Skip to main content

Attacking the Weak or the Strong? An Experiment on the Targets of Parochial Altruism

Political Behavior volume 45, pages 211–242 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

Studies on parochial altruism have insofar focused on the causes leading individuals to attack any outgroup on the behalf of one’s group. Yet, we lack clues to understand why parochial altruists target specific groups, such as dominant groups in some contexts and minority groups in others. The present paper introduces an experiment to analyze the conditions under which individuals costly attack strong versus weak outgroups. In a first study, 300 participants played a repeated Inter-group Prisoner Dilemma involving multiple groups and inter-group differences in resources. Results show that individuals have a preference for targeting strong outgroups, but that attacks decrease when the inequality in destructive capacity between groups is high. Besides, individuals target weak outgroups when they are threatening their ingroup status. Decisions in the game correlate with participants’ political ideology and Social Dominance Orientation. In a second study, we provide evidence that our results generalize to historical linkages between economic inequality and left-wing versus right-wing terrorist attacks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. The present paper focuses on the hypotheses 2 and 3 (about social comparison) of the preregistered project. The hypothesis 1 (about the ingroup situation) is explored in a separate study.

  2. Our version of the IPD game entails the likelihood that subjects have negative payoffs. To address this issue, we decided that a subject who has negative points can no longer attack and no longer loses points from outgroup attacks. Yet, subjects of the outgroups continue to gain points when attacking the subject’s ingroup irrespectively of the subject’s number of points. When all subjects of the ingroup attain zero, we consider the ingroup “dead” and the outgroups can no longer attack it.

  3. Except the case in which the resources in points \({p}_{0}\) of the poor subject are below the absolute limit \(\beta\).

  4. Source code available here: https://gricad-gitlab.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/ecopol/ipdradical/

  5. Instructions and screenshots from the software are provided in the online appendix. The oTree package is available upon request.

  6. This reduces the sample to N = 17,728. Including all observations in the analyses does not alter our conclusions. The authors can send results upon request.

    Note that the sample is further reduced in the regression analyses, due to the inclusion of some variables (e.g. variable measuring behaviors during a previous round). We specify in notes under the regression tables the rationale behind sample reductions.

  7. We also present in the online appendix alternative models based on ingroup-outgroup dyads with ingroup random effects and models based on subject-outgroup dyads with subject fixed effects.

  8. Detailed summary statistics are provided in the online appendix.

  9. The negative binomial regression is a generalization of the poisson regression for count variables with overdispersion (the variance exceeds the mean). Such model is appropriate for our dependent variable, which is an observed count (of the number of points contributed in attacks) with overdispersion (M = 6.54, Var = 100.61).

  10. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses of the level of individual attacks by subjects’ characteristics are presented in the online appendix.

  11. The variable theoretically goes from 20% (perfect equality across the five groups) to 100% (perfect concentration of the resources in the richest group). Empirically, the variable goes from 20.0% to 34.2%.

  12. In unequal societies, economically powerful groups have a higher political influence on policies (Gilens, 2012).

  13. The results are robust to dropping interpolation, robustness checks are available upon request.

  14. The final sample includes Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

References

  • Abbink, K., & de Haan, T. (2014). Trust on the brink of Armageddon: The first-strike game. European Economic Review, 67, 190–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbink, K., Brandts, J., Herrmann, B., & Orzen, H. (2012). Parochial altruism in inter-group conflicts. Economics Letters, 117(1), 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbink, K., Masclet, D., & Mirza, D. (2018). Inequality and inter-group conflicts: Experimental evidence. Social Choice and Welfare, 50(3), 387–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., & Sheikh, H. (2015). Dangerous terrorists as devoted actors. Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Psychology (pp. 401–416). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., Sheikh, H., & Gomez, A. (2014). Devoted actors sacrifice for close comrades and sacred cause. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America, 111(50), 17702–17703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benslimane, I., Crosetto, P., Magni-Berton, R., & Varaine, S. (2020). Intellectual property reform in the laboratory, Working Papers. Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).

  • Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(7105), 912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizumic, B., Duckitt, J., Popadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 871–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Gürerk, Ö. (2016). What makes people go to war? Defensive intentions motivate retaliatory and preemptive intergroup aggression. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(1), 29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G. (1992). The free-rider problem in intergroup conflicts over step-level and continuous public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G. (2003). Intergroup conflict: Individual, group, and collective interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(2), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G., Erev, I., & Goren, H. (1994). The effect of repeated play in the IPG and IPD team games. Journal of Conflict resolution, 38(4), 690–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutcher, S. A., Jenkins, J. C., & Van Dyke, N. (2017). Strain, ethnic competition, and power devaluation: White supremacist protest in the US, 1948–1997. Social Movement Studies, 16(6), 686–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, C. J., Brown, G. D., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Money and happiness: Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21(4), 471–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(6), 641–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., & Saez, E. (2012). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2981–3003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D. L., Schonger, M., & Wickens, C. (2016). oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9, 88–97.

  • Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318(5850), 636–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22(3), 306–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T., McElreath, R., & Smirnov, O. (2007). Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature, 446(7137), 794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & Gross, J. (2019). Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18002170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., Balliet, D., & Halevy, N. (2014). Parochial cooperation in humans: Forms and functions of self-sacrifice in intergroup conflict. Advances in Motivation Science (pp. 1–47). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., & Feith, S. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dvash, J., Gilam, G., Ben-Ze’ev, A., Hendler, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2010). The envious brain: The neural basis of social comparison. Human Brain Mapping, 31(11), 1741–1750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S. M., Gruenewald, J., Parkin, W. S., & Klein, B. R. (2018). Patterns of fatal extreme-right crime in the United States. Perspectives on Terrorism, 12(6), 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2009). What motivates participation in violent political action. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167(1), 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., Strolovitch, D. Z., & Wong, J. S. (1998). Defended neighborhoods, integration, and racially motivated crime. American Journal of Sociology, 104(2), 372–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grünhage, T., & Reuter, M. (2020). Political orientation is associated with behavior in public-goods-and trust-games. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09606-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19(4), 405–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R., & Bornstein, G. (2010). Relative deprivation and intergroup competition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 685–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, N., Weisel, O., & Bornstein, G. (2012). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” in repeated interaction between groups. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 188–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members’ suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heisig, J. P., & Schaeffer, M. (2019). Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, S., Johnson, T., & Robinson, A. L. (2017). Nationalism and social sanctioning across ethnic lines: Experimental evidence from the Kenya-Tanzania Border. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kis-Katos, K., Liebert, H., & Schulze, G. G. (2014). On the heterogeneity of terror. European Economic Review, 68, 116–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, A. B. (2008). What makes a terrorist. Princeton University Press.

  • Luo, Y., Eickhoff, S. B., Hétu, S., & Feng, C. (2018). Social comparison in the brain: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies on the downward and upward comparisons. Human Brain Mapping, 39(1), 440–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malkki, L. (2018). Left-wing terrorism. Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism (pp. 87–97). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2017). Global Terrorism Database. Retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/.

  • Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poutvaara, P., & Wagener, A. (2011). The political economy of conscription. The Handbook on the Political Economy of War. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849808323.00016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raihani, N. J., & McAuliffe, K. (2012). Human punishment is motivated by inequity aversion, not a desire for reciprocity. Biology Letters, 8(5), 802–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravndal, J. A. (2016). Right-wing terrorism and violence in Western Europe: Introducing the RTV dataset. Perspectives on Terrorism, 10(3), 2–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusch, H. (2014). The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: A review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1794), 20141539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1991). Provoking jealousy and envy: Domain relevance and self-esteem threat. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(4), 395–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikh, H., Atran, S., Ginges, J., Wilson, L., Obeid, N., & Davis, R. (2014). The devoted actor as parochial altruist: Sectarian morality, identity fusion, and support for costly sacrifices. Cliodynamics. https://doi.org/10.21237/C7CLIO5124901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simunovic, D., Mifune, N., & Yamagishi, T. (2013). Preemptive strike: An experimental study of fear-based aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1120–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solnick, S. J., & Hemenway, D. (1998). Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 37(3), 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude. Science, 323(5916), 937–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varaine, S. (2018). Bad times are not good times for revolutions: Collective deprivation and the mobilization level of French radical movements (1882–1980). Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 258–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varaine, S. (2019). Revisiting the economics and terrorism nexus: Collective deprivation, ideology and domestic radicalization in the US (1948–2016). Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36, 667–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisel, O., & Böhm, R. (2015). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse, H., McQuinn, B., Buhrmester, M., & Swann, W. B. (2014). Brothers in Arms: Libyan revolutionaries bond like family. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences unites States of America, 111(50), 17783–17785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Inequality Database. (2017). Pre-tax national income—Top 1% share. http://wid.world/data/

  • Yamagishi, T., & Mifune, N. (2016). Parochial altruism: does it explain modern human group psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zack-Williams, A. B. (2001). Child soldiers in the civil war in Sierra Leone. Review of African Political Economy, 28(87), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zizzo, D. J. (2003). Money burning and rank egalitarianism with random dictators. Economics Letters, 81(2), 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zizzo, D. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Are people willing to pay to reduce others’ incomes? Annales d’Economie et de Statistique. https://doi.org/10.2307/20076295

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Innovacs for funding this study. We also thank Anna Cortijos Bernabeu for her work on the text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Science Po Grenoble, School of Political Studies, PACTE, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Simon Varaine & Raul Magni-Berton

  2. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, IPhiG, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Ismaël Benslimane

  3. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, Grenoble INP, GAEL, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Paolo Crosetto

Authors
  1. Simon Varaine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismaël Benslimane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raul Magni-Berton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paolo Crosetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Varaine.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 1754 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Varaine, S., Benslimane, I., Magni-Berton, R. et al. Attacking the Weak or the Strong? An Experiment on the Targets of Parochial Altruism. Polit Behav 45, 211–242 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09696-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09696-9

Keywords

  • Parochial altruism
  • Terrorism
  • Social comparison
  • Inequality
  • Ideology
  • Intergroup conflict