Between-group competition elicits within-group cooperation in children

Resolving selfish and spiteful interdependent conflict

Interdependence occurs when individuals have a stake in the success or failure of others, such that the outcomes experienced by one individual also generate costs or benefits for others. Discussion on this topic has typically focused on positive interdependence (where gains for one individual result in gains for another) and on the consequences for cooperation. However, interdependence can also be negative (where gains for one individual result in losses for another), which can spark conflict. In this article, we explain when negative interdependence is likely to arise and, crucially, the role played by (mis)perception in shaping an individual's understanding of their interdependent relationships. We argue that, owing to the difficulty in accurately perceiving interdependence with others, individuals might often be mistaken about the stake they hold in each other's outcomes, which can spark needless, resolvable forms of conflict. We then discuss when and how reducing misperceptions can help to resolve such conflicts. We argue that a key mechanism for resolving interdependent conflict, along with better sources of exogenous information, is to reduce reliance on heuristics such as stereotypes when assessing the nature of our interdependent relationships.

Cooperation and group similarity in children and young adults in the UK

For cooperation to be beneficial, cooperators should be able to differentiate individuals who are willing to cooperate from free-riders. In the absence of kin or of familiar individuals, phenotypic similarity (e.g. in terms of language) can be used as a cue of how likely two or more individuals are to behave similarly (whether they will cooperate or free-ride). Thus, phenotypic similarity could affect cooperation. However, it is unclear whether humans respond to any type of phenotypic similarity or whether only salient phenotypic traits guide cooperation. We tested whether within-group, non-salient phenotypic similarity affects cooperation in 280, 3 to 10 year old children and in 76 young adults (mean 19.8 years old) in the UK. We experimentally manipulated the degree of phenotypic similarity in three computer-based experiments. We found no evidence of a preference for, or greater cooperation with, phenotypically similar individuals in children, even though children displayed ingroup preference. Conversely, young adults cooperated more with phenotypically similar than with phenotypically diverse individuals to themselves. Our results suggest that response to non-salient phenotypic similarity varies with age and that young adults may pay more attention to non-salient cues of diversity then children.

The association between food insecurity and social capital under the lockdowns in COVID-hit Shanghai

As an emergency, food insecurity threatens people’s well-being, while social capital is expected to enhance their resilience in this situation. This study examined the relationship between food insecurity and social capital during the COVID-19 lockdowns in Shanghai. We collected a dataset of 1064 participants by random sampling. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the dynamics of social capital before and after lockdowns. The results show that the level of post-lockdown social capital was higher than that of pre-lockdown social capital. Pre-lockdown social capital predicted the extent to which people suffered from food insecurity and their approaches to obtaining food. Participation in group purchases and food exchange with other residents predicted the levels of post-lockdown social capital. The results shed light on the interaction between emergencies and social capital. Our study theoretically contributes to understanding social capital through a dynamic perspective.

The Impact of Positivity and Parochial Altruism on Protective Behaviours during the First COVID-19 Lockdown in Italy

Implementation of COVID-19 protective behaviours, such as social distancing or frequent hand washing during the lockdown, was critical to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the effect of positivity and parochial altruism on implementing COVID-19 health-protective behaviours during the Italian lockdown. A sample of 460 participants completed an online questionnaire that included demographic measures, Positivity Scale and COVID-19 measures of health-protective behaviours. To measure parochial altruism, we used a hypothetical dictator game played with others who could vary in their social distance from the participants. Results showed that participants in the hypothetical game gave more money to parents and siblings than to best friends, cousins, neighbours, and strangers. Furthermore, both positivity and parochial altruism (more altruism toward close vs. distant people) were positively associated with implementing hygiene behaviours but not with social distancing. Finally, mediation analysis showed that increases in parochial altruism mediated the effect of positivity on hygiene behaviour. These findings extend knowledge about the factors beyond the implementation of COVID-19 health-protective behaviours during a lockdown situation.

Impact Study of the Learning Effects and Motivation of Competitive Modes in Gamified Learning

At a time when game-based learning has become a research hotspot, this study focused on the competition mechanism in gamified learning, aiming to explore the impact of different competition modes on students’ vocabulary learning effect and learning motivation. A group of 79 sixth grade students from China were randomly assigned to a non-competitive class, an individual competition class, and an inter-group competition class. The experiment was conducted in an English vocabulary course, and the game competition was carried out using the Quizlet Live game platform. The results indicated that: (1) the vocabulary learning effect and motivation of students in the competitive classes (individual competition and inter-group competition) were better than those in the non-competitive class; (2) the learning effect of students in the inter-group competitive class outperformed that of the individual competitive class, but there was no significant difference in learning motivation. Through the qualitative analysis of the students’ interviews, it was found that the results of inter-group competition may be related to the student’s perception of learning and emotional support. The findings of this study can provide relevant support for the subsequent game-based learning design.

Is History the Same as Evolution? No. Is it Independent of Evolution? Certainly Not

History is full of violence and oppression within and between groups, and although group conflicts enhance within-group cooperation (mediated by oxytocin, which promotes parochial altruism) the hierarchy within groups ensures that spoils accrue very unevenly. Darwin suggested, and we now know, that sexual selection is as powerful as selection by mortality, and the main purpose of survival is reproduction. Male reproductive skew is greater than that among females in all societies, but the difference became much greater after the hunting-gathering era, and the rise of so-called "civilization" was everywhere a process of predatory expansion, producing kingdoms and empires where top males achieved astounding heights of reproductive success. This was shown by historical and ethnographic data now strongly confirmed by genomic science. Psychological research confirms that group identity, out-group stigmatization, leadership characterized by charisma, the will to power, narcissism, sociopathy, and cruelty, and followership characterized by hypnotic obedience, loss of individuality, and cruelty are integral parts of human nature. We can thank at least ten or twelve millennia of microevolutionary processes such as those described above, all more prominent in males than females. Followers in wars have faced a difficult risk-benefit analysis, but if they survived and won they too could increase their reproductive success through the rape and other sexual exploitation that have accompanied almost all wars. For modern leaders, social monogamy and contraception have separated autocracy from reproductive success, but only partly, and current worldwide autocratic trends still depend on the evolved will to power, obedience, and cruelty.

Outgroup threat and the emergence of cohesive groups: A cross-cultural examination

Evolutionary models and empirical evidence suggest that outgroup threat is one of the strongest factors inducing group cohesion; however, little is known about the process of forming such cohesive groups. We investigated how outgroup threat galvanizes individuals to affiliate with others to form engaged units that are willing to act on behalf of their in-group. A total of 864 participants from six countries were randomly assigned to an outgroup threat, environmental threat, or no-threat condition. We measured the process of group formation through physical proximity and movement mirroring along with activity toward threat resolution, and found that outgroup threat induced activity and heightened mirroring in males. We also observed higher mirroring and proximity in participants who perceived the outgroup threat as a real danger, albeit the latter results were imprecisely estimated. Together, these findings help understand how sharing subtle behavioral cues influences collaborative aggregation of people under threat.

The influence of cooperation and competition on preschoolers' prosociality toward in-group and out-group members

Past research suggests that children favour their in-group members over out-group members as indicated by selective prosociality such as sharing or social inclusion. This preregistered study examined how playing a cooperative, competitive or solitary game influences German 4- to 6-year-olds' in-group bias and their general willingness to act prosocially, independent of the recipient's group membership (N = 144). After playing the game, experimenters introduced minimal groups and assessed children's sharing with an in-group and an out-group member as well as their social inclusion of an out-group member into an in-group interaction. Furthermore, we assessed children's physical engagement and parents' social dominance orientation (SDO)-a scale indicating the preference for inequality among social groups-to learn more about inter-individual differences in children's prosocial behaviours. Results suggest that children showed a stronger physical engagement while playing competitively as compared with cooperatively or alone. The different gaming contexts did not impact children's subsequent in-group bias or general willingness to act prosocially. Parental SDO was not linked to children's prosocial behaviours. These results indicate that competition can immediately affect children's behaviour while playing but raise doubt on the importance of cooperative and competitive play for children's subsequent intergroup and prosocial behaviour.

Collaborative reasoning in the context of group competition

A key skill in collaborative problem-solving is to communicate and evaluate reasons for proposals to arrive at the decision benefiting all group members. Although it is well-documented that collaborative contexts facilitate young children's reasoning, less is known about whether competition with other groups contributes to children's collaborative reasoning. We investigated whether between-group competition facilitates children's within-group collaborative reasoning, regarding their production of reasons and their use of transacts, communicative acts that operate on one another's proposals and reasoning. We presented 5- and 7-year-old peer dyads with two collaborative problem-solving tasks (decorating a zoo and a dollhouse). In one task, children competed against another group (the competitive condition); whereas in the other task, they did not (non-competitive condition). Our results suggest that children's sensitivity to group competition as reflected in their reasoning changed depending on the task. When they decorated a house, they produced more transacts in the competitive condition than in the non-competitive condition; whereas when they decorated a zoo, this pattern was reversed. Thus, our results highlight that group competition did not influence children's collaborative reasoning consistently across different contexts.

Impact of intra-group coopetitive incentives on the performance outcomes of knowledge sharing: evidence from a randomized experiment

Purpose

Knowledge sharing, as a kind of social behavior that incorporates collective intelligence to achieve a certain goal, has become a remarkable developing trend in recent years. Under the context of traditional teaching, this study aims to explore the manner in which students become effective in sharing knowledge to help optimize course design and improve our existing education.

Design/methodology/approach

Among 195 university students taking an elective, the effects of different incentives on group performance in completing tasks is explored on the basis of a randomized experiment.

Findings

Results show that intra-group cooperation can be helpful to student performance, whereas intra-group competition neither improves nor worsens student performance. The former is mainly driven by reciprocity, especially for that stimulated by inter-group competition, whereas the latter is stimulated by egoism. Thus, proper reciprocity can promote student behavior to increase voluntary contribution. In addition, intra-group differences do not interfere with group performance, especially task-oriented groups.

Originality/value

Certain suggestions are proposed to improve the curriculum design in large classrooms. Forming groups is the best way to strengthen student knowledge sharing. Within task-oriented groups, the incentives of inter-group competition can encourage students to deepen intra-group cooperation and thus effectively improve group performance under the conditions of external competition.

Threat and parochialism in intergroup relations: lab-in-the-field evidence from rural Georgia

Competition between groups is widely considered to foster cooperation within groups. Evidence from laboratory experiments hints at the existence of a proximate mechanism by which humans increase their level of cooperation with their ingroup when faced with an external threat. Further work suggests that ingroup cooperation should go along with aggressive behaviour towards the outgroup, although these theories are at odds with others that see high investments in outgroup relations as important means of stabilizing intergroup relations. Surprisingly, few of these arguments have been tested in the field, and existing studies are also limited by the lack of a direct measure of threat perception and aggressive behaviour. This study presents lab-in-the-field results from a rural context where exposure to an ethnic outgroup varies between villages. This context makes it possible to capture levels of threat perception, aggressive behaviour and cooperation without inducing intergroup competition artificially in the laboratory. All concepts are measured behaviourally. In- and outgroup cooperation was measured with a standard public goods game, and a novel experimental protocol was developed that measures perceived threat and aggressive behaviour: the threat game. The results show that levels of perceived threat, ingroup cooperation and aggressive behaviour are higher in regions more strongly exposed to ethnic outsiders. However, exposed regions also show high levels of outgroup cooperation and a concomitant lack of elevated ingroup bias. This pattern is explained by theorizing that communities show parochial altruism when faced with an ethnic outgroup, but balance aggressive behaviour with cooperative offers to diffuse tensions and to keep open channels of mutually beneficial exchange.