Sex differences in response to coalitional threat

Intergroup conflict poses a different kind of threat for men and women — a difference that can be expected to have implications for cognitive as well as behavioral processes. Participants were primed with a threat from a rival coalition vs. a control condition. Reaction times were measured on a lexical-decision task in response to ideation consistent with coalitions or with friendship/protective care. When primed for coalitional threat, men showed fast access to positive coalitional ideation (suggesting facilitation). In contrast, women showed exceptionally fast access to positive friendship/protective care ideation. Findings were interpreted as reflecting sexually dimorphic responses to coalitional threat that are consistent with differential advertising of their assets to others.     

Men’s Interest in Allying with a Previous Combatant for Future Group Combat

Intra- and intergroup conflict are likely to have been recurrent features of human evolutionary history; however, little research has investigated the factors that affect men’s combat alliance decisions. The current study investigated whether features of previous one-on-one combat with an opponent affect men’s interest in allying with that opponent for future group combat. Fifty-eight undergraduate men recruited from a psychology department subject pool participated in a one-on-one laboratory fight simulation. We manipulated fight outcome (between-subjects), perceived fighter health asymmetry (within-subjects), and the presence of a witness (within-subjects) over six sets of five rounds of fighting. Following each set, we asked men how interested they would be in allying with their opponent for future group combat. We found that men were more interested in allying with their opponent for future group combat if their opponent won the fight or if a witness was present, but perceived fighter-health asymmetry did not affect men’s decision to ally with their opponent. Exploratory analyses revealed a two-way interaction between fight outcome and the presence of a witness, such that winners without a witness present expressed less interest in allying with their opponent for future group combat. Our findings suggest that men attend to the benefits of allying with a man who has demonstrated relatively superior fighting ability. Alliance with a previous opponent for group combat may vary with the relationship value of the opponent and the utility of demonstrating cooperativeness to third-party observers. These findings inform our understanding of coalition formation.     

Evolution and the psychology of intergroup conflict: the male warrior hypothesis

The social science literature contains numerous examples of human tribalism and parochialism-the tendency to categorize individuals on the basis of their group membership, and treat ingroup members benevolently and outgroup members malevolently. We hypothesize that this tribal inclination is an adaptive response to the threat of coalitional aggression and intergroup conflict perpetrated by 'warrior males' in both ancestral and modern human environments. Here, we describe how male coalitional aggression could have affected the social psychologies of men and women differently and present preliminary evidence from experimental social psychological studies testing various predictions from the 'male warrior' hypothesis. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of our research for studying intergroup relations both in humans and non-humans and discuss some practical implications.     

University Sports Rivalries Provide Insights on Coalitional Psychology

Sports are an excellent venue for demonstrating evolutionary principles to audiences not familiar with academic research. Team sports and sports fandom feature dynamics of in-group loyalty and intergroup competition, influenced by our evolved coalitional psychology. We predicted that reactions to expressions signaling mutual team/group allegiance would vary as a function of the territorial context. Reactions should become more prevalent, positive, and enthusiastic as one moves from the home territory to a contested area, and from a contested area to a rival’s territory during active rival engagement. We also predicted that men would be more responsive than women based on sex differences in evolved coalitional psychology. The research team visited public places immediately prior to 2016–2017 collegiate football and basketball games. A male research confederate wore a sweatshirt displaying the logo of one of the competing university teams and vocalized the team’s most popular slogan when he saw a fan displaying similar logos. Observers followed 5 m behind, recording reactions (N?=?597) and response positivity/enthusiasm. Reaction tone was most positive in the rival territory, least positive in the home territory, and intermediate in the periphery and contested territory. Rates of “no reaction” were lowest in the rival territory but were highest in the periphery. Men had higher reaction rates and more positive and enthusiastic reaction tones than women. Reactions generally followed predictions based on expected signal value. This project provides evidence that coalitional psychology influences dynamics related to university sports team rivalries and that context matters for expressions of alliance.     

Steeling Ourselves: Intragroup Communication while Anticipating Intergroup Contact Evokes Defensive Intergroup Perceptions

Two experiments investigated the role of intragroup communication in intergroup conflict (de-)escalation. Experiment 1 examined the effects of intragroup communication (vs. individual thought) and anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact (vs. no anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact). The group discussions of stigmatized group members who anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact revolved more around intergroup hostility. This boosted ingroup identification and increased social creativity but also led to steeling (a hardening of perceived intergroup relations). In Experiment 2, new participants listened to the taped group discussions. The discussions of groups anticipating face-to-face intergroup contact evoked more intergroup anxiety-related discomfort than discussions of groups not anticipating face-to-face intergroup encounters. Together, these results support the idea that steeling is a defensive reaction to prepare for an anxiety-arousing intergroup confrontation. Although steeling is also associated with positive consequences such as increased ingroup solidarity and social creativity, this hardened stance may be an obstacle to conflict de-escalation.     

Conflict, sticks and carrots: war increases prosocial punishments and rewards

Unlike most species, humans cooperate extensively with group members who are not closely related to them, a pattern sustained in part by punishing non-cooperators and rewarding cooperators. Because internally cooperative groups prevail over less cooperative rival groups, it is thought that violent intergroup conflict played a key role in the evolution of human cooperation. Consequently, it is plausible that propensities to punish and reward will be elevated during intergroup conflict. Using experiments conducted before, during and after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, we show that, during wartime, people are more willing to pay costs to punish non-cooperative group members and reward cooperative group members. Rather than simply increasing within-group solidarity, violent intergroup conflict thus elicits behaviours that, writ large, enhance cooperation within the group, thereby making victory more likely.     

Preparing for battle? Potential intergroup conflict promotes current intragroup affiliation

Groups of human soldiers increase their affiliative behaviour when moving into combat zones. Despite numerous other species also competing as groups, little is known about how potential intergroup conflict might influence current intragroup affiliative behaviour in non-human animals. Here, I show that allopreening (when one individual preens another) increases in groups of cooperatively breeding green woodhoopoes (Phoeniculus purpureus) when they enter areas where conflicts with neighbours are more likely. Self-preening, which is an indicator of stress in other species, did not increase in conflict areas, suggesting that the change in affiliative behaviour is not the simple consequence of greater stress. Instead, because it is the dominant breeding pair that increase their preening of subordinate helpers, it is possible that current affiliative behaviour is being exchanged for agonistic support in any intergroup conflicts that might ensue. These results are important for our understanding of group dynamics, cooperation and the evolution of sociality, but also bring to mind the intriguing possibilities of social contracts and future planning in birds.     

Oxytocin modulates selection of allies in intergroup conflict

In intergroup competition and conflict, humans benefit from coalitions with strong partners who help them to protect their in-group and prevail over competing out-groups. Here, we link oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to ally selection in intergroup competition. In a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment, males self-administered oxytocin or placebo, and made selection decisions about six high-threat and six low-threat targets as potential allies in intergroup competition. Males given oxytocin rather than placebo viewed high-threat targets as more useful allies and more frequently selected them into their team than low-threat targets.     

Hormonal response to competition among male coalitions

Previous research has shown that testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) are released in response to a wide variety of social stimuli including dyadic (one on one) competitive events, but humans also compete as groups. Here we report results from a pilot study of hormonal responses to competition between male coalitions. Salivary T and C levels were assessed in adult males from a rural Caribbean village who competed at dominoes, as two-man teams, against (a) familiar men from their own village (within coalition), and (b) strangers from another village (between coalitions). Analyses indicate that both T and C levels were higher and responses more pronounced for between-village competition than for within-village competition, but we could not compare responses to victory and defeat in the between-village case, since our subjects happened to win both such contests. Further studies of endocrine responses in the context of coalitional competition are warranted.     

Do Lanchester's laws of combat describe competition in ants?

Lanchester's laws are mathematical models, originally designedto model military combat, that describe battle outcomes basedon the sizes of armies and the potencies of individual fightingunits. The "square law" describes a scenario in which small-sizedcompetitors may use a numerical advantage to overcome large-sizedcompetitors in simultaneous combat. The "linear law" describeshow a competitor with large-sized fighting units may use one-on-onecombat to favor victory when outnumbered. Lanchester's lawshave been suggested as an important regulator of interspecificcompetition in social insects, but without experimental support. In this study, experimental platforms were designed to invokethe conditions of both Lanchester's laws in a community ofants in lowland tropical wet forest in Costa Rica. I measuredbehavioral dominance at the food platforms in two separatemanners: an ordinal ranking of the number of workers present,and the monopoly of the food platforms. At the platform invokingsimultaneous combat, satisfying the square law, small-sizedants were more behaviorally dominant by numerical superiority.At the platform invoking one-on-one combat, satisfying thelinear law, larger ants were more behaviorally dominant by monopoly. These results suggest that Lanchester's laws explain,in part, the outcome of interspecific competition in ants.     

Why was Standing Rock and the #NoDAPL campaign so historic? Factors affecting American Indian participation in social movement collaborations and coalitions

ABSTRACT

Is the #NoDAPL mobilization, which was historically unusual as a national scale grassroots campaign featuring American Indians grassroots activists and tribal governments in coalition with others, an indicator of future similar efforts? Or, will the Standing Rock resistance be a relative aberration, based on a unique set of circumstances? To explore these questions, I draw upon theory and historical scholarship about American settler colonialism; cross-group collaborations and social movement coalitions; and American Indian movements. A variety of within-group, intergroup and larger structural factors pose significant obstacles to American Indian participation in grassroots social movement coalitions. However, striking threats, the existence of social ties between American Indian movements and environmental movements, and overlap between ideologies and frames generated by each movement were sufficient to generate robust coalitional mobilization.     

Support for Kurdish language rights in Turkey: the roles of ethnic group,group identifications,contact, and intergroup perceptions

The question of Kurdish language rights has been a central issue in the Turkish–Kurdish conflict. The current study examined endorsement of Kurdish language rights in relation to intergroup factors (i.e. group identifications, cross-group friendships, perceived discrimination, and perceived out-group beliefs about state unity) among self-identified Turkish and Kurdish participants. The results indicate that Turks were much less in favour of these rights than the Kurds. In addition, for the Turks, higher national and ethnic identification were associated with lower support for Kurdish language rights, while cross-group friendship, perceived discrimination of Kurds and the belief that Kurds endorse national unity were associated with more support for rights. For the Kurdish participants, stronger national identification seems to undermine the mobilizing meaning that Kurdish group identification has for language rights support. Furthermore, friendship with Turks can undermine the support for rights because it strengthens national identification and reduces ethnic identification.     

Physically strong men are more militant: A test across four countries

There is substantial evidence from archaeology, anthropology, primatology, and psychology indicating that humans have a long evolutionary history of war. Natural selection, therefore, should have designed mental adaptations for making decisions about war. These adaptations evolved in past environments, and so they may respond to variables that were ancestrally relevant but not relevant in modern war. For example, ancestrally in small-scale combat, a skilled fighter would be more likely to survive a war and bring his side to victory. This ancestral regularity would have left its mark on modern men's intergroup psychology: more formidable men should still be more supportive of war. We test this hypothesis in four countries: Argentina, Denmark, Israel, and Romania. In three, physically strong men (but not strong women) were significantly more supportive of military action. These findings support the hypothesis that modern warfare is influenced by a psychology designed for ancestral war.     

Intergroup Conflict and Rational Decision Making

The literature has been relatively silent about post-conflict processes. However, understanding the way humans deal with post-conflict situations is a challenge in our societies. With this in mind, we focus the present study on the rationality of cooperative decision making after an intergroup conflict, i.e., the extent to which groups take advantage of post-conflict situations to obtain benefits from collaborating with the other group involved in the conflict. Based on dual-process theories of thinking and affect heuristic, we propose that intergroup conflict hinders the rationality of cooperative decision making. We also hypothesize that this rationality improves when groups are involved in an in-group deliberative discussion. Results of a laboratory experiment support the idea that intergroup conflict –associated with indicators of the activation of negative feelings (negative affect state and heart rate)– has a negative effect on the aforementioned rationality over time and on both group and individual decision making. Although intergroup conflict leads to sub-optimal decision making, rationality improves when groups and individuals subjected to intergroup conflict make decisions after an in-group deliberative discussion. Additionally, the increased rationality of the group decision making after the deliberative discussion is transferred to subsequent individual decision making.     

Human collective aggression: A behavioral ecology perspective

Moller (1967/68) proposes that the presence of a large number of adolescents and young adults in a population is a precursor of violent conflicts. But acts of collective aggression are typically perpetrated by males, particularly young males between 15 and 30 years of age. This marked sex difference in the degree of participation is found in all human societies, and it has persisted since the beginning of recorded history. Sexually dimorphic behaviors are invariably found in the context of reproduction, and we discuss male coalitional aggression as a reproductive fitness-enhancing social behavior. This type of social behavior may not increase the welfare of an entire population but it is likely to promote the fitness of the coalition participants. This study argues that the age composition of the male population should be regarded as the critical ecological/demographic factor affecting a population's tendency toward peace or violent conflicts. Our analyses of interstate and intrastate episodes of collective aggression since the 1960s indicate the existence of a consistent correlation between the ratio of males 15 to 29 years of age per 100 males 30 years of age and older, and the level of coalitional aggression as measured by the number of reported conflict related deaths.     

Sovereignty at what price? Existential displacement at the Lebanese/Syrian border

In 2014, Islamist jihadist groups overran a Lebanese border town and besieged it for four days, spreading terror across the town and the country as a whole. In response, the Lebanese army launched a violent counterattack on these groups with the aid of Hizbullah in what became known as the Battle of Arsal. Declaring the area a security zone, the army restricted mobility and placed Lebanese citizens and Syrian refugees under military confinement. While the battle ended with a government-declared victory that celebrated the ‘reclamation of state sovereignty’, these events disrupted social life in unprecedented ways. This article focuses on the phenomenological experience of sovereignty and the price paid for the desire for this state. I explore the ruptures people experienced in their existence (their right to life, subsistence, and movement under indiscriminate shelling) and existentiality (their reflections on their human existence in time, place, and relationship to others in a social world that is no longer recognizable). I argue for a concept of existential displacement that focuses on the experience of citizens as well as refugees for a broader understanding of the ruptures and dispossessions taking place in conflict.     

Contextual factors that heighten interest in coalitional alliances with men possessing formidable facial structures

Individuals use facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) to infer men's formidability. We hypothesized that fWHR assessments would form a basis for men's coalitional value, with high-fWHR men being valuable in roles requiring physical strength. Five studies (N = 1323) tested how perceptions of formidability influence coalitional decisions. In addition to replicating previous findings indicating a preference for high-fWHR men in tasks requiring strength (Study 1), the formidability inference most associated with this high-fWHR preference was perceived strength and not aggressiveness (Studies 2a, 2b). Two pre-registered studies showed that activating competitive motivations increased preferences for high-fWHR allies (Study 3), though this preference appeared driven by a tolerance for high-fWHR men rather than an interest (Study 4). Findings provide evidence for how inferences of fWHR shape interpersonal preferences based on social contexts.     

Does Human–Animal Similarity Lower the Need to Affirm Humans’ Superiority Relative to Animals? A Social Psychological Viewpoint

This research integrates different social psychological theories to test whether human–animal similarity promotes affiliation with animals and lowers the need to affirm humans’ superiority relative to animals. On the basis of theories of intergroup relations, terror management theory, and work conducted in the field of human–animal relations, we expected that higher human–animal similarity would decrease the need to affirm humans’ superiority relative to animals, by triggering a greater sense of shared social identity. Two correlational studies (ns = 187 and 191) tested a mediation model whereby perceived human–animal similarity was expected to predict a lower need to differentiate the perceived status of humans from animals through a process of social identification with animals. Mediated regressions provided support for these associations. A repeated-measures experiment (n = 176) replicated these findings by systematically comparing objectively (phylogenetically) more vs. less similar animals and assessing perceived status and identification. Results are discussed in light of theories of intergroup relations, terror management theory, as well as recent advances in the field of social psychology and self and identity processes.     

Korean merchants in the black community: Prejudice among the victims of prejudice

The Korean‐black conflict in the black community in Philadelphia, PA, where Korean merchants are actively engaged in small businesses, is examined on the basis of interviews with community leaders and merchants and data from secondary sources. Manifest sources of conflict between these two minority groups stemming from cultural misunderstanding, communication problems, economic competition, and structural changes due to the settlement of a large number of Koreans in the black community are explored, and deeper sources are examined, originating from a historical prejudice on the part of Koreans; Koreans’ status anxiety arising from incongruence between their previous status and their current one; Blacks’ experience with non‐black shop owners or exploiters in the past; and Blacks’ feeling of powerlessness in stopping the influx of both whites and Asian groups into their community. All these sources of conflict may have developed independently before Koreans and Blacks came into contact, and their resolution thus requires an understanding of deeply rooted sources of conflict that include not only those caused by structural change but also those resulting from historical and psychological dimensions of intergroup relations.