Is ingroup favoritism contingent on the expectation of reciprocity from ingroup members?: The case of reputation manipulation
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.
KeywordsIngroup favoritism Cooperative reputation Reciprocity Social identity
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Alexander, R. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.Google Scholar
- 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
- Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Yamagishi, T., & Kiyonari, T. (2000). The group as the container of generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695887.
- 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
- 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