Search

Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they serf-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in-group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out-groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a 'tend and defend' response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups. 10.1126/science.1189047

In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. Although such situations may give rise to majority coalitions that exclude the minority or to minorities blocking unfavorable agreements, structural and motivational factors may stimulate groups to engage in integrative negotiation, leading to collectively beneficial agreements. An experiment with 97 3-person groups was designed to test hypotheses about the interactions among decision rule, the majority's social motivation, and the minority's social motivation. Results showed that under unanimity rule, minority members block decisions, thus harming the group, but only when the minority has proself motivation. Under majority rule, majority members coalesce at the minority's expense, but only when the majority has a proself motivation. Implications for negotiation research and group decision making are discussed. Keywords: group negotiation, social motivation, majority and minority influence, decision rules

Representative negotiations often take a competitive course due to constituency pressures. However, in multi-issue integrative negotiation settings, using a competitive value-claiming strategy may result in less than optimal outcomes for both parties. In this experiment, we compared the negotiation process and outcomes of representatives with hawkish versus dovish constituencies. Representatives with a dovish constituency engaged in more information exchange and less contentious tactics, resulting in fewer impasses and higher quality agreements. Although representatives with a hawkish constituency claimed more value by placing higher demands, this negatively affected not only their joint, but also their individual outcomes. Overall, results suggest that representatives with a dovish constituency achieve better outcomes, both on an individual and dyadic level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Narcissistic individuals have highly positive self-views and overestimate their abilities. Consequently, they tend to react aggressively whenever they receive information that does not match their high self-views (ego threat). We argue that focusing on aggression merely portrays a one-sided view of narcissistic individuals and the manner in which they counter ego threats. We propose that following ego threat, narcissism can also fuel performance. In four studies, we measured nonclinical narcissism and allocated Dutch undergraduate university students (N1  = 175, N2  = 142, N3  = 159, N4  = 174) to either an ego threat or a no ego threat condition. Ego threat involved negative feedback (Studies 1-2) or threat to uniqueness (Studies 3-4). We measured participants' intentions to complete a challenging task (Study 1), their creative performance (Studies 2-3), and their performance on an anagram task (Study 4). Across Studies 1-3, we consistently found that following ego threat, higher nonclinical narcissism was associated with greater willingness to perform tasks that enabled demonstration of abilities and enhanced creative performance. These results were confirmed using a meta-analysis. However, anagram performance was not enhanced following ego threat. We provide additional analyses that might help explain this. Our findings thus reveal a more positive side to the way narcissistic individuals manage threats to their self-image. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 with 95 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 self-sacrificial decisions to contribute were made faster than decisions not to contribute, and that faster decision time associated with more 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 (vs. pro-self) individuals contributed more to the in-group and did not lower their contributions to the between-group pool that benefitted their ingroup 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]