Indirect Reciprocity for Mitigating Intergroup Hostility: A Vignette Experiment and an Agent-based Model on Intergroup Relations between Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese

Abstract

Social scientists have proposed myriad solutions for mitigating intergroup conflicts. While the literature, such as studies on intergroup contact theory, focuses on intergroup relations, we argue that it is important not to ignore intragroup relations that may benefit or undermine the improvement of intergroup relations at the same time. In this paper, we investigate a typology of eight mechanisms for the behavior of intergroup and intragroup relations. Specifically, we focused on interactions in a triad consisting of an actor paired up with two alters—one ingroup and one outgroup. The triadic network enabled us to theorize and test how intergroup and intragroup relations coevolve. We conducted a vignette experiment to test the intergroup relationship between mainland Chinese and Taiwanese. We found strong evidence for one mechanism for improving intergroup hostility: indirect reciprocity—people rewarded the outgroup for behaving friendly to their ingroup peers. Using agent-based simulation, we predicted that the triadic effect found in the one-shot experiment can continuously improve and stabilize intergroup relations over time.

Keywords

intergroup conflict intragroup relation triad indirect reciprocity construal-level theory vignette experiment agent-based model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguiar

Parravano

2015. “Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 59 (1): 29–50.

Allport

1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bar-Tal, D. 2000. “From Intractable Conflict through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation: Psychological Analysis.” Political Psychology 21 (2): 351–65.

Barclay

Willer

. 2007. “Partner Choice Creates Competitive Altruism in Humans.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274 (1610): 749–53.

Barkow

J. H.

Cosmides

Tooby

, Eds. 1995. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bernhard

Fischbacher

Fehr

. 2006. “Parochial Altruism in Humans.” Nature 442:912–15.

Bowles

2009. “Did Warfare Among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherers Affect the Evolution of Human Social Behaviors?” Science 324 (5932): 1293–1298.

Boyd

Richerson

P. J.

. 1988. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brewer

M. B.

Lee

Miller

. 1987. “Social Identity and Social Distance among Hong Kong Schoolchildren.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13:156–65.

10.

Brown

Pehrson

. 2019. Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Cartwright

Harary

. 1956. “Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider’s Theory.” Psychological Review 63:277–92.

12.

Chiang

Y.-S.

Tao

. 2019. “Structural Balance across the Strait: A Behavioral Experiment on the Transition of Positive and Negative Intergroup Relationships in Mainland China and Taiwan.” Social Networks 56:1–9.

13.

Chiang

Y. S.

C. I.

. 2015. “Social Influence and the Adaptation of Parochial Altruism: A Dictator-game Experiment on Children and Adolescents Under Peer Influence.” Evolution and Human Behavior 36:430–37.

14.

Choi

D. D.

Poertner

Sambanis

. 2019. “Parochialism, Social Norms, and Discrimination against Immigrants.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116:16274–79.

15.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

. 2004. “Social Influence: Conformity and Compliance.” Annual Review of Psychology 55 (1): 591–621.

16.

Cikara

Paluck

E. L.

. 2013. “When Going along Gets You Nowhere and the Upside of Conflict Behaviors.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7:559–71.

17.

De Dreu

C. K.

Greer

L. L.

Handgraaf

M. J. J.

Shalvi

Van Kleef

G. A.

Baas

Ten Velden

F. S.

Van Dijk

Feith

S. W. W.

2010. “The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans.” Science 328 (5984): 1408–11.

18.

De Marchi

Page

S. E.

. 2014. “Agent-based Models.” Annual Review of Political Science 17:1–20.

19.

Ditlmann

R. K.

Samii

. 2016. “Can Intergroup Contact Affect Ingroup Dynamics? Insights from a Field Study with Jewish and Arab-Palestinian Youth in Israel.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 22 (4): 380–92.

20.

Eyal

Liberman

Trope

. 2008. “Judging Near and Distant Virtue and Vice.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (4): 1204–09.

21.

Fehr

Bernhard

Rockenbach

. 2008. “Egalitarianism in Young Children.” Nature 454:1079–80.

22.

Fisher

R. J.

1983. “Third Party Consultation as a Method of Intergroup Conflict Resolution: A Review of Studies.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (2): 301–34.

23.

Foddy

Platow

M. J.

Yamagishi

. 2009. “Group-based Trust in Strangers: The Role of Stereotypes and Expectations.” Psychological Science 20:419–22.

24.

Graham

Weiner

Zucker

G. S.

. 1997. “An Attributional Analysis of Punishment Goals and Public Reactions to O J. Simpson.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23:331–46.

25.

Hameiri

Porat

Bar-Tal

Bieler

Halperin

. 2014. “Paradoxical Thinking as a New Avenue of Intervention to Promote Peace.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:10996–1001.

26.

Harrison

Sciberras

James

. 2011. “Strength of Social Tie Predicts Cooperative Investment in a Human Social Network.” PLoS One 6 (3): e18338.

27.

Heider

1946. “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization.” Journal of Psychology 21:107–12.

28.

Hernandez

2017. “To Inspire Young Communists, China Turns to ‘Red Army’ Schools.” The New York Times. Accessed October 15, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com.

29.

M. S.

2018. “From Mobilization to Improvisation: The Lessons from Taiwan’s 2014 Sunflower Movement.” Social Movement Studies 17 (2): 189–202.

30.

Krackhardt

Kilduff

. 2002. “Structure, Culture and Simmelian Ties in Entrepreneurial Firms.” Social Networks 24 (3): 279–90.

31.

Lamba

2014. “Social Learning in Cooperative Dilemmas.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20140417.

32.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Leyens

J. P.

. 1988. “The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of Judgments towards Ingroup Members as a Function of Group Identification.” European Journal of Social Psychology 18 (1): 1–16.

33.

Marsh

Scheele

Feinstein

J. S.

Gerhardt

Strang

Maier

Hurlemann

. 2017. “Oxytocin-enforced Norm Compliance Reduces Xenophobic Outgroup Rejection.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (35): 9314–19.

34.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27 (1): 415–44.

35.

Milinski

Semmann

Krambeck

. 2002. “Donors to Charity Gain in Both Indirect Reciprocity and Political Reputation.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 269 (1494): 881–83.

36.

Mozur

2016. “For Taiwan, a Dilemma Over Identity, Economy and China.” The New York Times. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com.

37.

Newman

M. E.

Park

. 2003. “Why Social Networks are Different from Other Types of Networks.” Physical Review E 68 (3): 036122.

38.

Nowak

M. A.

Sigmund

. 1998. “Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring.” Nature 393:573–77.

39.

Papachristos

A. V.

2009. “Murder by Structure: Dominance Relations and the Social Structure of Gang Homicide.” American Journal of Sociology 115 (1): 74–128.

40.

Pettigrew

T. F.

1998. “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology 49 (1): 65–85.

41.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

. 2006. “A Meta-analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5): 751–83.

42.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

. 2013. “Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Recent Meta-analytic Findings.” In Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, edited by Oskamp

Stuart

, 103–24. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

43.

Samii

2013. “Perils or Promise of Ethnic Integration? Evidence from a Hard Case in Burundi.” American Political Science Review 107 (3): 558–73.

44.

Schiller

Baumgartner

Knoch

. 2014. “Intergroup Bias in Third-party Punishment Stems from Both Ingroup Favoritism and Outgroup Discrimination.” Evolution and Human Behavior 35 (3): 169–75.

45.

Selten

1967. “Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperimentes.” In Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung, edited by Sauermann

, 136–68. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

46.

Simmel

1950. “Individual and Society in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Views of Life.” The Sociology of Georg Simmel 58–115.

47.

Stovel

Shaw

. 2012. “Brokerage.” Annual Review of Sociology 38:139–58.

48.

Trope

Liberman

. 2010. “Construal-level Theory of Psychological Distance.” Psychological Review 117 (2): 440–63.

49.

Wang

T. Y.

2019. “Generations, Political Attitudes and Voting Behavior in Taiwan and Hong Kong.” Electoral Studies 58:80–83.

50.

Wedekind

Milinski

. 2000. “Cooperation through Image Scoring in Humans.” Science 288:850–52.

51.

Wölfer

Hewstone

. 2017. “Beyond the Dyadic Perspective: 10 Reasons for Using Social Network Analysis in Intergroup Contact Research.” British Journal of Social Psychology 56 (3): 609–17.

52.

Wright

S. C.

Aron

McLaughlin-Volpe

Ropp

S. A.

. 1997. “The Extended Contact Effect: Knowledge of Cross-group Friendships and Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1): 73–90.

53.

Zagefka

2019. “Triadic Intergroup Relations: Studying Situations with an Observer, an Actor, and a Recipient of Behavior.” Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology 3 (1): 62–74.

54.

Zagefka

Noor

Brown

de Moura

G. R.

Hopthrow

. 2011. “Donating to Disaster Victims: Responses to Natural and Humanly Caused Events.” European Journal of Social Psychology 41 (3): 353–63.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.04 MB

0.55 MB