Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-2
Indirect Reciprocity for Mitigating Intergroup Hostility: A Vignette Experiment and an Agent-based Model on Intergroup Relations between Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese
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.
AguiarF.ParravanoA.2015. “Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks.” Journal of Conflict Resolution59 (1): 29–50.
2.
AllportW.1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Bar-Tal, D. 2000. “From Intractable Conflict through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation: Psychological Analysis.” Political Psychology21 (2): 351–65.
4.
BarclayP.WillerR.. 2007. “Partner Choice Creates Competitive Altruism in Humans.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences274 (1610): 749–53.
5.
BarkowJ. H.CosmidesL.ToobyJ., Eds. 1995. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
BernhardH.FischbacherU.FehrE.. 2006. “Parochial Altruism in Humans.” Nature442:912–15.
7.
BowlesS.2009. “Did Warfare Among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherers Affect the Evolution of Human Social Behaviors?” Science324 (5932): 1293–1298.
8.
BoydR.RichersonP. J.. 1988. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BrewerM. B.HoH.LeeJ.MillerN.. 1987. “Social Identity and Social Distance among Hong Kong Schoolchildren.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin13:156–65.
10.
BrownR.PehrsonS.. 2019. Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
CartwrightD.HararyF.. 1956. “Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider’s Theory.” Psychological Review63:277–92.
12.
ChiangY.-S.TaoL.. 2019. “Structural Balance across the Strait: A Behavioral Experiment on the Transition of Positive and Negative Intergroup Relationships in Mainland China and Taiwan.” Social Networks56:1–9.
13.
ChiangY. S.WuC. I.. 2015. “Social Influence and the Adaptation of Parochial Altruism: A Dictator-game Experiment on Children and Adolescents Under Peer Influence.” Evolution and Human Behavior36:430–37.
14.
ChoiD. D.PoertnerM.SambanisN.. 2019. “Parochialism, Social Norms, and Discrimination against Immigrants.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116:16274–79.
15.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.. 2004. “Social Influence: Conformity and Compliance.” Annual Review of Psychology55 (1): 591–621.
16.
CikaraM.PaluckE. L.. 2013. “When Going along Gets You Nowhere and the Upside of Conflict Behaviors.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass7:559–71.
17.
De DreuC. K.GreerL. L.HandgraafM. J. J.ShalviS.Van KleefG. A.BaasM.Ten VeldenF. S.Van DijkE.FeithS. W. W.2010. “The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans.” Science328 (5984): 1408–11.
18.
De MarchiS.PageS. E.. 2014. “Agent-based Models.” Annual Review of Political Science17:1–20.
19.
DitlmannR. K.SamiiC.. 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 Psychology22 (4): 380–92.
20.
EyalT.LibermanN.TropeY.. 2008. “Judging Near and Distant Virtue and Vice.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology44 (4): 1204–09.
21.
FehrE.BernhardH.RockenbachB.. 2008. “Egalitarianism in Young Children.” Nature454:1079–80.
22.
FisherR. J.1983. “Third Party Consultation as a Method of Intergroup Conflict Resolution: A Review of Studies.” Journal of Conflict Resolution27 (2): 301–34.
23.
FoddyM.PlatowM. J.YamagishiT.. 2009. “Group-based Trust in Strangers: The Role of Stereotypes and Expectations.” Psychological Science20:419–22.
24.
GrahamS.WeinerB.ZuckerG. S.. 1997. “An Attributional Analysis of Punishment Goals and Public Reactions to O J. Simpson.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin23:331–46.
25.
HameiriB.PoratR.Bar-TalD.BielerA.HalperinE.. 2014. “Paradoxical Thinking as a New Avenue of Intervention to Promote Peace.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America111:10996–1001.
26.
HarrisonF.SciberrasJ.JamesR.. 2011. “Strength of Social Tie Predicts Cooperative Investment in a Human Social Network.” PLoS One6 (3): e18338.
27.
HeiderF.1946. “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization.” Journal of Psychology21:107–12.
28.
HernandezJ.2017. “To Inspire Young Communists, China Turns to ‘Red Army’ Schools.” The New York Times. Accessed October 15, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com.
29.
HoM. S.2018. “From Mobilization to Improvisation: The Lessons from Taiwan’s 2014 Sunflower Movement.” Social Movement Studies17 (2): 189–202.
30.
KrackhardtD.KilduffM.. 2002. “Structure, Culture and Simmelian Ties in Entrepreneurial Firms.” Social Networks24 (3): 279–90.
31.
LambaS.2014. “Social Learning in Cooperative Dilemmas.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences281:20140417.
32.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y.LeyensJ. P.. 1988. “The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of Judgments towards Ingroup Members as a Function of Group Identification.” European Journal of Social Psychology18 (1): 1–16.
33.
MarshN.ScheeleD.FeinsteinJ. S.GerhardtH.StrangS.MaierW.HurlemannR.. 2017. “Oxytocin-enforced Norm Compliance Reduces Xenophobic Outgroup Rejection.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114 (35): 9314–19.
34.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M.. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology27 (1): 415–44.
35.
MilinskiM.SemmannD.KrambeckH.. 2002. “Donors to Charity Gain in Both Indirect Reciprocity and Political Reputation.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences269 (1494): 881–83.
36.
MozurP.2016. “For Taiwan, a Dilemma Over Identity, Economy and China.” The New York Times. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com.
37.
NewmanM. E.ParkJ.. 2003. “Why Social Networks are Different from Other Types of Networks.” Physical Review E68 (3): 036122.
38.
NowakM. A.SigmundK.. 1998. “Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring.” Nature393:573–77.
39.
PapachristosA. V.2009. “Murder by Structure: Dominance Relations and the Social Structure of Gang Homicide.” American Journal of Sociology115 (1): 74–128.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.. 2006. “A Meta-analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90 (5): 751–83.
42.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.. 2013. “Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Recent Meta-analytic Findings.” In Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, edited by OskampStuart, 103–24. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
43.
SamiiC.2013. “Perils or Promise of Ethnic Integration? Evidence from a Hard Case in Burundi.” American Political Science Review107 (3): 558–73.
44.
SchillerB.BaumgartnerT.KnochD.. 2014. “Intergroup Bias in Third-party Punishment Stems from Both Ingroup Favoritism and Outgroup Discrimination.” Evolution and Human Behavior35 (3): 169–75.
45.
SeltenR.1967. “Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperimentes.” In Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung, edited by SauermannH., 136–68. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
46.
SimmelG.1950. “Individual and Society in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Views of Life.” The Sociology of Georg Simmel58–115.
47.
StovelK.ShawL.. 2012. “Brokerage.” Annual Review of Sociology38:139–58.
48.
TropeY.LibermanN.. 2010. “Construal-level Theory of Psychological Distance.” Psychological Review117 (2): 440–63.
49.
WangT. Y.2019. “Generations, Political Attitudes and Voting Behavior in Taiwan and Hong Kong.” Electoral Studies58:80–83.
50.
WedekindC.MilinskiM.. 2000. “Cooperation through Image Scoring in Humans.” Science288:850–52.
51.
WölferR.HewstoneM.. 2017. “Beyond the Dyadic Perspective: 10 Reasons for Using Social Network Analysis in Intergroup Contact Research.” British Journal of Social Psychology56 (3): 609–17.
52.
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A.. 1997. “The Extended Contact Effect: Knowledge of Cross-group Friendships and Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73 (1): 73–90.
53.
ZagefkaH.2019. “Triadic Intergroup Relations: Studying Situations with an Observer, an Actor, and a Recipient of Behavior.” Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology3 (1): 62–74.
54.
ZagefkaH.NoorM.BrownR.de MouraG. R.HopthrowT.. 2011. “Donating to Disaster Victims: Responses to Natural and Humanly Caused Events.” European Journal of Social Psychology41 (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.
