Parochial altruism

Last updated

Parochial altruism is a concept in social psychology, evolutionary biology, and anthropology that describes altruism towards an in-group, often accompanied by hostility towards an out-group. [1] It is a combination of altruism, defined as behavior done for the benefit of others without direct effect on the self, and parochialism, which refers to having a limited viewpoint. Together, these concepts create parochial altruism, or altruism which is limited in scope to one's in-group. Parochial altruism is closely related to the concepts of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. [2] Research has suggested that parochial altruism may have evolved in humans to promote high levels of in-group cooperation, which is advantageous for group survival. [3] [4] Parochial altruism is often evoked to explain social behaviors within and between groups, such as why people are cooperative within their social groups and why they may be aggressive towards other social groups.

Contents

History

The concept of parochial altruism was first suggested by Charles Darwin. In his book, "The Descent of Man," Darwin observed that competition between a group of the same species and cooperation within groups were important evolutionary traits that influenced human behavior. [5] [6] While Darwin first described the general concept of parochial altruism, the term was first coined in 2007 by economists Jung-Kyoo Choi and Samuel Bowles. [4]

Following Darwin's initial theories, modern researchers in fields such as evolutionary biology and social psychology began investigating the evolution of group dynamics and altruism. Bowles and fellow economist Herbert Gintis were particularly influential[ according to whom? ] in this work, proposing a co-evolution between warfare and in-group altruism. [4] [3] [7] [8]

In addition to this work on evolution, a set of influential studies conducted with indigenous groups in Papua New Guinea were major contributions to the study of parochial altruism. These studies demonstrated how social norms and behaviors surrounding cooperation are often shaped by parochialism. Specifically, these altruistic behaviors were found to be limited to one's own ethnic, racial, or language group. This work revealed that individuals were more likely to protect members of their in-group, even if it required aggression to out-group members. [1]

Definition and characteristics

Parochial altruism refers to a form of altruistic behavior that is exhibited preferentially towards members of one's own group, often accompanied by hostility towards those outside the group. This phenomenon is characterized by a combination of "in-group love" and "out-group hate". [1] [4] The preference towards one's in-group often manifests as cooperation with and sacrifice for members of the same social, ethnic, or cultural group. By contrast, hostility towards an out-group often manifests as aggression and discrimination towards members of different social groups. Parochial altruism is distinct from more general altruism, which is characterized as behavior done to benefit another individual, with no benefit to the self. The balance between preferential treatment towards an in-group and hostility towards an out-group is important for understanding intergroup dynamics.[ citation needed ]

More broadly, altruism can manifest in different forms, ranging from small acts of kindness, like helping a stranger or a friend in need, to more significant sacrifices, such as donating an organ to save another's life. Evolutionary biologists, ethologists, and psychologists have investigated the roots of altruism, suggesting that it may have evolved as a means of enhancing the survival of one's kin (kin selection) or as a strategy to receive a reciprocal benefit from another individual (the norm of reciprocity). [9] [10] [11] Cultural and societal norms significantly influence altruistic behavior, as evidenced by the diversity of altruistic norms and expressions across different human societies.[ failed verification ] [12] Altruism is often contrasted with ethical egoism, the view that individuals should act in their own self-interest. The complexity of human motivation makes the distinction between altruism and self-interest difficult to identify, and this is an ongoing debate within psychology and philosophy alike. [13] [14] [15]

Evolutionary theories

Kin Selection Theory

Kin selection is a theory in evolutionary biology that may offer a foundational framework to help explain the mechanisms underlying parochial altruism. In 1964, evolutionary biologist William Donald Hamilton proposed a theory and mathematical formula, commonly referred to as Hamilton's Rule. The rule posits that evolutionary processes may favor altruistic behaviors when they benefit close genetic relatives, thereby indirectly promoting the transmission of shared genes. Hamilton's Rule is described by the formula C < r × B, where C represents the cost to the altruist, r is the genetic relatedness between the altruist and the receiver, and B is the benefit to the receiver. In essence, kin selection suggests that individuals are more likely to perform altruistic acts if the cost to themselves is outweighed by the benefit to their relatives. [9] [16] In the context of parochial altruism, kin selection provides a compelling explanation[ according to whom? ] for the preference for in-group favoritism.[ citation needed ] It suggests that individuals may be evolutionarily predisposed to exhibit altruistic behaviors towards members of their own group, especially if those group members are close genetic relatives. [17]

Reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity states that people tend to respond to others in the same way that they have been treated. For example, kind and altruistic behavior will be responded to with more kind and altruistic behavior, while unkind and aggressive behavior will be responded to with more unkind and aggressive behavior. [18] This principle, central to the theory of reciprocal altruism introduced by Robert Trivers in 1971, suggests that altruistic behaviors within a group are reciprocated, thereby reinforcing group cohesion and mutual support. [19] This idea has been applied to group cooperation, which suggests that reciprocity is evolutionarily advantageous, particularly in the context of an in-group. [20] Reciprocal altruism extends beyond kin selection, as it benefits individuals based on their previous actions, not just genetic relatedness. Reciprocity has been observed in a wide range of species, indicating its evolutionary advantage in fostering cooperation among non-kin group members. [19] In the context of parochial altruism, the expectation of reciprocity fosters social connection and a sense of mutual obligation that is preferential to the in-group. [21] [22]

Co-evolution with war

Evolutionary theorists have suggested that the human capacity for altruism may have co-evolved with warfare. This theory argues that in-group altruism, a core component of parochial altruism, would have increased chances of success in warfare. Groups who were willing to sacrifice for each other would be more cohesive and cooperative, thus conferring advantages in warfare. Ultimately, greater success in warfare would lead to greater genetic success. [4] [3] Conversely, the pressures and demands of warfare may have intensified the need for in-group altruism and exacerbated parochialism. This process may have led to a bidirectional relationship between warfare and parochial altruism, with each element reinforcing the other. The idea of war and altruism being intricately interconnected may also help explain the high frequency of intergroup conflicts observed in ancient human societies. [23]

Group Selection Theory

The idea of parochial altruism may seem counterintuitive from an individual selection theory, given that parochialism is often dangerous to the individual. To explain this, theorists often reference group selection theory, which suggests that natural selection operates at the group level, not just among individuals. Specifically, behavior that is beneficial to a group, even if it is costly to an individual, may be selected because it increases the overall survival chances and genetic success of a group. [7] [24] [25] [3] Group selection theory suggests that individual behaviors and decisions may be shaped by the needs of the group. For example, an individual may choose to sacrifice themselves by attacking an out-group, if they perceive a benefit to their in-group. This theory has faced considerable criticism and is not universally accepted in the field. [26] [27]

Third party punishment

Third Party Punishment is a phenomenon that occurs when an individual, who was not directly affected by a transgression, punishes the transgressor. This form of punishment is influential in maintaining social order and reinforcing group norms, even if it incurs personal cost to the punisher. [28] Third party punishment is an integral component of enforcing social norms among societies. [29] Research on parochial altruism often employs third-party punishment experiments, whereby individuals are more likely to protect norm violators from their in-groups, and punish those from an out-group. [1] This bias in third party punishment is a basis for parochial altruism. These experiments often use economic games, such as the dictator game or the prisoner's dilemma to measure punishment. [30] [14] [28] Furthermore, researchers have identified neural mechanisms for social cognition that seem to specifically modulate third-party norm enforcement. The study illustrated that participants who were determining punishment for out-group members who have transgressed show greater activity and connectivity in a network of brain regions that modulate sanction-related decisions, while participants who were determining punishment for in-group members who have transgressed show greater activity and connectivity in brain regions that modulate mentalizing. [31]

Cross-cultural perspectives

Like many psychological phenomenon, parochial altruism may manifest uniquely across different cultural contexts. Research has revealed that cultures vary in both intensity and expression of in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. These differences are likely the result of norms, societal structures, and historical factors that vary among cultures. Joseph Henrich and colleagues conducted a large-scale research study examining cross-cultural variations in economic and dictator games in 15 small-scale societies. Their studies revealed that economic and social environments influence altruistic behavior towards in-group members. For example, they found that societies with a higher level of market integration and adherence to religion showed more fairness in economic games. This suggests that there is a moral component of altruism, that is influenced by culture and is distinct from the in-group and out-group model of parochial altruism. [12] Additionally, theories about the coevolution of parochial altruism and war suggest that social structures and organization may play a role in shaping parochial altruism. Societies with strong clan or tribal affiliations, and particularly those with more frequent conflict, tend to exhibit more pronounced parochial altruism, reinforcing cooperation and unity within the social group. [32] [4] Historical and ecological factors may also influence the extent of parochial altruism within societies. In regions with a history of intergroup conflict or scare resources that must be fought over, groups may exhibit stronger in-group loyalty and out-group aggression as an adaptive response to the environment. [33]

Psychological and sociological implications

Parochial altruism influences both individual psychology and broader societal dynamics.[ citation needed ]

Individual psychology

Parochial altruism influences individual through its impact on social identity and perception. Social identity theory suggests that individuals derive a sense of self from their group memberships. [34] Parochial altruism can reinforce a social identity when individuals behave more altruistically to their own one-group. Similarly, in-group favoritism and out-group hostility are central to parochial altruism, and shape how individuals perceive and interact with others. Individuals are more likely to view in-group members as trustworthy and likable, and view out-group members as suspicious and hostile. [35] Thus, parochial altruism is an example of how group membership shapes individual attitudes and interpersonal dynamics. [36]

Within-group relations

Parochial altruism influences within-group relations by fostering a sense of unity and cooperation among group members. This is achieved through the in-group favoritism that is characteristic of parochial altruism, whereby individuals selectively behave altruistically towards members of their own group. Research on social identity illustrates how these in-group biases reinforce a sense of shared identity and collective goals. [37] Social identity theory further posits that enhanced group cooperation can increase group morale and self-esteem, strengthening the social bonds among group members. [34]

Intergroup relations

Contrary to within-group relations, parochial altruism influences intergroup relations through increased tension and conflict between in-groups and out-groups. This is driven by the out-group hostility component of parochial altruism, where individuals are more likely to punish out-group members and treat them with aggression when compared with in-group members. [1] Research illustrates that these out-group biases that are characteristic of parochial altruism can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict. [38] While parochial altruism strengthens group cohesion within one's in-group, it also fosters conflict with out-groups.[ citation needed ]

Animal models

The study of parochial altruism extends beyond human societies, with various animal models providing insight into the evolutionary origins and mechanisms of this behavior. In the animal kingdom, parochial altruism has been observed within the context of territorial defense and resource allocation within social groups. For example, chimpanzees have been observed to exhibit behaviors that mirror human parochial altruism, such as defending their group's territory against outsiders and favoring group members in food-sharing and grooming practices. [39] These behaviors are directed towards enhancing the survival of in-group members, similar to the in-group favoritism and out-group hostility characteristic of human parochial altruism. Similar behavior has been observed in vampire bats, who demonstrate reciprocal altruism within their social groups by sharing meals with kin and non-kin group members, but not with other bats. [40]

Criticism and controversy

While the concept of parochial altruism has been influential in explaining social behaviors like in-group altruism and out-group hostility, it has also received criticism. Specifically, the evolutionary basis of parochial altruism has been questioned for the theory's reliance on group selection. [26] Group selection posits that natural selection operates at the group level, favoring traits that are beneficial for the group rather than the individual. [41] This concept contrasts the traditional and more scientifically backed view of Darwinian selection, which occurs at the individual level and promotes traits beneficial to individual organisms. [42] [ better source needed ] This debate over group selection is a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology, and the group selection theory has faced critiques from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, who argue that there is not sufficient evidence to support the theory. [27] [43] An alternative theory, multi-level selection, was proposed by David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober as a modern interpretation of group selection. [44]

Field studies on parochial altruism during conflict have also illustrated the need for a more nuanced understanding of parochial altruism. Researchers conducted studies before, during, and after riots in Northern Ireland, investigating how the conflict influenced real-world measures of cooperation, such as charity and school donations. The findings revealed that conflict was associated with reductions in all types of altruism, including both in-group and out-group, challenging the notion that inter-group conflict unconditionally promotes parochial altruism. Instead, they suggest that conflict may lead to a reduction in all types of cooperation. [45] Critics have argued that the co-evolution of war and altruism is an oversimplification, which also fails to explain peaceful interactions between groups, defensive strategies, and sex differences in parochial altruism. [17]

Future directions

Emerging research seeks to investigate the neural basis of parochial altruism, using modern technologies such as neuroimaging and neurobiological approaches. [46] [47] [48] [49] Studies utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have identified specific brain regions that are activated during in-group versus out-group interactions, indicating a potential neural basis for parochial decision-making. [50] Other research studies have examined how neuroendocrine factors, such as oxytocin and testosterone, may influence in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. A study by De Dreu et al. demonstrated that intranasal administration of oxytocin increased in-group trust and cooperation, as well as aggression toward perceived out-group threats. [51] Other studies have illustrated that testosterone is associated with parochial altruism in humans and may modulate the neural systems associated with it. [52] [49] The intersection of neuroscience and social psychology (often referred to as social neuroscience or social cognitive neuroscience), offers a fertile ground for advancing the study of parochial altruism.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Altruism</span> Principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others

Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals largely independent of that person's opinion of or reaction to oneself. While objects of altruistic concern vary, it is an important moral value in many cultures and religions. It may be considered a synonym of selflessness, the opposite of self-centeredness.

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in psychology that examines cognition and behavior from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve. In this framework, psychological traits and mechanisms are either functional products of natural and sexual selection or non-adaptive by-products of other adaptive traits.

Sociobiology is a field of biology that aims to explain social behavior in terms of evolution. It draws from disciplines including psychology, ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archaeology, and population genetics. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely allied to evolutionary anthropology, human behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, and sociology.

<i>The Evolution of Cooperation</i> 1984 book by Robert Axelrod

The Evolution of Cooperation is a 1984 book written by political scientist Robert Axelrod that expands upon a paper of the same name written by Axelrod and evolutionary biologist W.D. Hamilton. The article's summary addresses the issue in terms of "cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reciprocal altruism</span> Form of behaviour between organisms

In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kin selection</span> Evolutionary strategy favoring relatives

Kin selection is a process whereby natural selection favours a trait due to its positive effects on the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even when at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. Kin selection can lead to the evolution of altruistic behaviour. It is related to inclusive fitness, which combines the number of offspring produced with the number an individual can ensure the production of by supporting others. A broader definition of kin selection includes selection acting on interactions between individuals who share a gene of interest even if the gene is not shared due to common ancestry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Group selection</span> Proposed mechanism of evolution

Group selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution in which natural selection acts at the level of the group, instead of at the level of the individual or gene.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Altruism (biology)</span> Behaviour that increases the fitness of another while decreasing the fitness of self

In biology, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing their own. Altruism in this sense is different from the philosophical concept of altruism, in which an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. In the behavioural sense, there is no such requirement. As such, it is not evaluated in moral terms—it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action is considered altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

In evolution, cooperation is the process where groups of organisms work or act together for common or mutual benefits. It is commonly defined as any adaptation that has evolved, at least in part, to increase the reproductive success of the actor's social partners. For example, territorial choruses by male lions discourage intruders and are likely to benefit all contributors.

Reciprocity in evolutionary biology refers to mechanisms whereby the evolution of cooperative or altruistic behaviour may be favoured by the probability of future mutual interactions. A corollary is how a desire for revenge can harm the collective and therefore be naturally selected against.

The concept of the evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior rather than animal behavior. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology, and in particular evolutionary psychology, have argued that, despite the complexity of human social behaviors, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior remain controversial. Social scientists have traditionally viewed morality as a construct, and thus as culturally relative, although others such as Sam Harris argue that there is an objective science of morality.

Competitive altruism is a possible mechanism for the persistence of cooperative behaviors, specifically those that are performed unconditionally. The theory of reciprocal altruism can be used to explain behaviors that are performed by a donor who receives some sort of benefit in the future. When no such compensation is received, however, reciprocity fails to explain altruistic behavior.

The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology are the general and specific scientific theories that explain the ultimate origins of psychological traits in terms of evolution. These theories originated with Charles Darwin's work, including his speculations about the evolutionary origins of social instincts in humans. Modern evolutionary psychology, however, is possible only because of advances in evolutionary theory in the 20th century.

Social preferences describe the human tendency to not only care about one's own material payoff, but also the reference group's payoff or/and the intention that leads to the payoff. Social preferences are studied extensively in behavioral and experimental economics and social psychology. Types of social preferences include altruism, fairness, reciprocity, and inequity aversion. The field of economics originally assumed that humans were rational economic actors, and as it became apparent that this was not the case, the field began to change. The research of social preferences in economics started with lab experiments in 1980, where experimental economists found subjects' behavior deviated systematically from self-interest behavior in economic games such as ultimatum game and dictator game. These experimental findings then inspired various new economic models to characterize agent's altruism, fairness and reciprocity concern between 1990 and 2010. More recently, there are growing amounts of field experiments that study the shaping of social preference and its applications throughout society.

Third-party punishment is punishment of a transgressor which is administered, not by a victim of the transgression, but rather by a third party not directly affected by the transgression. It has been argued that third-party punishments are the essence of social norms, as they are an evolutionarily stable strategy, unlike second-party punishments. It has also been shown that third-party punishments are exhibited in all examined populations, though the magnitude of the punishments varies greatly, and that costly punishment co-varies with altruistic behavior. Differences between within-group and inter-group altruistic punishments have also been observed.

Evolutionary biologists have developed various theoretical models to explain the evolution of food-sharing behavior—"[d]efined as the unresisted transfer of food" from one food-motivated individual to another—among humans and other animals.

Reciprocal altruism in humans refers to an individual behavior that gives benefit conditionally upon receiving a returned benefit, which draws on the economic concept – ″gains in trade″. Human reciprocal altruism would include the following behaviors : helping patients, the wounded, and the others when they are in crisis; sharing food, implement, knowledge.

The theory of regal and kungic societal structures, or regality theory, is a theory that seeks to explain certain cultural differences based on perceived collective danger and fear.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychological barriers to effective altruism</span>

In the philosophy of effective altruism, an altruistic act such as charitable giving is considered more effective, or cost-effective, if it uses a set of resources to do more good per unit of resource than other options, with the goal of trying to do the most good. Following this definition of effectiveness, researchers in psychology and related fields have identified psychological barriers to effective altruism that can cause people to choose less effective options when they engage in altruistic activities such as charitable giving. These barriers can include evolutionary influences as well as motivational and epistemic obstacles.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Bernhard, Helen; Fischbacher, Urs; Fehr, Ernst (2006-08-24). "Parochial altruism in humans". Nature. 442 (7105): 912–915. doi:10.1038/nature04981. ISSN   1476-4687. PMID   16929297. S2CID   4411945.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ↑ Balliet, Daniel; Wu, Junhui; De Dreu, Carsten K. W. (2014). "Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 140 (6): 1556–1581. doi:10.1037/a0037737. ISSN   1939-1455. PMID   25222635. S2CID   13449885.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Bowles, Samuel (2009-06-05). "Did Warfare Among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherers Affect the Evolution of Human Social Behaviors?". Science. 324 (5932): 1293–1298. Bibcode:2009Sci...324.1293B. doi:10.1126/science.1168112. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   19498163. S2CID   33816122.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Choi, Jung-Kyoo; Bowles, Samuel (2007-10-26). "The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War". Science. 318 (5850): 636–640. Bibcode:2007Sci...318..636C. doi:10.1126/science.1144237. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   17962562. S2CID   263353968.
  5. ↑ Darwin, Charles (1888). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray.
  6. ↑ Leigh, Egbert (2021-07-21). "Evaluating Darwin's Book on the Descent of Man". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 14. doi: 10.1186/s12052-021-00149-9 .
  7. 1 2 Bowles, Samuel; Gintis, Herbert (2011-06-20). A Cooperative Species. Princeton University Press. doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691151250.001.0001. ISBN   978-0-691-15125-0.
  8. ↑ Teixeira, Ruy (2012-06-18). "Biology for Liberals". The New Republic. ISSN   0028-6583 . Retrieved 2024-01-20.
  9. 1 2 Hamilton, W. D. (1964). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 7 (1): 1–16. Bibcode:1964JThBi...7....1H. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. ISSN   0022-5193. PMID   5875341. S2CID   5310280.
  10. ↑ Schino, Gabriele (2006-10-03). "Grooming and agonistic support: a meta-analysis of primate reciprocal altruism". Behavioral Ecology. 18 (1): 115–120. doi:10.1093/beheco/arl045. hdl: 10.1093/beheco/arl045 . ISSN   1465-7279.
  11. ↑ Falk, Armin; Fischbacher, Urs (2006-02-01). "A theory of reciprocity". Games and Economic Behavior. 54 (2): 293–315. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001. ISSN   0899-8256. S2CID   5714242.
  12. 1 2 Henrich, Joseph; Boyd, Robert; Bowles, Samuel; Camerer, Colin; Fehr, Ernst; Gintis, Herbert; McElreath, Richard (2001-05-01). "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies". American Economic Review. 91 (2): 73–78. doi:10.1257/aer.91.2.73. ISSN   0002-8282. S2CID   2136814.
  13. ↑ Batson, C. Daniel (2010-12-31). Altruism in Humans. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341065.001.0001. ISBN   978-0-19-989422-2.
  14. 1 2 Fehr, Ernst; Fischbacher, Urs (2003). "The nature of human altruism". Nature. 425 (6960): 785–791. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..785F. doi:10.1038/nature02043. ISSN   0028-0836. PMID   14574401. S2CID   4305295.
  15. ↑ de Waal, Frans B.M. (2008-01-01). "Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy". Annual Review of Psychology. 59 (1): 279–300. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625. ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   17550343.
  16. ↑ Hamilton, W. D. (1964). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 7 (1): 17–52. Bibcode:1964JThBi...7...17H. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6. ISSN   0022-5193. PMID   5875340.
  17. 1 2 Rusch, Hannes (2014-11-07). "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 B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1794): 20141539. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1539. ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   4211448 . PMID   25253457.
  18. ↑ Gouldner, Alvin W. (1960). "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement". American Sociological Review. 25 (2): 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623. ISSN   0003-1224. JSTOR   2092623.
  19. 1 2 Trivers, Robert L. (1971). "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 46 (1): 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755. ISSN   0033-5770. JSTOR   2822435. S2CID   19027999.
  20. ↑ Rabbie, Jacob M.; Schot, Jan C.; Visser, Lieuwe (1989). "Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioural interaction model". European Journal of Social Psychology. 19 (3): 171–202. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420190302. ISSN   0046-2772.
  21. ↑ Yamagishi, Toshio; Kiyonari, Toko (2000). "The Group as the Container of Generalized Reciprocity". Social Psychology Quarterly. 63 (2): 116. doi:10.2307/2695887. ISSN   0190-2725. JSTOR   2695887.
  22. ↑ Sethi, Rajiv; Somanathan, E. (2003-01-01). "Understanding reciprocity". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 50 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00032-X. ISSN   0167-2681.
  23. ↑ Bowles, Samuel; Gintis, Herbert (2011-06-20), "Parochialism, Altruism, and War", A Cooperative Species, Princeton University Press, doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691151250.003.0008, ISBN   978-0-691-15125-0 , retrieved 2023-11-13
  24. ↑ Boyd, Robert; Gintis, Herbert; Bowles, Samuel; Richerson, Peter J. (2003-03-18). "The evolution of altruistic punishment". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (6): 3531–3535. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.3531B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0630443100 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   152327 . PMID   12631700.
  25. ↑ Bowles, Samuel; Choi, Jung-Kyoo; Hopfensitz, Astrid (2003). "The co-evolution of individual behaviors and social institutions". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 223 (2): 135–147. Bibcode:2003JThBi.223..135B. doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00060-2. ISSN   0022-5193. PMID   12814597.
  26. 1 2 Yamagishi, Toshio; Mifune, Nobuhiro (2016-02-01). "Parochial altruism: does it explain modern human group psychology?". Current Opinion in Psychology. Evolutionary psychology. 7: 39–43. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.015. ISSN   2352-250X.
  27. 1 2 Pinker, Steven (2015-11-18). "The False Allure of Group Selection". The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: 1–14. doi:10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych236. ISBN   978-1-118-76399-5. S2CID   146380137.
  28. 1 2 Fehr, Ernst; Fischbacher, Urs (2004). "Third-party punishment and social norms". Evolution and Human Behavior. 25 (2): 63–87. Bibcode:2004EHumB..25...63F. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4.
  29. ↑ Bendor, Jonathan; Swistak, Piotr (2001). "The Evolution of Norms". American Journal of Sociology. 106 (6): 1493–1545. doi:10.1086/321298. ISSN   0002-9602.
  30. ↑ Fischbacher, Urs; Gächter, Simon; Fehr, Ernst (2001). "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment". Economics Letters. 71 (3): 397–404. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9. hdl: 20.500.11850/146559 . S2CID   15885836.
  31. ↑ Baumgartner, Thomas; Götte, Lorenz; Gügler, Rahel; Fehr, Ernst (2011-05-13). "The mentalizing network orchestrates the impact of parochial altruism on social norm enforcement". Human Brain Mapping. 33 (6): 1452–1469. doi:10.1002/hbm.21298. ISSN   1065-9471. PMC   6870290 . PMID   21574212.
  32. ↑ Van Vugt, Mark (2012-11-21), "The Male Warrior Hypothesis: The Evolutionary Psychology of Intergroup Conflict, Tribal Aggression, and Warfare", The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Violence, Homicide, and War, Oxford University Press, pp. 291–300, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738403.013.0017, ISBN   978-0-19-973840-3 , retrieved 2023-11-24
  33. ↑ De Dreu, Carsten K. W.; Triki, Zegni (2022-04-04). "Intergroup conflict: origins, dynamics and consequences across taxa". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 377 (1851). doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0134. ISSN   0962-8436. PMC   8977662 . PMID   35369751.
  34. 1 2 Tajfel, Henri; Turner, John (2000-03-18), "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict", Organizational Identity, Oxford University PressOxford, pp. 56–65, doi:10.1093/oso/9780199269464.003.0005, ISBN   978-0-19-926946-4 , retrieved 2023-11-24
  35. ↑ Brewer, Marilynn B. (1999). "The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?". Journal of Social Issues. 55 (3): 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126. ISSN   0022-4537.
  36. ↑ Willer, David; Turner, John C.; Hogg, Michael A.; Oakes, Penelope J.; Reicher, Stephen D.; Wetherell, Margaret S. (1989). "Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory". Contemporary Sociology. 18 (4): 645. doi:10.2307/2073157. ISSN   0094-3061. JSTOR   2073157.
  37. ↑ Brewer, Marilynn B. (1991). "The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17 (5): 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001. ISSN   0146-1672. S2CID   145294289.
  38. ↑ Hewstone, Miles; Rubin, Mark; Willis, Hazel (2002). "Intergroup Bias". Annual Review of Psychology. 53 (1): 575–604. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109. ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   11752497. S2CID   11830211.
  39. ↑ Waal, Frans B. M. de, ed. (2003). Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals (7. print ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. ISBN   978-0-674-35661-0.
  40. ↑ Wilkinson, Gerald S. (1984-03-08). "Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat". Nature. 308 (5955): 181–184. Bibcode:1984Natur.308..181W. doi:10.1038/308181a0. ISSN   0028-0836. S2CID   4354558.
  41. ↑ Wilson, D S (January 1, 1975). "A theory of group selection". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 72 (1): 143–146. Bibcode:1975PNAS...72..143W. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.1.143 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   432258 . PMID   1054490.
  42. ↑ Darwin, Charles (1900). Origin of species / Charles Darwin. New York, Boston: H.M. Caldwell Co. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.959.
  43. ↑ Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
  44. ↑ Wilson, David Sloan; Sober, Elliott (December 1994). "Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 17 (4) (published February 4, 2010): 585–608. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036104. ISSN   0140-525X.
  45. ↑ Silva, Antonio S.; Mace, Ruth (2015). "Inter-Group Conflict and Cooperation: Field Experiments Before, During and After Sectarian Riots in Northern Ireland". Frontiers in Psychology. 6: 1790. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01790 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   4661283 . PMID   26640449.
  46. ↑ Rilling, James K.; Sanfey, Alan G. (2011-01-10). "The Neuroscience of Social Decision-Making". Annual Review of Psychology. 62 (1): 23–48. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647. hdl: 2066/99774 . ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   20822437.
  47. ↑ Baumgartner, Thomas; Götte, Lorenz; Gügler, Rahel; Fehr, Ernst (2012). "The mentalizing network orchestrates the impact of parochial altruism on social norm enforcement". Human Brain Mapping. 33 (6): 1452–1469. doi:10.1002/hbm.21298. ISSN   1065-9471. PMC   6870290 . PMID   21574212.
  48. ↑ Everett, Jim; Faber, Nadira; Crockett, Molly; De Dreu, Carsten (2015). "Economic games and social neuroscience methods can help elucidate the psychology of parochial altruism". Frontiers in Psychology. 6: 861. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00861 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   4493366 . PMID   26217247.
  49. 1 2 Reimers, Luise; Büchel, Christian; Diekhof, Esther K. (2017). "Neural substrates of male parochial altruism are modulated by testosterone and behavioral strategy". NeuroImage. 156: 265–276. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.033. ISSN   1053-8119. PMID   28527791. S2CID   13768084.
  50. ↑ Cheon, Bobby K.; Im, Dong-mi; Harada, Tokiko; Kim, Ji-Sook; Mathur, Vani A.; Scimeca, Jason M.; Parrish, Todd B.; Park, Hyun Wook; Chiao, Joan Y. (July 15, 2011). "Cultural influences on neural basis of intergroup empathy". NeuroImage. 57 (2): 642–650. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.031. ISSN   1053-8119. PMID   21549201. S2CID   11720729.
  51. ↑ De Dreu, Carsten K. W.; Greer, Lindred L.; Handgraaf, Michel J. J.; Shalvi, Shaul; Van Kleef, Gerben A.; Baas, Matthijs; Ten Velden, Femke S.; Van Dijk, Eric; Feith, Sander W. W. (2010-06-11). "The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans". Science. 328 (5984): 1408–1411. Bibcode:2010Sci...328.1408D. doi:10.1126/science.1189047. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   20538951. S2CID   16494332.
  52. ↑ Diekhof, Esther Kristina; Wittmer, Susanne; Reimers, Luise (2014-07-30). Lamm, Claus (ed.). "Does Competition Really Bring Out the Worst? Testosterone, Social Distance and Inter-Male Competition Shape Parochial Altruism in Human Males". PLOS ONE. 9 (7): e98977. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...998977D. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098977 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   4116333 . PMID   25075516.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.