In intergroup conflict, individual cooperation may be directed at strengthening the ingroup, thus undermining the effectiveness and sustainability of the competing outgroup. Reversely, cooperation directed towards the competing outgroup indirectly undermines the viability of the ingroup and is often seen by ingroup members as disloyal, non-cooperative behavior. Using the Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma—Maximizing Differences Game to model intergroup conflict, the experiment reported here shows that compared to individuals with a chronic pro-self orientation, those with a chronic prosocial orientation display stronger ingroup trust and ingroup love—they self-sacrifice to benefit their ingroup—but not more or less outgroup distrust and outgroup hate. Furthermore, in this situation pro-social individuals were driven more by ingroup fairness considerations when contributing to their ingroup. Path analyses suggest that effects of social value orientation on ingroup love are mediated by ingroup trust and not by fairness considerations. Implications for research on social value orientations, and intergroup conflict and competition are discussed.
Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. ( 2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 12, 533-547.
2.
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (1999). Negotiation processes and outcomes in prosocially and egoistically motivated groups. International Journal of Conflict Management,10, 385-402.
3.
Bornstein, G. ( 2003). Intergroup conflict: Individual, group, and collective interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 129-145.
4.
Brewer, M.B. ( 1979). Ingroup bias in the minitmal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 86, 307-324.
5.
Coombs, C.H. ( 1973). A reparameterization of the prisoner’s dilemma game. Behavioral Science, 18, 424-428.
6.
Darwin, C. ( 1873). The descent of man. New York : Appleton.
7.
Dawes, R.M. ( 1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology , 31, 169-193.
8.
De Dreu, C.K.W. ( 2010). Social conflict: the emergence and consequences of struggle and negotiation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 983-1023). New York: Wiley.
9.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Boles, T. ( 1998). Share and share alike or winner take all? Impact of social value orientation on the choice and recall of decision heuristics in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 253-267.
10.
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, 1408-1411.
11.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & McCusker, C. ( 1997). Gain- loss frames in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1093-1106.
12.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22-49.
13.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Van Kleef, G.A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 303-319.
14.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (1995). Impact of social value orientation on negotiator cognition and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1178-1188.
15.
Depue, R.A., & Morrone-Strupinsky, J.V. (2005). A neurobehavioral model of affiliative bonding: Implications for conceptualizing a human trait of affiliation. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 28, 313-395.
16.
Erev. I., Bornstein, G., & Galili, R. ( 1993). Constructive intergroup competition as a solution to the free-rider problem: A field experiment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 463-478.
17.
Fiske, S.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.
Gillespie, J.J., Weingart, L.R., & Brett, J.M. ( 2000). Interdependency, social motives, and outcome satisfaction in multiparty negotiation. European Journal of Social Psychology , 30, 779-797.
19.
Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. ( 2008). ‘Ingroup love’ and ‘outgroup hate’ as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict . Psychological Science, 19, 405-411.
20.
Halevy, N., Chou, E.Y., Cohen, T.Y., Bornstein, G. ( 2010). Relative deprivation and intergroup competition . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. DOI: 10.1177/1368430210371639.
21.
Kelley, H.H., & Stahelski, A.J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66-91.
22.
Kuhlman, D.M., & Marshello, A. ( 1975). Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategic effects in prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 922-931.
23.
Olekalns, M., & Smith, P.L. ( 2003). Social motives in negotiation: The relationships between dyad composition, negotiation processes, and outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management,14,233-254.
24.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. ( 2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
25.
Pruitt, D.G. ( 1998). Social conflict. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89-150). New York: McGraw-Hill .
26.
Pruitt, D.G., & Kimmel, M.J. ( 1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology , 28, 363-392.
27.
Schei, V., & Rognes, J.K. ( 2003). Knowing me, knowing you: Own orientation and information about the opponent’s orientation in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management,14, 43-59.
28.
Schopler, J., & Insko, C. ( 2002). The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. European Review of Social Psychology, 3, 121-152.
29.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. ( 1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies of intergroup relations. New York: Harper and Brothers.
30.
Steinel, W., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 419-434.
31.
Steinel, W., De Dreu, C.K.W., Ouwehand, E., & Ramirez-Marin, J.Y. (2009). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: Constituency heterogeneity and representative negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,109,67-78.
32.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. ( 1979). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In W.A.S. Worchel (Ed.), Psychology and intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall .
33.
Taylor, D.M., & Moghaddam, F.M. (1987). Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives. New York: Praeger.
34.
Tropp, L.R., & Pettigrew, T.F. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1145-1158.
35.
Trotschl, R., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2007). Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43, 579-598.
36.
Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Handgraaf, M.J.J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40, 697-707.
37.
Van Lange, P.A.M. ( 1992). Confidence in expectations: A test of the triangle hypothesis . European Journal of Personality,6, 371-379.
38.
Van Lange, P.A.M. ( 1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337-349.
39.
Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J.L., Insko, C.A., & Schopler, J. ( 2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividualintergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 698-722.
40.
Yzerbyt, V., & Demoulin, S. ( 2010). Intergroup relations. In S. T. Fiske, D. T Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024-1084). New York: Wiley .
