Parasite primes make foreign-accented English sound more distant to people who are disgusted by pathogens (but not by sex or morality)

To avoid disease, people should maintain close ties with ingroup members but maintain distance from outgroup members who possess novel pathogens. Consistent with this disease-avoidance hypothesis, pathogenic stimuli, as well as increased personal vulnerability to disease, are associated with xenophobic and ethnocentric attitudes. Researchers assume that this disease-avoidance process is an automatic emotional response that compels negative attitudes and behavioral avoidance. However, when outgroup contact can represent fitness costs or benefits, and when group membership is an uncertain cue to infection risk, it becomes a fitness advantage for a social perceiver to track group membership and thus infection risk. Given that accents can be a cue to group membership, we predicted that the perception of linguistic similarity to ingroup speakers and dissimilarity from outgroup speakers would increase with individual differences in pathogen disgust, and that this association would be most apparent when threat of disease was salient. This hypothesis was confirmed in two experiments. Further, the mechanism was domain specific—disgust due to sexual acts and moral violations did not moderate perceived linguistic distance. The disease-avoidance mechanism is not just an automatic disgust-based reaction; it also operates through the cognitive appraisal of social distance.     

Self-protective motivation and avoidance of heuristically threatening outgroups

Because hostile outgroup members have been a recurrent source of danger, self-protective motivation leads people to display psychological processes that reduce vulnerability to outgroup threats. The current research examines the consequences of self-protective motivation for intergroup behavior. The current research provides evidence that self-protective motivation causes individuals to automatically avoid heuristically threatening outgroup members. Across two studies, priming self-protective motivation led White participants to display faster avoidance behaviors when presented with images of Black individuals (members of an outgroup culturally stereotyped as violent) than White individuals (members of the ingroup) and Asian individuals (members of an outgroup not stereotyped as violent). This research sheds light on the way in which evolved mechanisms interact with cultural cognitions to shape intergroup behavior.     

Intergroup Contact Effects via Ingroup Distancing among Majority and Minority Groups: Moderation by Social Dominance Orientation

Five studies tested whether intergroup contact reduces negative outgroup attitudes through a process of ingroup distancing. Based on the deprovincialization hypothesis and Social Dominance Theory, we hypothesized that the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup identification is moderated by individuals’ Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and occurs only for members of high status majority groups. We tested these predictions in three different intergroup contexts, involving conflictual relations between social groups in Germany (Study 1; N = 150; longitudinal Study 2: N = 753), Northern Ireland (Study 3: N = 160; Study 4: N = 1,948), and England (Study 5; N = 594). Cross-group friendship was associated with reduced ingroup identification and the link between reduced ingroup identification and improved outgroup attitudes was moderated by SDO (the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup only occurred for individuals scoring high, but not low, in SDO). Although there was a consistent moderating effect of SDO in high-status majority groups (Studies 1–5), but not low-status minority groups (Studies 3, 4, and 5), the interaction by SDO was not reliably stronger in high- than low-status groups. Findings are discussed in terms of better understanding deprovincialization effects of contact.     

Are people more averse to microbe-sharing contact with ethnic outgroup members? A registered report

Intergroup biases are widespread across cultures and time. The current study tests an existing hypothesis that has been proposed to explain such biases: the mind has evolved to interpret outgroup membership as a cue to pathogen threat. In this registered report, we test a core feature of this hypothesis. Adapting methods from earlier work, we examine (1) whether people are less comfortable with microbe-sharing contact with an ethnic outgroup member than an ethnic ingroup member, and (2) whether this difference is exacerbated by additional visual cues to a target's infectiousness. Using Chinese (N = 1533) and British (N = 1371) samples recruited from the online platforms WJX and Prolific, we assessed contact comfort with targets who were either East Asian or White and who were either modified to have symptoms of infection or unmodified (or, for exploratory purposes, modified to wear facemasks). Contact comfort was lower for targets modified to have symptoms of infection. However, we detected no differences in contact comfort with ethnic-ingroup targets versus ethnic-outgroup targets. These results do not support the hypothesis that people interpret ethnic outgroup membership alone as a cue to infection risk.     

Pathogen threat and intergroup prejudice using the minimal group paradigm: Evidence from a registered report

Infection by parasites, bacteria, and other microorganisms has been a powerful selection pressure faced by humans and other species. Consequently, avoiding pathogens has played an important role in human evolution and continues to play a role in contemporary social psychological processes. The current research tested the hypothesis that pathogen avoidance promotes intergroup prejudice. Whereas previous tests relied on existing cultural groups, which can conflate outgroup status with pre-existing group stereotypes about disease or geographic variability in pathogen prevalence, the current experiments assessed intergroup bias using a minimal group paradigm. Based on preliminary evidence (Study 1, N = 207, undergraduate students) that experimentally priming pathogen avoidance motivation promoted negativity toward a minimal outgroup, we conducted a Registered Report (Study 2, N = 1339 online participants) to replicate and extend those findings. Our primary hypothesis was that an experimental manipulation of pathogen threat (relative to two control conditions) would produce greater intergroup prejudice (negativity toward the nominal outgroup relative to the nominal ingroup). This hypothesis was not supported in the larger, registered second study. Exploratory analyses provided some evidence for interactions between experimental priming of pathogen threat and individual differences in pathogen disgust, but the interactive pattern differed across the two experiments. Findings call into question the hypothesis that, in the absence of cultural stereotypes, situationally activated pathogen avoidance promotes intergroup prejudice.     

A review of long-branch attraction

The history of long‐branch attraction, and in particular methods suggested to detect and avoid the artifact to date, is reviewed. Methods suggested to avoid LBA‐artifacts include excluding long‐branch taxa, excluding faster evolving third codon positions, using inference methods less sensitive to LBA such as likelihood, the Aguinaldo et al. approach, sampling more taxa to break up long branches and sampling more characters especially of another kind, and the pros and cons of these are discussed. Methods suggested to detect LBA are numerous and include methodological disconcordance, RASA, separate partition analyses, parametric simulation, random outgroup sequences, long‐branch extraction, split decomposition and spectral analysis. Less than 10 years ago it was doubted if LBA occurred in real datasets. Today, examples are numerous in the literature and it is argued that the development of methods to deal with the problem is warranted. A 16 kbp dataset of placental mammals and a morphological and molecular combined dataset of gall waSPS are used to illustrate the particularly common problem of LBA of problematic ingroup taxa to outgroups. The preferred methods of separate partition analysis, methodological disconcordance, and long branch extraction are used to demonstrate detection methods. It is argued that since outgroup taxa almost always represent long branches and are as such a hazard towards misplacing long branched ingroup taxa, phylogenetic analyses should always be run with and without the outgroups included. This will detect whether only the outgroup roots the ingroup or if it simultaneously alters the ingroup topology, in which case previous studies have shown that the latter is most often the worse. Apart from that LBA to outgroups is the major and most common problem; scanning the literature also detected the ill advised comfort of high support values from thousands of characters, but very few taxa, in the age of genomics. Taxon sampling is crucial for an accurate phylogenetic estimate and trust cannot be put on whole mitochondrial or chloroplast genome studies with only a few taxa, despite their high support values. The placental mammal example demonstrates that parsimony analysis will be prone to LBA by the attraction of the tenrec to the distant marsupial outgroups. In addition, the murid rodents, creating the classic “the guinea‐pig is not a rodent” hypothesis in 1996, are also shown to be attracted to the outgroup by nuclear genes, although including the morphological evidence for rodents and Glires overcomes the artifact. The gall wasp example illustrates that Bayesian analyses with a partition‐specific GTR + Γ + I model give a conflicting resolution of clades, with a posterior probability of 1.0 when comparing ingroup alone versus outgroup rooted topologies, and this is due to long‐branch attraction to the outgroup. © The Willi Hennig Society 2005.     

A Puzzle Unsolved: Failure to Observe Different Effects of God and Religion Primes on Intergroup Attitudes

Religious priming has been found to have both positive and negative consequences, and recent research suggests that the activation of God-related and community-related religious cognitions may cause outgroup prosociality and outgroup derogation respectively. The present research sought to examine whether reminders of God and religion have different effects on attitudes towards ingroup and outgroup members. Over two studies, little evidence was found for different effects of these two types of religious primes. In study 1, individuals primed with the words “religion”, “God” and a neutral control word evaluated both ingroup and outgroup members similarly, although a marginal tendency towards more negative evaluations of outgroup members by females exposed to religion primes was observed. In study 2, no significant differences in attitudes towards an outgroup member were observed between the God, religion, and neutral priming conditions. Furthermore, the gender effect observed in study 1 did not replicate in this second study. Possible explanations for these null effects are discussed.     

The psychology of deterrence explains why group membership matters for third-party punishment

Humans regularly intervene in others' conflicts as third-parties. This has been studied using the third-party punishment game: A third-party can pay a cost to punish another player (the “dictator”) who treated someone else poorly. Because the game is anonymous and one-shot, punishers are thought to have no strategic reasons to intervene. Nonetheless, punishers often punish dictators who treat others poorly. This result is central to a controversy over human social evolution: Did third-party punishment evolve to maintain group norms or to deter others from acting against one's interests? This paper provides a critical test. We manipulate the ingroup/outgroup composition of the players while simultaneously measuring the inferences punishers make about how the dictator would treat them personally. The group norm predictions were falsified, as outgroup defectors were punished most harshly, not ingroup defectors (as predicted by ingroup fairness norms) and not outgroup members generally (as predicted by norms of parochialism). The deterrence predictions were validated: Punishers punished the most when they inferred that they would be treated the worst by dictators, especially when better treatment would be expected given ingroup/outgroup composition.     

Different gymnosperm outgroups have (mostly) congruent signal regarding the root of flowering plant phylogeny

We examined multiple plastid genes from a diversity of gymnosperm lineages to explore the consistency of signal among different outgroups for rooting flowering plant phylogeny. For maximum parsimony (MP), most outgroups attach on a branch of the underlying ingroup tree that leads to Amborella. Maximum likelihood (ML) analyses either root angiosperms on a nearby branch or find split support for these neighboring root placements, depending on the outgroup. The inclusion of two species of Hydatellaceae, recently recognized as an ancient line of angiosperms, does not aid in inference of the root. Cost profiles for placing the root in suboptimal locations are highly correlated across most outgroup comparisons, even comparing MP and ML profiles. Those for Gnetales are the most deviant of all those considered. This divergent outgroup either attaches on a long eudicot branch with moderate bootstrap support in MP analyses or supports no particular root location in ML analysis. Removing the most rapidly evolving sites in rate classifications based on two divergent angiosperm root placements with Gnetales yields strongly conflicting root placements in MP analysis, despite substantial overlap in the estimated sets of conservative sites. However, the generally high consistency in rooting signal among distantly related gymnosperm clades suggests that the long branch connecting angiosperms to their extant relatives may not interfere substantially with inference of the angiosperm root.     

Cooperation and Shared Beliefs about Trust in the Assurance Game

Determinants of cooperation include ingroup vs. outgroup membership, and individual traits, such as prosociality and trust. We investigated whether these factors can be overridden by beliefs about people’s trust. We manipulated the information players received about each other’s level of general trust, “high” or “low”. These levels were either measured (Experiment 1) or just arbitrarily assigned labels (Experiment 2). Players’ choices whether to cooperate or defect in a stag hunt (or an assurance game)—where it is mutually beneficial to cooperate, but costly if the partner should fail to do so—were strongly predicted by what they were told about the other player’s trust label, as well as by what they were told that the other player was told about their own label. Our findings demonstrate the importance for cooperation in a risky coordination game of both first- and second-order beliefs about how much people trust each other. This supports the idea that institutions can influence cooperation simply by influencing beliefs.     

Phylogenetics of Chondrichthyes and the problem of rooting phylogenies with distant outgroups

Erroneous estimates of ingroup relationships can be caused by attributes in the outgroup chosen to root the tree. Phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences frequently yield incorrect estimates of ingroup relationships when the outgroup used to "root" the tree is highly divergent from the ingroup. This is especially the case when the outgroup has a different base composition than the ingroup. Unfortunately, in many instances, alternative less divergent outgroups are not available. In such cases, investigators must either target genes with attributes that minimize the problem (slowly evolving genes with stationary base compositions--which are often not ideal for estimating relationships among the more closely related ingroup taxa) or use inference models that are explicitly tailored to deal with an attenuated historical signal with a superimposed non-stationary base composition. In this paper we explore the problem both empirically and through simulation. For the empirical component we looked at the phylogenetic relationships among elasmobranch fishes (sharks and rays), a group whose closest living outgroup, the holocephalan Ghost fishes, are separated from the elasmobranchs by more than 100 million years of evolution. We compiled a data set for analysis comprising 10 single-copy nuclear protein-coding genes (12,096 bp) for representatives of the major lineages within elasmobranchs and holocephalans. For the simulation, we used an evolutionary model on a fixed tree topology to generate DNA sequence data sets which varied both in their distance to the outgroup, and in their base compositional difference between ingroup and outgroup. Results from both the empirical data set and the simulation, support the idea that deviation from base compositional stationarity, in conjunction with distance from the root can act in concert to compromise accuracy of estimated relationships within the ingroup. We tested several approaches to mitigate such problems. We found, that excluding genes with overall faster rates and heterogeneous base compositions, while the least sophisticated of the methods evaluated, seemed to be the most effective.     

Hypothetical Ancestors and Rooting in Cladistic Analysis

Most hypothetical ancestors that are used to root trees in cladistic analyses summarize character-state information in one or more outgroup taxa. Nonetheless, hypothetical ancestors also provide a means of rooting trees using the ontogenetic and paleontological methods of polarizing character transformations, and for incorporating the inferences of more than one of these methods into a single analysis. However, the use of one hypothetical ancestor that combines inferences based on outgroup comparison with those based on other methods of polarizing character transformations to root a cladogram is invalid. Inferences regarding plesiomorphic character states based on outgroup comparison apply to the outgroup node, whereas inferences based on either the ontogenetic or paleontological method apply to the ingroup node. These inferences cannot be combined into a single hypothetical construct. A hypothetical ancestor based on outgroup information is included in the data matrix and used to root the resulting network; however, because this ancestor places potentially problematic constraints on the analysis, the use of actual outgroup taxa is preferable in most instances. Correct use of a hypothetical ancestor inferred with the ontogenetic and paleontological methods involves the Lundberg method in which the shortest ingroup network is rooted at the internode to which the hypothetical ancestor attaches most parsimoniously. Because inferences of polarity based on outgroup comparison cannot be combined directly with those based on other polarization methods, the synthesis of information from all three methods in a single tree must involve taxonomic congruence.     

The problem of rooting rapid radiations

There are many examples of groups (such as birds, bees, mammals, multicellular animals, and flowering plants) that have undergone a rapid radiation. In such cases, where there is a combination of short internal and long external branches, correctly estimating and rooting phylogenetic trees is known to be a difficult problem. In this simulation study, we tested the performances of different phylogenetic methods at estimating a tree that models a rapid radiation. We found that maximum likelihood, corrected and uncorrected neighbor-joining, and corrected and uncorrected parsimony, all suffer from biases toward specific tree topologies. In addition, we found that using a single-taxon outgroup to root a tree frequently disrupts an otherwise correct ingroup phylogeny. Moreover, for uncorrected parsimony, we found cases where several individual trees (in which the outgroup was placed incorrectly) were selected more frequently than the correct tree. Even for parameter settings where the correct tree was selected most frequently when using extremely long sequences, for sequences of up to 60,000 nucleotides the incorrectly rooted trees were each selected more frequently than the correct tree. For all the cases tested here, tree estimation using a two taxon outgroup was more accurate than when using a single-taxon outgroup. However, the ingroup was most accurately recovered when no outgroup was used.     

Ingroup-outgroup bias in contagious yawning by chimpanzees supports link to empathy

Humans favor others seen as similar to themselves (ingroup) over people seen as different (outgroup), even without explicitly stated bias. Ingroup-outgroup bias extends to involuntary responses, such as empathy for pain. However, empathy biases have not been tested in our close primate relatives. Contagious yawning has been theoretically and empirically linked to empathy. If empathy underlies contagious yawning, we predict that subjects should show an ingroup-outgroup bias by yawning more in response to watching ingroup members yawn than outgroup. Twenty-three chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) from two separate groups watched videos of familiar and unfamiliar individuals yawning or at rest (control). The chimpanzees yawned more when watching the familiar yawns than the familiar control or the unfamiliar yawns, demonstrating an ingroup-outgroup bias in contagious yawning. These results provide further empirical support that contagious yawning is a measure of empathy, which may be useful for evolutionary biology and mental health.     

Rooting phylogenetic trees with distant outgroups: a case study from the commelinoid monocots

Phylogenetic rooting experiments demonstrate that two chloroplast genes from commelinoid monocot taxa that represent the closest living relatives of the pickerelweed family, Pontederiaceae, retain measurable signals regarding the position of that family's root. The rooting preferences of the chloroplast sequences were compared with those for artificial sequences that correspond to outgroups so divergent that their signal has been lost completely. These random sequences prefer the three longest branches in the unrooted ingroup topology and do not preferentially root on the branches favored by real outgroup sequences. However, the rooting behavior of the artificial sequences is not a simple function of branch length. The random outgroups preferentially root on long terminal ingroup branches, but many ingroup branches comparable in length to those favored by random sequences attract no or few hits. Nonterminal ingroup branches are generally avoided, regardless of their length. Comparisons of the ease of forcing sequences onto suboptimal roots indicate that real outgroups require a substantially greater rooting penalty than random outgroups for around half of the least-parsimonious candidate roots. Although this supports the existence of nonrandomized signal in the real outgroups, it also indicates that there is little power to choose among the optimal and nearly optimal rooting possibilities. A likelihood-based test rejects the hypothesis that all rootings of the subtree using real outgroup sequences are equally good explanations of the data and also eliminates around half of the least optimal candidate roots. Adding genes or outgroups can improve the ability to discriminate among different root locations. Rooting discriminatory power is shown to be stronger, in general, for more closely related outgroups and is highly correlated among different real outgroups, genes, and optimality criteria.     

螟黄足盘绒茧蜂复合群支序系统学研究（膜翅目：茧蜂科：小腹茧蜂亚科）

对螟黄足盘绒茧蜂复合群Cotesia flavipes complex (膜翅目：茧蜂科：小腹茧蜂亚科)分布全世界的5个种和外群侧沟茧蜂Microplitis 及荻茧蜂Diolcogaster 的25个性状,以及复合群5个种和外群螟蛉盘绒茧蜂Cotesia ruficrus、粘虫盘绒茧蜂Cotesia kariyai、粉蝶盘绒茧蜂Cotesia glomerata 的24个性状,分别进行比较研究,并运用支序分析的方法探讨该复合群内5个种种间的系统发育关系。支序分析表明螟黄足盘绒茧蜂复合群是一单系群,二化螟盘绒茧蜂C. chilonis 和大螟盘绒茧蜂C. sesamiae 近缘,芦螟盘绒茧蜂C. chiloluteelli 和汉寿盘绒茧蜂C. hanshouensis 近缘,螟黄足盘绒茧蜂C. flavipes相对独立。 以上研究表明无论是以近缘属作外群还是以同属其它种作外群,所得结果基本上都能反映螟黄足盘绒茧蜂复合群各种之间的分类地位。     

Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination

Social norms pervade almost every aspect of social interaction. If they are violated, not only legal institutions, but other members of society as well, punish, i.e., inflict costs on the wrongdoer. Sanctioning occurs even when the punishers themselves were not harmed directly and even when it is costly for them. There is evidence for intergroup bias in this third-party punishment: third-parties, who share group membership with victims, punish outgroup perpetrators more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. However, it is unknown whether a discriminatory treatment of outgroup perpetrators (outgroup discrimination) or a preferential treatment of ingroup perpetrators (ingroup favoritism) drives this bias. To answer this question, the punishment of outgroup and ingroup perpetrators must be compared to a baseline, i.e., unaffiliated perpetrators. By applying a costly punishment game, we found stronger punishment of outgroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators and weaker punishment of ingroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators. This demonstrates that both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination drive intergroup bias in third-party punishment of perpetrators that belong to distinct social groups.     

Health and the avoidance of macroparasites: a preliminary cross-cultural study

Some evolutionary explanations of cross-cultural differences propose that human personality is caused by pathogen stress. Both xenophobia and ethnocentrism evolved under conditions with high parasite prevalence. Further, inter-individual variation in disgust or fear of parasites is expected to be influenced by human health, where healthy people should express lower disgust sensitivity to parasites. We examined inter-individual variation of children’s fear, disgust and self-perceived danger between two distinct cultures differing in overall pathogen prevalence. We found that children were able to distinguish between disease-relevant and disease-irrelevant groups of invertebrates and that children in regions with high pathogen prevalence expressed greater fear, disgust and self-perceived danger of all animals, irrespective of disease threat. After controlling for confounding factors, better health of children was associated with lower perceived danger of disease-relevant animals. Gender differences were found only in conditions with low pathogen stress. Our results support the idea that cross-cultural differences in human perception of animals are mediated by pathogen threat. Further research is necessary to investigate causal relationship between human health and avoidance of potentially hazardous animals.     

When Is Group Membership Zero-Sum? Effects of Ethnicity,Threat, and Social Identity on Dual National Identity

This paper presents an investigation into marginalizing racism, a form of prejudice whereby ingroup members claim that specific individuals belong to their group, but also exclude them by not granting them all of the privileges of a full ingroup member. One manifestation of this is that perceived degree of outgroup membership will covary negatively with degree of ingroup membership. That is, group membership may be treated as a zero-sum quantity (e.g., one cannot be both Australian and Iraqi). Study 1 demonstrated that judges allocate more zero-sum membership assignments and lower combined membership in their country of origin and their adopted country to high-threat migrants than low-threat migrants. Study 2 identified a subtle type of zero-sum reasoning which holds that stronger degree of membership in one’s original nationality constrains membership in a new nationality to a greater extent than stronger membership in the new nationality constrains membership in one’s original nationality. This pattern is quite general, being replicated in large samples from four nations (USA, UK, India, and China). Taken together, these studies suggest that marginalizing racism is more than a belief that people retain a “stain” from membership in their original group. Marginalizing racism also manifests itself as conditional zero-sum beliefs about multiple group memberships.     

Indirect reciprocity and tradeoff paradigms in the wake of violent intergroup conflict

Intergroup interaction can be hindered by legacies of conflict and group biases. Many studies have looked at intergroup attitudes and pro-sociality in the wake of intergroup conflict, but few have explicitly studied how the group affiliation of another person affects the willingness to interact economically, especially when the interactions concern contested issues. In this study, I investigate the effect of group affiliation on the willingness to engage in economic interactions with others among individuals exposed to violent intergroup conflict, using a sample of refugees from the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Based on the theory of indirect reciprocity, it is predicted that the tradeoff paradigms, that is, the willingness to engage in economic transactions with another individual, will depend on previous actions of other members of that individual's group. Participants tended to adopt a communal sharing tradeoff paradigm with ingroup members, and they tended to adopt a market pricing paradigm with outgroup members. However, this was the case only for those who reported that outgroup members had taken actions to harm them or their family in the conflict. For those who reported being harmed by members of the ingroup, a market pricing paradigm was employed also with ingroup members. The results suggest that group biases and indirect reciprocity after violent conflict do not necessarily arise from group identities alone, but as a function of past interactions with outgroup members.