The conflict-cooperation effect persists under intragroup payoff asymmetry

In real-world intergroup conflict, not all in-group members are equally threatened by the out-group. Yet, the impact of intragroup payoff asymmetry on the inclination to mutually cooperate during intergroup conflict and therefore to protect against out-group attacks, i.e., the “conflict-cooperation effect,” has not been investigated so far. In Study 1, we replicate previous research by using a novel experimental game paradigm, showing increased intragroup cooperation in the presence (vs. absence) of out-group threat under intragroup payoff symmetry. In Study 2, we find a conflict-cooperation effect among group members who are threatened (victims) as well as among group members who are not threatened (helpers) by the out-group. Intragroup cohesiveness, i.e., perceived closeness among in-group members, mediates the conflict-cooperation effect, particularly among selfishly-oriented individuals. Our results support the notion that intergroup conflict may have favored the evolutionary adaption of intragroup cooperation even when the in-group members were asymmetrically threatened by intergroup conflict.

The Power of Focal Points Is Limited: Even Minute Payoff Asymmetry May Yield Large Coordination Failures

Since Schelling, it has often been assumed that players make use of salient decision labels to achieve coordination. Consistent with previous work, we find that given equal payoffs, salient labels yield frequent coordination. However, given even minutely asymmetric payoffs, labels lose much of their effectiveness and miscoordination abounds. This raises questions about the extent to which the effectiveness of focal points based on label salience persists beyond the special case of symmetric games. The patterns of miscoordination we observe vary with the magnitude of payoff differences in intricate ways that suggest nonequilibrium accounts based on “level-k” thinking and “team reasoning.” (JEL C72, C92)