Parochial altruism: does it explain modern human group psychology?

Current Opinion in Psychology

Volumn 7, Issue , 2016, Pages 39-43

  Yamagishi, Toshio ^a   Mifune, Nobuhiro ^b  

^a HITOTSUBASHI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KOCHI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008339369     PISSN: 2352250X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.015     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. 1 Berkowitz, L., Aggression: Its Causes Consequences, and Control. 1993, McGraw-Hill.
2. 2 Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P., Flament, C., Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur J Soc Psychol 1 (1971), 149–178.
3. 3 Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Worchel, S, Austin, W., (eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relation, 1986, Nelson Hall, 7–24.
4. 4 Bowles, S., Gintis, H., Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. 2011, Princeton University Press.
5. 5 Choi, J.-K., Bowles, S., The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science 318 (2007), 636–640.
6. 6 Bowles, S., Being human: conflict: Altruism's midwife. Nature 456 (2008), 326–327.
7. 7 Trivers, R.L., The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46 (1971), 35–57.
8. 8 Elliott, S., Wilson, D.S., Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. 1998, Harvard University Press.
9. 9 Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Richerson, P.J., The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 (2003), 3531–3535.
10. 10 Bowles, S., Choi, J.-K., Hopfensitz, A., The coevolution of individual behaviors and group level institutions. J Theor Biol 223 (2003), 135–147.
11. 11 Henrich, J., Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. J Econ Behav Organ 53 (2003), 3–35.
12. 12 Gintis, H., Strong reciprocity and human sociality. J Theor Biol 206 (2000), 169–179.
13. 13 Nowak, M.A., Sigmund, K., Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393 (1998), 573–577.
14. 14 Ohtsuki, H., Iwasa, Y., The leading eight: social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity. J Theor Biol 239 (2006), 435–444.
15. 15 Brewer, M.B., In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychol Bull 86 (1979), 307–324.
16. 16 Karp, D., Jin, N., Shinotsuka, H., Yamagishi, T., Raising the minimum in the minimal group paradigm. Jpn J Exp Soc Psychol 32 (1993), 231–240.
17. 17 Rabbie, J.M., Schot, J.C., Visser, L., Social identity theory: a conceptual critique from the perspective of a behavioral interaction model. Eur J Soc Psychol 19 (1989), 171–202.
18. 18 Jin, N., Yamagishi, T., Kiyonari, T., Bilateral dependency and the minimal group paradigm. Jpn J Psychol 67 (1996), 77–85 (in Japanese).
19. 19 Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., Kiyonari, T., Bounded generalized reciprocity: ingroup favoritism and ingroup boasting. Adv Group Process 16 (1999), 161–197.
20. 20 Kramer, R.M., Brewer, M.B., Effect of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. J Pers Soc Psychol 46 (1984), 1044–1057.
21. 21 Brewer, M.B., Kramer, R.M., Choice behavior in social dilemmas: effect of social identity, group size, and decision framing. J Pers Soc Psychol 50 (1986), 593–604.
22. 22 Wit, A.P., Wilke, H.A., The effect of social categorization on cooperation in three types of social dilemmas. J Econ Psychol 13 (1992), 135–151.
23. 23 Ahmed, A.M., Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias. J Econ Psychol 28 (2007), 324–337.
24. 24 Jin, N., Yamagishi, T., Group heuristics in social dilemma. Jpn J Soc Psychol 12 (1997), 190–198 (in Japanese).
25. 25 Kiyonari, T., Expectations of a generalized exchange system and ingroup favoritism: an experimental study of bounded reciprocity. Jpn J Psychol 73 (2002), 1–9 (in Japanese).
26. 26 Yamagishi, T., The social exchange heuristic: a psychological mechanism that makes a system of generalized exchange self-sustaining. Radford, M.H.B., Ohnuma, S, Yamagishi, T., (eds.) Cultural and Ecological Foundations of the Mind, 2007, Hokkaido University Press, 11–37.
27. 27 Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Social exchange and solidarity: in-group love or out-group hate?. Evol Hum Behav 30 (2009), 229–237.
28. 28 Yamagishi, T., Makimura, Y., Foddy, M., Matsuda, M., Kiyonari, T., Platow, M., Comparisons of Australians and Japanese on group-based cooperation. Asian J Soc Psychol 8 (2005), 173–190.
29. 29 Foddy, M., Platow, M., Yamagishi, T., Group-based trust in strangers: the roles of stereotypes and expectations. Psychol Sci 20 (2009), 419–422.
30. 30 Platow, M.J., Foddy, M., Yamagishi, T., Lim, L., Chow, A., Two experimental tests of trust in in-group strangers: the moderating role of common knowledge of group membership. Eur J Soc Psychol 42 (2012), 30–35.
31. 31•• Balliet, D., Wu, J., De Dreu, C.K.W., In-group favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 140 (2014), 1556–1581 Results of a series of meta-analyses of in-group bias in cooperation, the authors found a large difference in effect size at the level of in-group bias between situations involving interdependence (such as the prisoner's dilemma game) and those involving no interdependence (such as the dictator game). It was further found that in-group bias was much stronger in situations where commonality of knowledge about group membership prevailed than in situations where group membership was known only to the player. These findings were taken as a support for the hypothesis that in-group cooperation is mostly a product of the bounded generalized (i.e., indirect) reciprocity.
32. 32 Frank, R.H., Passions within Reason: The Strategic Role of Emotions. 1988, W.W. Norton.
33. 33 Nisbett, R.E., Cohen, D., Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. 1996, Westview Press.
34. 34 Gould, R.V., Revenge as sanction and solidarity display: an analysis of vendettas in nineteenth-century Corsica. Am Sociol Rev 65 (2000), 682–704.
35. 35 Greif, A., The birth of impersonal exchange: the community responsibility system and impartial justice. J Econ Perspect 20 (2006), 221–236.
36. 36 Mummendey, A., Otten, S., Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 9 (1998), 107–143.
37. 37 Buhl, T., Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination: meta-analytical evidence. Group Process Intergroup Relat 2 (1999), 51–58.
38. 38 Gardham, K., Brown, R., Two forms of intergroup discrimination with positive and negative outcomes: explaining the positive-negative asymmetry effect. Br J Soc Psychol 40 (2001), 23–34.
39. 39 Hodson, G., Dovidio, J.F., Esses, V.M., Ingroup identification as a moderator of positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. Eur J Soc Psychol 33 (2003), 215–233.
40. 40• Simunovic, D., Mifune, N., Yamagishi, T., Preemptive strike: an experimental study of fear-based aggression. J Exp Soc Psychol 49 (2013), 1120–1123 The result of a preemptive strike game with minimal groups indicate that mere presence of a potential threat of attack is sufficient to lead a significant fraction of participants to engage in preemptive attacks toward potential threats and that the minimal group identity of the other player does not have any effect on the frequency of the attack option.
41. 41 Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., Sagiv, L., ‘In-group love’ and ‘out-group hate’ as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict. Psychol Sci 19 (2008), 405–411.
42. 42 De Dreu, C.K.W., Social value orientation moderates ingroup love but not outgroup hate in competitive intergroup conflict. Group Process Intergroup Relat 13 (2010), 701–713.
43. 43 De Dreu, C.K.W., Greer, L.L., Handgraaf, M.J.J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G.A., Baas, M., Ten Velden, F.S., Van Dijk, E., Feith, S.W.W., The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science 328 (2010), 1408–1411.
44. 44 Halevy, N., Chou, E.Y., Cohen, T.R., Bornstein, G., Relative deprivation and intergroup competition. Group Process Intergroup Relat 13 (2010), 685–700.
45. 45 Halevy, N., Weisel, O., Bornstein, G., ‘In-group love’ and ‘out-group hate’ in repeated interaction between groups. J Behav Decis Mak 25 (2012), 188–195.
46. 46• Weisel, O., Böhm, R., ‘Ingroup love’ and ‘outgroup hate’ in intergroup conflict between natural groups. J Exp Soc Psychol 60 (2015), 110–120, 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.008 Using two versions (positive and negative) of the IPG-MG, the authors showed that out-group aggression is more prevalent when it takes the form of avoiding giving benefits to the out-group than when it takes the form of reducing benefits that the out-group receives. They also demonstrated that comparing the level of inter-group enmity mattered only in the positive version in which out-group aggression took the form of avoiding benefits.
47. 47• Cacault, M.P., Goette, L., Lalive, R., Thoenig, M., Do we harm others even if we don't need to?. Front Psychol, 6, 2015, 7292, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00729 Using a revised version of IPD-MD, in which the target group of inter-group aggression had no option to retaliate, the authors found a higher level of out-group-harming than observed in earlier studies using the original IPD-MD.
48. 48• De Dreu, C.K.W., Dussel, D.B., Ten Velden, F.S., In intergroup conflict, self-sacrifice is stronger among pro-social individuals, and parochial altruism emerges especially among cognitively taxed individuals. Front Psychol, 6, 2015, 572, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00572 The level of cognitive load (high versus low) was manipulated between IPD-MD players. The choice of c (see the text: simultaneous promotion of the in-group benefit and reduction in the out-group benefit) was higher in the high cognitive load condition than in the low cognitive load condition, whereas the choice of b (promotion of the in-group benefit without any consequences on the out-group benefit) was not affected by this manipulation. Players’ pro-social SVO promoted the choice of but not of b.
49. 49 Diekhof, E.K., Wittmer, S., Reimers, L., Does competition really bring out the worst? Testosterone, social distance and inter-male competition shape parochial altruism in human males. PLOS ONE, 9, 2014, e98977, 10.1371/journal.pone.0098977.
50. 50 Reimers, L., Diekhof, E.K., Testosterone is associated with cooperation during intergroup competition by enhancing parochial altruism. Front Neurosci, 9, 2015, 183, 10.3389/fnins.2015.00183.
51. 51 The White House National Security Strategy of the United States. 2002, U.S. State Department, Washington, DC http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.