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.
AalderingH.BöhmR. (2020). Parochial versus universal cooperation: Introducing a novel economic game of within- and between-group interaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619841627
2.
AalderingH.GreerL. L.Van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2013). Interest (mis)alignments in representative negotiations: Do pro-social agents fuel or reduce inter-group conflict?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.001
AhnT. K.OstromE.SchmidtD.ShuppR.WalkerJ. (2001). Cooperation in PD games: Fear, greed, and history of play. Public Choice, 106, 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005219123532
5.
AndersonL. R.MellorJ. M.MilyoJ. (2008). Inequality and public good provision: An experimental analysis. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.073
6.
AquinoK.SteiselV.KayA. (1992). The effects of resource distribution, voice, and decision framing on the provision of public goods. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36, 665–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002792036004003
7.
BallietD.ParksC.JoiremanJ. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040
BaronJ. (2001). Confusion of group interest and self-interest in parochial cooperation on behalf of a group. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002701045003002
10.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effect models using Eigen and S4. (R package version 1.1-7). R. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
11.
BatsonC.PateS.LawlessH.SparkmanP. (1979). Helping under conditions of common threat: Increased “we-feeling” or ensuring reciprocity. Social Psychology, 42, 10–414. https://doi.org/DOI:10.2307/3033812
12.
BauerM.BlattmanC.ChytilováJ.HenrichJ. (2016). Can war foster cooperation?The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 249–274. https://doi.org/doi=10.1257/jep.30.3.249
13.
BauerM.CassarA.ChytilováJ.HenrichJ. (2014). War’s enduring effects on the development of egalitarian motivations and in-group biases. Psychological Science, 25, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613493444
14.
BeckerC.GalloroV. (2001). An overwhelming response. Within hours of the disaster, medical supplies were on their way to N.Y., D.C. Modern Healthcare, 31, 18–19.
BöhmR.RockenbachB. (2013). The inter-group comparison–intra-group cooperation hypothesis: Comparisons between groups increase efficiency in public goods provision. PloS One, 8, e56152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056152
BornsteinG.Ben-YossefM. (1994). Cooperation in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1003
20.
BrewerM. B.KramerR. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543
21.
BuckleyE.CrosonR. (2006). Income and wealth heterogeneity in the voluntary provision of linear public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.06.002
22.
CampbellD. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283–311). https://doi.org/BF683N4V.13
23.
ChanK. S.MestelmanS.MoirR.MullerR. A. (1996). The voluntary provision of public goods under varying income distributions. The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 29, 54–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/136151
24.
ChanK. S.MestelmanS.MoirR.MullerR. A. (1999). Heterogeneity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Experimental Economics, 2, 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009984414401
25.
CherryT.KrollS.ShogrenJ. (2005). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: Evidence from the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior, 57, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2003.11.010
De DreuC. K. W. (2010). Social value orientation moderates ingroup love but not outgroup hate in competitive intergroup conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210377332
30.
De DreuC. K. W.BallietD.HalevyN. (2014). Parochial cooperation in humans: Forms and functions of self-sacrifice in intergroup conflict. Advances in Motivation Science, 1, 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2014.08.001
FisherJ.IsaacR. M.SchatzbergJ. W.WalkerJ. M. (1995). Heterogenous demand for public goods: Behavior in the voluntary contributions mechanism. Public Choice, 85, 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048198
33.
GlynnS. A.BuschM. P.SchreiberG. B.MurphyE. L.WrightD. J.TuY.KleinmanS. H. (2003). Effect of a national disaster on blood supply and safety: The September 11 experience. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 2246–2253. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.17.2246
34.
GreinerB. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-015-0004-4
35.
HalevyN.BornsteinG.SagivL. (2008). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm: Research article. Psychological Science, 19, 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.x
36.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.MurnighanJ. K. (2012). Mind games: The mental representation of conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025389
37.
HalevyN.KatzJ. J. (2013). Conflict templates: Thinking through interdependence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412474296
38.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford. https://doi.org/978-1-60918-230-4
IsaacM.WalkerJ. (1988). Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contributions mechanism. The Quartely Journal Of Economics, 103, 179–199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1882648
42.
KeeganJ. (2011). The second world war. Random House.
43.
KelleyH. H.HolmesJ. G.KerrN. L.ReisH. T.RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499845
44.
KelleyH. H.ThibautJ. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.
KramerR. M.BrewerM. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.1044
47.
LedyardJ. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In RothA.KagelJ. (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton University Press.
48.
MarwellG.AmesR. E. (1979). Experiments on the provision of public goods. I. Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1335–1360. https://doi.org/10.1086/226937
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22, 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
51.
MurphyR. O.AckermannK. A.HandgraafM. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771–781.
52.
NashJ. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54, 286–295.
53.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
54.
OskampS. (1971). Effects of programmed strategies on cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and other mixed-motive games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 15, 225–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277101500207
55.
OstromE.GardnerR.WalkerJ. (1994). Rules, games, and common pool resource problems. The University of Michigan Press.
56.
ParkerM. T.Janoff-BulmanR. (2013). Lessons from morality-based social identity: The power of outgroup “hate,” not just ingroup “love”. Social Justice Research, 26, 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6
57.
Pedro DalB. O. (2005). Cooperation under the shadow of the future: Experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games. American Economic Review, 95, 1591–1604. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805775014434
58.
PlümperT.NeumayerE. (2006). The unequal burden of war: The effect of armed conflict on the gender gap in life expectancy. International Organization, 60, 723–754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818306060231
59.
PoundstoneW. (1993). Prisoner’s Dilemma/John von Neumann, game theory and the puzzle of the bomb. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 1891–1892. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.12.1891-a
60.
ProbstT. M.CarnevaleP. J.TriandisH. C. (1999). Cultural values in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2822
RomanoA.BallietD.YamagishiT.LiuJ. H. (2017). Parochial trust and cooperation across 17 societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 12702–127707. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712921114
64.
RosenbaumS. M.BillingerS.TwerefouD. K.IsolaW. A. (2016). Income inequality and cooperative propensities in developing economies: Summarizing the preliminary experimental evidence. International Journal of Social Economics, 43, 1460–1480. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-04-2015-0109
65.
RusbultC. E.KumashiroM.CoolsenM. K.KirchnerJ. L. (2004). Interdependence, closeness, and relationships. In MashekD. J.AronA. P. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ShavittS.LalwaniA. K.ZhangJ.TorelliC. J. (2006). The horizontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_3
69.
SingelisT. M.TriandisH. C.BhawukD. P. S.GelfandM. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302
70.
SkyrmsB. (2001). The stag hunt. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 75, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3218711
71.
StageJ.UweraC. (2018). Social cohesion in Rwanda: Results from a public good experiment. Development Policy Review, 36, 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12291
ThielmannI.BöhmR. (2016). Who does (not) participate in intergroup conflict?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 778–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616660160
Van LangeP. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337
78.
Van LangeP. A. M.JoiremanJ.ParksC. D.Van DijkE. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003
79.
Van LangeP. A. M.KlapwijkA.van MunsterL. M. (2011). How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 857–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211402102
80.
Van LangeP. A. M.RusbultC. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 2 (pp. 251–272). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n39
81.
VoorsM. J.NillesenE. E. M.VerwimpP.BulteE. H.LensinkR.Van SoestD. P. (2012). Violent conflict and behavior: A field experiment in Burundi. American Economic Review, 102, 941–964. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.2.941
82.
WeiselO.BöhmR. (2015). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.008
83.
WeiselO.ZultanR. (2016). Social motives in intergroup conflict: Group identity and perceived target of threat. European Economic Review, 90, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.01.004
84.
WildschutT.InskoC. A.PinterB. (2003). The perception of outgroup threat: Content and activation of the outgroup schema. In YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 335–359). Psychology Press.
85.
YamagishiT.JinN.KiyonariT. (1999). Bounded generalized reciprocity: Ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism. Advances in Group Processes, 16, 161–197.
86.
YamagishiT.KiyonariT. (2000). The group as the container of generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695887
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.
