We examine the possibility that self-interest, typically thought to undermine social welfare, might reduce in-group bias. We compared the dictator game (DG), where participants unilaterally divide money between themselves and a recipient, and the ultimatum game (UG), where the recipient can reject these offers. Unlike the DG, there is a self-interested motive for UG giving: If participants expect the rejection of unfair offers, they have a monetary incentive to be fair even to out-group members. Thus, we predicted substantial bias in the DG but little bias in the UG. We tested this hypothesis in two studies (N = 3,546) employing a 2 (in-group/out-group, based on abortion position) × 2 (DG/UG) design. We observed the predicted significant group by game interaction, such that the substantial in-group favoritism observed in the DG was almost entirely eliminated in the UG: Giving the recipient bargaining power reduced the premium offered to in-group members by 77.5%.
AbbinkK.DarzivjR.GilulajZ.GorenjH.IrlenbuscheB.KerenjA.…ZamirjS. (2000). The competitive ultimatum game: When competition matters, although it should not, and backward induction appears through the backdoor. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ma.huji.ac.il/∼zamir/papers/CugPap4.PDF
2.
BallietD.WuJ.De DreuC. K. W. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1556–1581. doi:10.1037/a0037737
3.
BearA.KaganA.RandD. G. (2017). Co-evolution of cooperation and cognition: The impact of imperfect deliberation and context-sensitive intuition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284, pii: 20162326. doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2326
4.
BearA.RandD. G. (2016). Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 936–941. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517780113
5.
BeckerG. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Ben-NerA.McCallB. P.StephaneM.WangH. (2009). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72, 153–170.
7.
BenozioA.DiesendruckG. (2015). Parochialism in preschool boys’ resource allocation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.12.002
8.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.
9.
BettencourtB.CharltonK.DorrN.HumeD. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520.
10.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34.
11.
CamererC.ThalerR. H. (1995). Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209–219.
12.
CikaraM.Van BavelJ. J. (2014). The neuroscience of intergroup relations an integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science9245–274
13.
DunhamY.ArecharA. A.RandD. G. (2016). The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in U.S. electoral politics. Retrieved fromhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=2846915
14.
DunhamY.EmoryJ. (2014). Of affect and ambiguity: The emergence of preference for arbitrary ingroups. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 81–98. doi: 10.1111/josi.12048
15.
EverettJ. A.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J. (2015). The influence of social preferences and reputational concerns on intergroup prosocial behavior in gains and losses contexts. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 150546. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150546
16.
FershtmanC.GneezyU. (2001). Discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 351–377.
17.
FiskeS. T. (2002). What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123–128.
18.
ForsytheR.HorowitzJ. L.SavinN. E.SeftonM. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.
19.
FowlerJ. H.KamC. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 69, 813–827.
20.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 61–89.
21.
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708.
22.
GreenwaldA. G.PoehlmanT. A.UhlmannE. L.BanajiM. R. (2009). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17.
23.
GüthW.SchmittbergerR.SchwarzeB. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 367–388.
24.
HandgraafM. J.Van DijkE.VermuntR. C.WilkeH. A.De DreuC. K. (2008). Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1136.
25.
HortonJ. J.RandD. G.ZeckhauserR. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 399–425.
26.
KubotaJ. T.LiJ.Bar-DavidE.BanajiM. R.PhelpsE. A. (2013). The price of racial bias intergroup negotiations in the ultimatum game. Psychological Science, 24, 2498–2504.
27.
LaneT. (2016). Discrimination in the laboratory: A meta-analysis of economics experiments. European Economic Review, 90, 375–402. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.11.011
28.
LiebeU.TuticA. (2010). Status groups and altruistic behavior in dictator games. Rationality and Society, 22, 353–380. doi:10.1177/1043463110366232
29.
LocksleyA.OrtizV.HepburnC. (1980). Social categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup discrimination effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 773.
30.
McAuliffeK.DunhamY. (2016). Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 371, 20150073. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0073
31.
McAuliffeK.DunhamY. (2017). Fairness overrides group bias in children’s second-party punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 485–494. doi:10.1037/xge0000244
32.
MendozaS. A.LaneS. P.AmodioD. M. (2014). For members only ingroup punishment of fairness norm violations in the ultimatum game. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 662–670.
33.
MilkmanK. L.AkinolaM.ChughD. (2012). Temporal distance and discrimination an audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23, 710–717.
34.
OswaldF. L.MitchellG.BlantonH.JaccardJ.TetlockP. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171–192.
35.
PaluckE. L. (2011). Peer pressure against prejudice: A high school field experiment examining social network change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 350–358.
36.
PaluckE. L.GreenD. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367.
37.
PedersenA.WalkerI.WiseM. (2005). “Talk does not cook rice”: Beyond antiracism rhetoric to strategies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20–31.
38.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2005). Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis: Its history and influence. On the Nature of Prejudice, 50, 262–277.
39.
PeysakhovichA.RandD. G. (2016). Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science, 62, 631–647.
40.
RandD. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27, 1192–1206. doi:10.1177/0956797616654455
41.
RandD. G.GreeneJ. D.NowakM. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430. doi:10.1038/nature11467
42.
RandD. G.PfeifferT.DreberA.SheketoffR. W.WernerfeltN. C.BenklerY. (2009). Dynamic remodeling of in-group bias during the 2008 presidential election. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 6187–6191.
43.
RothA. E.PrasnikarV.Okuno-FujiwaraM.ZamirS. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. The American Economic Review, 81, 1068–1095.
44.
SherifM. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150–198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
45.
StagnaroM. N.ArecharA. A.RandD. G. (2017). From good institutions to generous citizens: Top-down incentives to cooperate promote subsequent prosociality but not norm enforcement. Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.017
46.
StephanW. G. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). New Jersey: Psychology Press.
48.
SuleimanR. (1996). Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 531–554.
49.
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
50.
ThalerR. H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 195–206.
51.
ValenzuelaA.SrivastavaJ. (2012). Role of information asymmetry and situational salience in reducing intergroup bias: The case of Ultimatum GamesPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 381671–1683
52.
WellsJ. S.RandD. G. (2013). Strategic self-interest can explain seemingly “fair” offers in the Ultimatum Game. Retrieved from SSRN 2136707
53.
WetherellG. A.BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide the role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 658–667.
54.
WhittS.WilsonR. K. (2007). The dictator game, fairness and ethnicity in postwar Bosnia. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 655–668. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00273.x
55.
WickerA. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41–78.
56.
WilderD. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 239–355). New York, NY: Academic Press.
57.
YamagishiT.JinN.KiyonariT. (1999). Bounded generalized reciprocity: Ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism. Advances in Group Process, 16, 161–197.
58.
YamagishiT.MifuneN. (2008). Does shared group membership promote altruism? Fear, greed, and reputation. Rationality and Society, 20, 5–30.
59.
ZimbardoP. G. (1971). The power and pathology of imprisonment (Congressional Record; Serial No. 15, 1971–10–25). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
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.
