation. In order to investigate the interplay of individual differences and situational characteristics, key predictors of the individual differences perspective (i.e. right‐wing authoritarianism or RWA, and social dominance orientation or SDO) and the intergroup relations perspective (i.e. ingroup identification and ingroup threat) were simultaneously tested. Two studies revealed additive but no interaction effects of RWA and SDO, ingroup identification and threat. Additionally, Study 1 showed that threat effects remain limited to the outgroup that is portrayed as threatening and do not generalize to other outgroups. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

scholarly journals Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina L. Carvalho ◽  
Isabel R. Pinto ◽  
Rui Costa-Lopes ◽  
Darío Paéz ◽  
José M. Marques
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
High Status ◽  
Status Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Ingroup Identification ◽  
Minimal Groups ◽  
Status Enhancement

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

More for Us or More for Me? Social Dominance as Parochial Egoism

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliran Halali ◽  
Anna Dorfman ◽  
Sora Jun ◽  
Nir Halevy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Behavior ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intergroup Interactions ◽  
Group Members

Intergroup interactions allow members of advantaged groups to cooperate with in-group and out-group members alike (universal cooperation), cooperate with in-group members exclusively (parochial cooperation), or withhold cooperation altogether. These behaviors impact the intergroup hierarchy differently; therefore, individuals’ ideological support of intergroup hierarchy may predict their choices among them. Universal cooperation is inherently egalitarian and hence inconsistent with social dominance orientation (SDO). Although parochial cooperation strengthens the in-group relative to the out-group, and hence consistent with SDO, it is unclear to what extent members of advantaged groups higher in SDO are willing to pay the costs associated with participation in parochial cooperation. Studies conducted across three distinct intergroup contexts in the United States and Israel consistently find that SDO coincides with behavioral selfishness, a pattern we label parochial egoism. These findings illuminate a gap between individuals’ ideological worldview and their social behavior and elucidate the motivational meaning of SDO.

scholarly journals Sex Differences in In-Group Cooperation Vary Dynamically with Competitive Conditions and Outcomes

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 147470491201000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drew H. Bailey ◽  
Benjamin Winegard ◽  
Jon Oxford ◽  
David C. Geary
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
Previous Trial ◽  
Public Goods Game ◽  
Male Bias ◽  
Group Cooperation ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Individual Condition

Men's but not women's investment in a public goods game varied dynamically with the presence or absence of a perceived out-group. Three hundred fifty-four (167 male) young adults participated in multiple iterations of a public goods game under intergroup and individual competition conditions. Participants received feedback about whether their investments in the group were sufficient to earn a bonus to be shared among all in-group members. Results for the first trial confirm previous research in which men's but not women's investments were higher when there was a competing out-group. We extended these findings by showing that men's investment in the in-group varied dynamically by condition depending on the outcome of the previous trial: In the group condition, men, but not women, decreased spending following a win (i.e., earning an in-group bonus). In the individual condition, men, but not women, increased spending following a win. We hypothesize that these patterns reflect a male bias to calibrate their level of in-group investment such that they sacrifice only what is necessary for their group to successfully compete against a rival group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document