The Experts below are selected from a list of 5853 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Carsten K W De Dreu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
group cooperation carrying capacity stress and Intergroup Conflict
2020Co-Authors: Jorg Gross, Carsten K W De Dreu, Andrea FarinaAbstract:Peaceful Intergroup relations deteriorate when individuals engage in parochial cooperation and parochial competition. To understand when and why Intergroup relations change from peaceful to violent, we present a theoretical framework mapping out the different interdependence structures between groups. According to this framework, cooperation can lead to group expansion and ultimately to carrying-capacity stress. In such cases of endogenously created carrying-capacity stress, Intergroup relations are more likely to become negatively interdependent, and parochial competition can emerge as a response. We discuss the cognitive, neural, and hormonal building blocks of parochial cooperation, and conclude that Conflict between groups can be the inadvertent consequence of human preparedness – biological and cultural – to solve cooperation problems within groups.
-
oxytocin promotes coordinated out group attack during Intergroup Conflict in humans
2019Co-Authors: Hejing Zhang, Jorg Gross, Carsten K W De DreuAbstract:Intergroup Conflict contributes to human discrimination and violence, but persists because individuals make costly contributions to their group9s fighting capacity. Yet how group members effectively coordinate their contributions during Intergroup Conflict remains poorly understood. Here we examine the role of oxytocin for (the coordination of) contributions to group attack or defense in multi-round, real-time feedback Intergroup contests. In a double-blind placebo-controlled study with N=480 males in Intergroup Attacker-Defender Contests, we found that oxytocin reduced contributions to attack and over time increased attacker9s within-group coordination of contributions. However, rather than becoming peaceful, attackers given oxytocin better tracked their rival9s historical defense and coordinated their contributions into well-timed and hence more profitable attacks. Our results reveal coordination of contributions as a critical component of successful attacks and subscribe to the possibility that oxytocin enables individuals to contribute to in-group efficiency and prosperity even when doing so implies outsiders are excluded or harmed.
-
oxytocin promotes synchronized out group attack during Intergroup Conflict in humans
2018Co-Authors: Hejing Zhang, Jorg Gross, Carsten K W De DreuAbstract:Intergroup Conflict contributes to human discrimination and violence, but persists because individuals make costly contributions to their group9s fighting capacity. Yet how groups effectively synchronize their contributions during Intergroup Conflict remains poorly understood. Here we examine whether the evolutionary ancient neuropeptide oxytocin provides a neurobiological mechanism underlying group synchronization to attack or defend during real-time Intergroup Conflict. In a double-blind placebo-controlled study with N =480 males in Attacker-Defender Intergroup Conflicts, we found that oxytocin reduced attackers9 contributions and over time increased attacker9s within-group synchronization of contributions. However, rather than becoming peaceful, oxytocin enabled attackers to track rivals9 defense-history and synchronize their contributions into well-timed (when defenders were weak) and hence more profitable attacks. Combined, results reveal behavioral synchronization and coordinated action as critical components of successful attacks, subscribe to the possibility that oxytocin enables individuals to contribute to in-group efficiency and prosperity, even when such implies outsiders are excluded or harmed.
-
in group defense out group aggression and coordination failures in Intergroup Conflict
2016Co-Authors: Jorg Gross, Carsten K W De Dreu, Zsombor Z Meder, Michael R Giffin, Eliska Prochazkova, Jonathan Krikeb, Simon ColumbusAbstract:Intergroup Conflict persists when and because individuals make costly contributions to their group's fighting capacity, but how groups organize contributions into effective collective action remains poorly understood. Here we distinguish between contributions aimed at subordinating out-groups (out-group aggression) from those aimed at defending the in-group against possible out-group aggression (in-group defense). We conducted two experiments in which three-person aggressor groups confronted three-person defender groups in a multiround contest game (n = 276; 92 aggressor-defender contests). Individuals received an endowment from which they could contribute to their group's fighting capacity. Contributions were always wasted, but when the aggressor group's fighting capacity exceeded that of the defender group, the aggressor group acquired the defender group's remaining resources (otherwise, individuals on both sides were left with the remainders of their endowment). In-group defense appeared stronger and better coordinated than out-group aggression, and defender groups survived roughly 70% of the attacks. This low success rate for aggressor groups mirrored that of group-hunting predators such as wolves and chimpanzees (n = 1,382 cases), hostile takeovers in industry (n = 1,637 cases), and interstate Conflicts (n = 2,586). Furthermore, whereas peer punishment increased out-group aggression more than in-group defense without affecting success rates (Exp. 1), sequential (vs. simultaneous) decision-making increased coordination of collective action for out-group aggression, doubling the aggressor's success rate (Exp. 2). The relatively high success rate of in-group defense suggests evolutionary and cultural pressures may have favored capacities for cooperation and coordination when the group goal is to defend, rather than to expand, dominate, and exploit.
-
in Intergroup Conflict self sacrifice is stronger among pro social individuals and parochial altruism emerges especially among cognitively taxed individuals
2015Co-Authors: Carsten K W De Dreu, Berno D Dussel, Femke Ten S VeldenAbstract:Parochial altruism is decomposed in a tendency to benefit the in-group along with a tendency to ignore, derogate, and harm rivaling out-groups. Building off recent work suggesting that decisions to cooperate can be relatively fast and intuitive, we examine parochial altruism in Intergroup Conflict when cognitive deliberation is rendered difficult or not. Predictions were tested in an experiment using an incentivized Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma—Maximizing Differences Game (IPD-MD) with ninety-five subjects classified as either pro-social or pro-self being randomly allocated to high vs. low impulse-control conditions. Results showed, first of all, that decisions to contribute and self-sacrifice were made faster than decisions not to contribute, and that longer decision time associated with less positive expectations of in-group members. Second, we observed that lowering impulse control with a difficult rather than easy Stroop Task increased the amount contributed to a pool that benefited in-group members while harming out-group members; thus reducing deliberation increased parochial altruism. Finally, results replicated earlier work showing that especially pro-social (versus pro-self) individuals contributed more to the in-group and did not lower their contributions to the between-group pool that benefitted their in-group and, simultaneously, hurt the out-group. This pattern emerged independent of their impulse control. Thus, (in-group bounded) cooperation is more prominent among individuals with strong rather than weak other-regarding preferences. Moreover, the intuitive tendency to cooperate may have evolved in the context of Intergroup Conflict and therefore is sharp-edged—in-group bounded and including willingness to aggress out-groups.
Tom Pyszczynski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a moral existential account of the psychological factors fostering Intergroup Conflict
2011Co-Authors: Pelin Kesebir, Tom PyszczynskiAbstract:We combine ideas from terror management and moral foundations theories to analyze the role of existential and moral concerns in the creation and escalation of Intergroup Conflict. We argue that moral values, as important components of cultural worldviews, serve to buffer existential anxiety. Perceived threats to one’s moral values thus are capable of inducing existential anxiety and unleashing strong moral emotions, creating the psychological impetus for Intergroup Conflict and violence. We review evidence that threats to the five core moral intuitions posited by moral foundations theory (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity) are associated with existential anxiety and that this contributes to Intergroup strife and violence. Moral and existential concerns combine to create a vicious feedback loop that leads to self-perpetuating spirals of violence, which helps explain the intractability of many real-life Conflicts.
-
A Moral-Existential Account of the Psychological Factors Fostering Intergroup Conflict
2011Co-Authors: Pelin Kesebir, Tom PyszczynskiAbstract:We combine ideas from terror management and moral foundations theories to analyze the role of existential and moral concerns in the creation and escalation of Intergroup Conflict. We argue that moral values, as important components of cultural worldviews, serve to buffer existential anxiety. Perceived threats to one’s moral values thus are capable of inducing existential anxiety and unleashing strong moral emotions, creating the psychological impetus for Intergroup Conflict and violence. We review evidence that threats to the five core moral intuitions posited by moral foundations theory (harm ⁄care, fairness ⁄reciprocity, ingroup ⁄loyalty, authority ⁄respect, and purity ⁄ sanctity) are associated with existential anxiety and that this contributes to Intergroup strife and violence. Moral and existential concerns combine to create a vicious feedback loop that leads to self-perpetuating spirals of violence, which helps explain the intractability of many real-life Conflicts. An exceedingly dark side of human nature emerges when groups fail to resolve their Conflicts through peaceful means and resort to violence instead. This is, sadly, an all-toocommon outcome in human societies across time and space. Scholars report that prolonged periods of human history not marked by ethno-political violence are unknown (Dutton, 2007). In this article, we present an integrative account of how moral and existential psychological processes contribute to the creation, escalation, and possible resolution of violent Intergroup Conflict. We posit that the uniquely human awareness of mortality, together with unique human moral sensibilities, constitute a critical psychological force that motivates and perpetuates cycles of Intergroup violence. We argue that Intergroup Conflict is instigated by perceptions of violation to one’s deeply held moral values. Moral values are vital to keep existential anxiety at bay, and existential anxiety leads people to hold on more strongly to their moral values. Perceptions of moral violations, fueled by existential anxiety, thus set in motion a vicious feedback loop, resulting in escalating spirals of violence. To our knowledge, the present review is one of the first attempts to bring together the work on experimental existential psychology and the literature on moral foundations theory. We hope that this initial theorizing will be instrumental in inspiring new research that will shed light on the crucial intersection of morality and mortality in motivating Intergroup Conflict.
Robert Bohm - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the psychology of Intergroup Conflict a review of theories and measures
2018Co-Authors: Robert Bohm, Hannes Rusch, Jonathan BaronAbstract:Abstract We review psychological research on Intergroup Conflict. First, we outline psychological perspectives on forms and functions of groups. Second, we present the most influential psychological theories of Intergroup Conflict and describe their similarities and differences in predicting individual prejudice, discrimination, and Conflict engagement. Third, we review popular measures of Intergroup discrimination, including rating measures, behavioral measures, and allocation tasks. Furthermore, we call for a refined semantic framework to structure and differentiate between different measures of Intergroup bias. Fourth, we highlight several interventions that can de-bias Intergroup relations and facilitate Conflict resolution. Lastly, we propose that research on the psychology of Intergroup Conflict may benefit from a stronger interdisciplinary orientation regarding both theoretical perspectives and methods used and point out promising avenues for future research.
-
who does not participate in Intergroup Conflict
2016Co-Authors: Isabel Thielmann, Robert BohmAbstract: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 ...
-
ingroup love and outgroup hate in Intergroup Conflict between natural groups
2015Co-Authors: Ori Weisel, Robert BohmAbstract:We report on two studies investigating the motivations (“ingroup love” and “outgroup hate”) underlying individual participation in Intergroup Conflict between natural groups (fans of football clubs, supporters of political parties), by employing the Intergroup Prisoner's Dilemma Maximizing-Difference (IPD-MD) game. In this game group members can contribute to the ingroup (at a personal cost) and benefit ingroup members with or without harming members of an outgroup. Additionally, we devised a novel version of the IPD-MD in which the choice is between benefiting ingroup members with or without helping members of the outgroup. Our results show an overall reluctance to display outgroup hate by actively harming outgroup members, except when the outgroup was morality-based. More enmity between groups induced more outgroup hate only when it was operationalized as refraining from help.
Hannes Rusch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the logic of animal Intergroup Conflict a review
2020Co-Authors: Hannes Rusch, Sergey GavriletsAbstract:Abstract We review the literature on various approaches to modeling animal Intergroup Conflict behavior in theoretical biology, highlight the intricacies emerging in the process of adding due biological realism to such models, and point out recent empirical findings that can inspire future theorizing.
-
the psychology of Intergroup Conflict a review of theories and measures
2018Co-Authors: Robert Bohm, Hannes Rusch, Jonathan BaronAbstract:Abstract We review psychological research on Intergroup Conflict. First, we outline psychological perspectives on forms and functions of groups. Second, we present the most influential psychological theories of Intergroup Conflict and describe their similarities and differences in predicting individual prejudice, discrimination, and Conflict engagement. Third, we review popular measures of Intergroup discrimination, including rating measures, behavioral measures, and allocation tasks. Furthermore, we call for a refined semantic framework to structure and differentiate between different measures of Intergroup bias. Fourth, we highlight several interventions that can de-bias Intergroup relations and facilitate Conflict resolution. Lastly, we propose that research on the psychology of Intergroup Conflict may benefit from a stronger interdisciplinary orientation regarding both theoretical perspectives and methods used and point out promising avenues for future research.
-
the evolutionary interplay of Intergroup Conflict and altruism in humans a review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension
2014Co-Authors: Hannes RuschAbstract:Drawing on an idea proposed by Darwin, it has recently been hypothesized that violent Intergroup Conflict might have played a substantial role in the evolution of human cooperativeness and altruism. The central notion of this argument, dubbed ‘parochial altruism’, is that the two genetic or cultural traits, aggressiveness against the out-groups and cooperativeness towards the in-group, including self-sacrificial altruistic behaviour, might have coevolved in humans. This review assesses the explanatory power of current theories of ‘parochial altruism’. After a brief synopsis of the existing literature, two pitfalls in the interpretation of the most widely used models are discussed: potential direct benefits and high relatedness between group members implicitly induced by assumptions about Conflict structure and frequency. Then, a number of simplifying assumptions made in the construction of these models are pointed out which currently limit their explanatory power. Next, relevant empirical evidence from several disciplines which could guide future theoretical extensions is reviewed. Finally, selected alternative accounts of evolutionary links between Intergroup Conflict and intragroup cooperation are briefly discussed which could be integrated with parochial altruism in the future.
-
asymmetries in altruistic behavior during violent Intergroup Conflict
2013Co-Authors: Hannes RuschAbstract:Recent theoretical and experimental investigations of altruistic behavior in Intergroup Conflict in humans frequently make use of the assumption that warfare can be modeled as a symmetrical n-person prisoner's dilemma, abstracting away the strategic differences between attack and defense. In contrast, some empirical studies on Intergroup Conflict in hunter-gatherer societies and chimpanzees indicate that fitness relevant risks and potential benefits of attacks and defenses might have differed substantially under ancestral conditions. Drawing on these studies, it is hypothesized that the success of defenses was much more important for individual and kin survival and that a disposition to act altruistically during Intergroup Conflict is thus more likely to evolve for the strategic situation of defense. It is then investigated empirically if such asymmetries in the occurrence of altruistic behavior during Intergroup Conflict can be found. Analyzing detailed historical case data from 20th century wars, this study finds that altruistic behavior towards members of the in-group indeed seems to occur more frequently when soldiers are defending themselves and their comrades against enemy attacks. It is proposed that this asymmetry reflects adaptive behavioral responses to the materially different strategic character of attacks and defenses under ancestral conditions. If true, this would call for a refinement of theories of the evolutionary interaction of Intergroup Conflict and altruism.
Pelin Kesebir - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a moral existential account of the psychological factors fostering Intergroup Conflict
2011Co-Authors: Pelin Kesebir, Tom PyszczynskiAbstract:We combine ideas from terror management and moral foundations theories to analyze the role of existential and moral concerns in the creation and escalation of Intergroup Conflict. We argue that moral values, as important components of cultural worldviews, serve to buffer existential anxiety. Perceived threats to one’s moral values thus are capable of inducing existential anxiety and unleashing strong moral emotions, creating the psychological impetus for Intergroup Conflict and violence. We review evidence that threats to the five core moral intuitions posited by moral foundations theory (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity) are associated with existential anxiety and that this contributes to Intergroup strife and violence. Moral and existential concerns combine to create a vicious feedback loop that leads to self-perpetuating spirals of violence, which helps explain the intractability of many real-life Conflicts.
-
A Moral-Existential Account of the Psychological Factors Fostering Intergroup Conflict
2011Co-Authors: Pelin Kesebir, Tom PyszczynskiAbstract:We combine ideas from terror management and moral foundations theories to analyze the role of existential and moral concerns in the creation and escalation of Intergroup Conflict. We argue that moral values, as important components of cultural worldviews, serve to buffer existential anxiety. Perceived threats to one’s moral values thus are capable of inducing existential anxiety and unleashing strong moral emotions, creating the psychological impetus for Intergroup Conflict and violence. We review evidence that threats to the five core moral intuitions posited by moral foundations theory (harm ⁄care, fairness ⁄reciprocity, ingroup ⁄loyalty, authority ⁄respect, and purity ⁄ sanctity) are associated with existential anxiety and that this contributes to Intergroup strife and violence. Moral and existential concerns combine to create a vicious feedback loop that leads to self-perpetuating spirals of violence, which helps explain the intractability of many real-life Conflicts. An exceedingly dark side of human nature emerges when groups fail to resolve their Conflicts through peaceful means and resort to violence instead. This is, sadly, an all-toocommon outcome in human societies across time and space. Scholars report that prolonged periods of human history not marked by ethno-political violence are unknown (Dutton, 2007). In this article, we present an integrative account of how moral and existential psychological processes contribute to the creation, escalation, and possible resolution of violent Intergroup Conflict. We posit that the uniquely human awareness of mortality, together with unique human moral sensibilities, constitute a critical psychological force that motivates and perpetuates cycles of Intergroup violence. We argue that Intergroup Conflict is instigated by perceptions of violation to one’s deeply held moral values. Moral values are vital to keep existential anxiety at bay, and existential anxiety leads people to hold on more strongly to their moral values. Perceptions of moral violations, fueled by existential anxiety, thus set in motion a vicious feedback loop, resulting in escalating spirals of violence. To our knowledge, the present review is one of the first attempts to bring together the work on experimental existential psychology and the literature on moral foundations theory. We hope that this initial theorizing will be instrumental in inspiring new research that will shed light on the crucial intersection of morality and mortality in motivating Intergroup Conflict.
