Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:46:44.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intergroup competition may not be needed for shaping group cooperation and cultural group selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Carsten K. W. De Dreu  and
Daniel Balliet
Carsten K. W. De Dreu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, and Center for Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making (CREED), University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.k.w.dedreu@uva.nl
Daniel Balliet
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.p.balliet@vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because intergroup interactions often are mixed-motive rather than strictly zero-sum, groups often negotiate settlements that enable both cultures to thrive. Moreover, group prosperity rests on in-group love (rather than out-group hate) that emerges also absent intergroup competition or comparison. It follows that cultural group selection (CGS) reflects group effectiveness in organizing in-group trust and cooperation, rather than winning (in)direct intergroup competitions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e36
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaldering, H. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012) When doves fly high and hawks lay low: Constituent status differentials affect representative negotiation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 15:713–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Balliet, D., Wu, Y. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) In-group favoritism and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 140:1556–81.Google Scholar
Bornstein, G. (2003) Intergroup conflict: Individual, group, and collective interests. Personality and social psychology review 7(2):129–45.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2011) A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1999) The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues 55:429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttelmann, D. & Böhm, R. (2014) The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias. Psychological Science 25:921–27.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010) Social conflict: The emergence and consequences of struggle and negotiation. In: Handbook of social psychology, vol. 2, 5th edition, ed. Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G., pp. 983–1023. Wiley.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Balliet, D. & Halevy, N. (2014) Parochial cooperation in humans: Forms and functions of self-sacrifice in intergroup competition and conflict. In: Advances in motivational science, vol. 1, ed. Elliot, A. J., pp. 1–47. Elsevier.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. & Carnevale, P. J. D. (2003) Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 35, ed. Zanna, M. P., pp. 235–91. Academic Press.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., Ten Velden, F. S., Van Dijk, E. & Feith, S. W. W. (2010) The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science 328:1408–11.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., Shalvi, S. & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011) Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:1262–66.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1973) The resolution of conflict. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014) With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist 69:669–84.Google Scholar
Hagen, E. H. & Hammerstein, P. (2006) Game theory and human evolution: A critique of some recent interpretations of experimental games. Theoretical Population Biology 69(3):339–48. doi: 10.1016/j.tpb.2005.09.005.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Bornstein, G. & Sagiv, L. (2008) “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science 19:405–11.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Weisel, O. & Bornstein, G. (2012) “In-group love” and “out-group hate” in repeated interaction between groups. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25:188–95.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2004) Cultural group selection, co-evolutionary processes, and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 53:3–35.Google Scholar
Horan, R. D., Bulte, E. & Shoran, J. F. (2005) How trade saved humanity from biological exclusion: An economic theory of Neanderthal extinction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 58:68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. M., Bremer, S. A. & Singer, J. D. (1996) Militarized interstate disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15:163–213.Google Scholar
Martynova, M. & Renneboog, L. (2008) A century of corporate takeovers: What have we learned and where do we stand? Journal of Banking and Finance 32:2148–77.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D. G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986) Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. (1960) The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shalvi, S. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) Oxytocin promotes group serving dishonesty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111:5503–507.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T., Jin, N. & Kiyonari, T. (1999) Bounded generalized reciprocity: Ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism. Advances in Group Processes 16:161–97.Google Scholar