Prior research on the participation in intergroup conflict suggests that prosocial individuals are parochial cooperators who escalate intergroup conflict. However, evidence on this conjecture is currently inconclusive. We provide a critical empirical test of the link between individuals’ prosocial tendencies (operationalized via Social Value Orientation [SVO] and trait Honesty-Humility) and cooperative behavior in different intergroup conflict games (i.e., variants of the Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma). Contradicting the view that prosocial individuals fuel intergroup conflict, both trait dimensions were positively associated with cooperative behavior toward others in general, irrespective of others’ group membership. That is, individuals with a prosocial SVO or high levels of Honesty-Humility, respectively, refrained from harming out-group members and, if possible, even benefited them. Overall, the results imply that the cooperativeness of prosocial individuals is universal in nature, thus exceeding the in-group boundary. Prosocial individuals are hence willing to foster intergroup cooperation rather than fueling intergroup conflict.
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. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.001
AckermannK. A.FleißJ.MurphyR. O. (2016). Reciprocity as an individual difference. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60, 340–367. doi:10.1177/0022002714541854
4.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166. doi:10.1177/1088868306294907
6.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. doi:10.1080/00223890902935878
7.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.De VriesR. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139–152. doi:10.1177/1088868314523838
8.
BallietD.ParksC. D.JoiremanJ. A. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 533–547. doi:10.1177/1368430209105040
9.
BellE. C.BlakeneyR. N. (1977). Personality correlates of conflict resolution modes. Human Relations, 30, 849–857. doi:10.1177/001872677703000907
10.
BogaertS.BooneC.DeclerckC. H. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 453–480. doi:10.1348/014466607X244970
11.
BöhmR.RothermundK.KirchkampO. (2013). Social categorization and group-motivated interindividual–intergroup discontinuity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 40–49. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1923
12.
BöhmR.RuschH.GürerkÖ. (2016). What makes people go to war? Defensive intentions motivate retaliatory and preemptive intergroup aggression. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 29–34. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.06.005
13.
BornsteinG. (1992). Group decision and individual choice in intergroup competition for public goods. In LiebrandW. B. G.MessickD. M.WilkeH. A. M. (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 247–263). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
14.
BornsteinG.Ben-YossefM. (1994). Cooperation in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 52–67. doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1003
15.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126
16.
CampbellW. K.BushC. P.BrunellA. B.SheltonJ. (2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1358–1368. doi:10.1177/0146167205274855
17.
ChoiJ.-K.BowlesS. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318, 636–640. doi:10.1126/science.1144237
18.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
20.
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. doi:10.1177/1368430210377332
21.
De DreuC. K. W.BallietD.HalevyN. (2014). Parochial cooperation in humans: Forms and functions of self-sacrifice in intergroup conflict. In ElliotA. (Ed.), Advances in motivational science (pp. 1–47). New York, NY: Elsevier.
22.
De DreuC. K. W.CarnevaleP. J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. In ZannaM. P.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 235–291). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01004-9
23.
De DreuC. K. W.DusselB.Ten Velden, F. S. (2015). In intergroup conflict, self-sacrifice is stronger among pro-social individuals and parochial altruism emerges specially among cognitively taxed individuals. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00572
24.
De DreuC. K. W.GreerL. L.HandgraafM. J. J.ShalviS.Van KleefG. A.BaasM.…FeithS. W. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328, 1408–1411. doi:10.1126/science.1189047
25.
DoosjeB.EllemersN.SpearsR. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1018
26.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
FryD. P.SöderbergP. (2013). Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science, 341, 270–273. doi:10.1126/science.1235675
29.
FurnhamA.RichardsS. C.PaulhusD. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199–216. doi:10.1111/spc3.12018
30.
GreinerB. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0—A guide for the organization of experiments in economics (Vol. 10). Working paper series in economics. Cologne, Germany: University of Cologne.
31.
HalevyN.BornsteinG.SagivL. (2008). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19, 405–411. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.x
32.
HalevyN.WeiselO.BornsteinG. (2012). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” in repeated interaction between groups. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 188–195. doi:10.1002/bdm.726
33.
HilbigB. E.GlöcknerA.ZettlerI. (2014). Personality and pro-social behavior: Linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 529–539. doi:10.1037/a0036074
34.
HilbigB. E.ThielmannI.HeppJ.KleinS. A.ZettlerI. (2015). From personality to altruistic behavior (and back): Evidence from a double-blind dictator game. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 46–50. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.12.004
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
37.
McClintockC. G. (1972). Social motivation: A set of propositions. Behavioral Science, 17, 438–455. doi:10.1002/bs.3830170505
38.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s “adequacy taxonomy”: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.710
39.
MoshagenM.HilbigB. E.ZettlerI. (2014). Faktorstruktur, psychometrische Eigenschaften und Messinvarianz der deutschen Version des 60-Item HEXACO Persönlichkeitsinventars [Factor structure, psychometric properties, and measurement invariance of the German-language version of the 60-item HEXACO personality inventory]. Diagnostica, 60, 86–97.
40.
MurphyR. O.AckermannK. A. (2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 13–41. doi:10.1177/1088868313501745
41.
MurphyR. O.AckermannK. A.HandgraafM. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771–781.
42.
OckenfelsA.WernerP. (2014). Beliefs and ingroup favoritism. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 453–462. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2013.12.003
43.
PaulhusD. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 421–426. doi:10.1177/0963721414547737
44.
PulfordB. D.KrockowE. M.ColmanA. M.LawrenceC. L. (2016). Social value induction and cooperation in the centipede game. PLoS ONE, 11, e0152352. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152352
45.
RuschH. (2014). The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: A review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1539
46.
SaeriA. K.IyerA.LouisW. R. (2015). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict outsiders’ responses to an external group conflict: Implications for identification, anger, and collective action. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 15, 303–332. doi:10.1111/asap.12081
47.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In JostJ. T.SidaniusJ.JostJ. T.SidaniusJ. (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 315–332). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
48.
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
49.
ThielmannI.BöhmR.HilbigB. E. (2015). Different games for different motives: Comment on Haesevoets, Folmer, and Van Hiel (2015). European Journal of Personality, 29, 506–508. doi:10.1002/per.2007
50.
ThielmannI.HilbigB. E. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 61–65. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006
51.
ThielmannI.HilbigB. E. (2015). The traits one can trust: Dissecting reciprocity and kindness as determinants of trustworthy behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1523–1536. doi:10.1177/0146167215600530
52.
ThielmannI.HilbigB. E.ZettlerI.MoshagenM. (in press). On measuring the sixth basic personality dimension: A comparison between HEXACO Honesty-Humility and Big Six Honesty-Propriety. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191116638411
53.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337
54.
Van LangeP. A. M.KuhlmanD. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 126–141. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.126
55.
WeiselO. (2015). Negative and positive externalities in intergroup conflict: Exposure to the opportunity to help the outgroup reduces the inclination to harm it. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1594. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01594
56.
WeiselO.BöhmR. (2015). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 110–120. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.008
57.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E.HeydaschT. (2013). Two sides of one coin: Honesty-Humility and situational factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 286–295. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.012
58.
ZhaoK.SmillieL. D. (2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 277–302. doi:10.1177/1088868314553709
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.
