Advertisement

Is ingroup favoritism contingent on the expectation of reciprocity from ingroup members?: The case of reputation manipulation

  • Serhat KoloğlugilEmail author
  • Burcu Tekeş
Article
First Online:

Abstract

We use a game of cooperation with minimal groups to test whether ingroup favoritism can be explained by the expectation of reciprocity from ingroup members. To do this, we first manipulate participants’ level expected cooperation from ingroup and outgroup partners by letting them play the game with different partners having different (high or low) cooperative reputations. We then analyze how these expectations affect ingroup bias in the game across different reputation conditions. We find that even if subjects expect the same level of cooperation from ingroup and outgroup partners with high reputation, they still cooperate more with the former than the latter. This contradicts the reciprocity hypothesis in the literature which explains intergroup discrimination solely in reference to differential reciprocal expectations. But, against ingroup and outgroup partners with low cooperative reputation, subjects’ level of cooperation almost exactly parallel their reciprocal expectations. This result is in line with the reciprocity hypothesis. We explain these findings by arguing that both reciprocal expectations and social identity play their parts in the emergence of ingroup favoritism, but that their relative strengths may depend on the interaction with other contextual factors. We also argue in favor of further experimental research as to how reciprocity and social identity interact with such third factors as partner’s reputation in different games of social exchange.

Keywords

Ingroup favoritism Cooperative reputation Reciprocity Social identity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Amiot, C. E., & Sansfaçon, S. (2011). Motivations to identify with social groups: A look at their positive and negative consequences. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(2), 105.Google Scholar
  3. Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballinger, G. A. (2004). Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 127–150.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015.
  8. Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. J. (2015a). The influence of social preferences and reputational concerns on intergroup prosocial behaviour in gains and losses contexts. Royal Society Open Science, 2(12), 150546.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150546.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 77–94.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gagnon, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1996). Discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Social identity or self-interest? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1289–1301.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 926–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jin, N., & Shinotsuka, H. (1996). Perception of interdependency and the cooperative tendency. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Social Psychological Association (pp. 154-155).Google Scholar
  14. Jin, N., & Yamagishi, T. (1997). Group heuristics in social dilemma. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 12(3), 190–198.  https://doi.org/10.14966/jssp.KJ00003724741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiyonari, T., & Yamagishi, T. (2004). Ingroup cooperation and the social exchange heuristic. In R. Suleiman, D. V. Budescu, I. Fischer, & D. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas (pp. 269–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lodewijkx, H. F., Rabbie, J. M., & Syroit, J. E. (1999). Don’t bite the hand that feeds you: Mediation of minimal group discrimination by reciprocal expectations. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 28–41.Google Scholar
  17. Otten, S. (2003). "me and us" or" us and them"? The self as a heuristic for defining minimal ingroups. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rabbie, J. M., Schot, J. C., & Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioural interaction model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(3), 171–202.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420190302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Riolo, R. L., Cohen, M. D., & Axelrod, R. (2001). Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature, 414(6862), 441–443.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35106555.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Romano, A., Balliet, D., & Wu, J. (2017). Unbounded indirect reciprocity: Is reputation-based cooperation bounded by group membership? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.Google Scholar
  23. Shinada, M., Yamagishi, T., & Ohmura, Y. (2004). False friends are worse than bitter enemies: “Altruistic” punishment of in-group members. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 379–393.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stroebe, K., Lodewijkx, H. F., & Spears, R. (2005). Do unto others as they do unto you: Reciprocity and social identification as determinants of ingroup favoritism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(6), 831–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  29. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 585.Google Scholar
  32. Yamagishi, T., & Kiyonari, T. (2000). The group as the container of generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 116–132.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2695887.
  33. Yamagishi, T., & Mifune, N. (2008). Does shared group membership promote altruism? Fear, greed, and reputation. Rationality and Society, 20(1), 5–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463107085442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yamagishi, T., & Mifune, N. (2009). Social exchange and solidarity: In-group love or out-group hate? Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(4), 229–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., & Kiyonari, T. (1999). Bounded generalized reciprocity: Ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism. Advances in Group Processes, 16(1), 161–197.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsIşık UniversityŞileTurkey
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyBaskent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options