The hidden cost of humanization: Individuating information reduces prosocial behavior toward in-group members

This paper reports robust experimental evidence that humanization—in the form of individuating information about another’s personal preferences—leads to decreased prosocial behavior toward in-group members. Previous research shows that individuating information increases prosocial behavior toward dehumanized out-group members. Its consequences for in-group members, however, are less well understood. Using methods from social psychology and behavioral economics, four experiments show that individuating information decreases pro-social behavior toward in-group members in a variety of settings (charitable giving, altruistic punishment, and trust games). Moreover, this effect results from decreased reliance on group membership labels, and not from other potential explanations like the induction of new group identities. Understanding these effects sheds light on the motives behind intergroup conflict, which may not result from a difference in social perception (i.e., humanized in-groups and dehumanized out-groups), but rather from biases associated with group membership (i.e., in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination) that are eliminated by individuating information. Together, these results indicate that humanization carries a hidden cost for in-group members by disrupting group identities that would otherwise make them targets of altruistic actions.     

Rational-experiential thinking style and rational intergroup cooperation: the moderating role of intergroup conflict / Estilos de pensamiento racional-experiencial y la cooperación intergrupal racional: el rol modulador del conflicto intergrupal

Cooperative relationships between groups are difficult because of the high human capability to differentiate between in-group vs. out-group members. This obstacle exists even when the groups can obtain benefits for themselves from cooperation with other groups (rational cooperation). Based on an interactionist approach, the authors propose that personal (individual differences) and situational (conflicts) factors contribute to rational intergroup cooperation. The authors conducted a preliminary correlational study (Study 1) and an experimental investigation (Study 2). In Study 1, the authors examined, with 105 participants, the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI), measuring individual differences in information processing. In Study 2, the authors conducted an experimental investigation with 141 participants, testing the role of individual differences and conflict in intergroup rational cooperation. Findings of Study 1 showed that the scale has adequate psychometric properties. Results of Study 2 confirmed that the existence of both manipulated and perceived intergroup conflict reduces the magnitudes of the relationships between rational ability and rational cooperation. In addition, perceived intergroup conflict increased the magnitude of the links from experiential ability and experimental engagement to rational cooperation. Both individual differences and previous conflict have a role in predicting rational intergroup cooperation. According to the interactionist approach, personal and situational factors should be considered in the understanding of intergroup relationships.     

Fairness and reputation effects in a provision point contributions process

This article reports on an investigation of how issues of fairness and reputation affect individual contributions in a group decision-making setting. In the context of a threshold public goods provision experiment, treatments were performed to determine how individuals react to limited and unlimited information about the contributions of other group members. Experimental results show that revealing anonymous information about individual contribution behavior caused a concern about equity, which led to decreased average contributions and a higher variance in contributions. These effects were partially offset when individual-specific contribution information was displayed. In their conclusion, the authors discuss how the results apply to different fundraising environments.     

Social signals as design interventions for enhancing citizen science contributions*

Despite the scientific potential and increasing popularity of web-based citizen science, low contribution from volunteers is often a major hurdle. Studies have shown that individual behavior could be altered through targeted design interventions, but little is known about the specific factors that modulate volunteers’ contributions. A particularly elusive question entails the role of social feedback, in the form of targeted notifications about the contribution of other volunteers. Based on social comparison theory, we hypothesized that (1) volunteers increase contribution when presented with information about a high-performing peer or group, and (2) volunteers conform more strongly to a group rather than to a single peer. To test whether volunteers’ contributions change due to the exposure to the contribution of a peer or group norm, we systematically varied the information presented to participants in an environmental monitoring citizen science project. Volunteers increased their contributions when they were presented with the contribution of a high-performing peer and norm, but they were not influenced by a low-performing peer or norm. Further, we found that volunteers were more likely to match the contributions of a group than that of a peer. However, when volunteers were simultaneously exposed to information about a peer and a group, the effect depended on the respective performance of the peer and group. A theoretical model was developed to explain volunteers’ response and dissect the specific role of social comparison. Our findings offer the possibility of increasing volunteers’ contributions through design interventions.     

Intersectionality and Engagement among the LGBTQ+ Community

ABSTRACT

As the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) community makes progress toward attaining equal rights, a growing body of scholarly attention is focusing on this increasingly visible minority group. Yet studies of attitudes among LGBTQ+ Americans themselves remain limited because of small sample sizes and scarce data. As a result, scholarly work on LGBTQ+ issues is almost entirely devoted to measuring straight America’s opinions. In this study we administer both a survey and an experiment to a sample of LGBTQ+ Americans. Our findings are twofold. First, we demonstrate that intersectionality has important effects on attitudes within the LGBTQ+ community. Specifically, LGBTQ+ respondents who are at the intersection of multiple minority groups display lower levels of political engagement. Second, we test the mobilizing influence of out-group versus in-group cues on LGBTQ+ Americans. In line with previous work, we find that government action to support a threatening out-group engages LGBTQ+ Americans to support in-group candidates, whereas government action to support their own in-group has a significantly smaller effect. These findings help us to understand an increasingly politically active subset of the electorate and, more broadly, shed light on the influence of intersectionality on political attitudes.     

Inter-group contact and out-group altruism after violence

Altruism among humans is common. It is especially prominent among in-group members. However, we are struck by results from laboratory-in-the-field experiments with out-group members of different ethnic or religious backgrounds. In all instances, the groups were rivals in civil wars. While we find almost no altruistic behavior among groups that were engaged in fighting, out-group altruism emerges with the passage of time. To address the underlying mechanism that might explain this puzzling result, we use a laboratory experiment that sorts between a norms revision explanation and a contact hypothesis explanation. Our findings show that contact with out-group members, in a mutually beneficial task, results in a reversion to prior levels of out-group altruism following conflict. Our findings reinforce the idea that deeply held attitudes toward a stigmatized out-group change following productive interactions with those out-group members. It is clear that hostility between groups need not persist over time.     

Broadcasting Sharia: American TV News' Illustration of Social Identity and the Emergence of a Threat

Using social identity theory to assess in-group, out-group representations, this study examines the portrayal of sharia in American network television media. A 10-year content analysis showed that ABC, CBS, and NBC continually paired sharia with mentions of the United States, reinforcing its representation as the in-group. These mentions frequently were coupled with mentions of non-Western countries, supporting the idea of an in-group versus out-group comparison. Moreover, the stories included many topics connotatively negative in Western culture. A significant and positive relationship between mentions of non-Western countries and connotatively negative topics was found, reinforcing the positioning of individuals associated with sharia—most often Muslims—within the out-group.     

A hybrid public good experiment eliciting multi-dimensional choice data

Similar to Fischbacher and Gachter (2010) we suggest an elicitation method for exploring the motivation of participants when contributing to a public good in the role of “leader” or “follower”. In the Hybrid Public Good experiment each of two interacting contributors chooses an independent contribution level as well as three adjusted contribution levels when (s)he, as the only adjusting player, learns that the other’s independent contribution is smaller, equal or larger than the own one. To approximate the border cases of simultaneous contributing as well as sequential contributions we systematically vary the probability that one player can adjust, based on such qualitative information, but maintain that no adaptation at all and adaptation by only one occurs with positive probability. Adaptation is framed in two ways, once by additively changing the own independent contribution and once by stating new contribution levels. Surprisingly, the framing effect becomes stronger with experience. Reacting to coinciding independent contributions implies impressive conformity in contributing. Reacting to higher, respectively lower independent contributions implies average upward, and, more strongly, downward adaptation.     

Looking at their side of the conflict? Effects of single versus multiple perspective history teaching on Jewish and Arab adolescents’ attitude to out-group narratives and in-group responsibility

In the last decade, the issue of teaching the Palestinian perspective on the Jewish–Arab conflict in Israeli schools gave rise to considerable debate and competing curricula. A quasi-experimental study compared the effects of these competing approaches on learners’ attitudes to out-group narratives and perceived in-group responsibility (IR). A total of 176 Israeli Jewish and Arab participants were randomly allocated into teaching approaches differing in method of engagement with historical narratives (single authoritative narrative, empathetic dual narrative, and critical analysis of conflicting sources). Results revealed effects for teaching approach and majority–minority status. Engagement with a single authoritative narrative decreased interest in out-group perspectives while empathetic engagement with out-group and in-group perspectives increased it, though the effect was more pronounced for members of the Arab minority than for those of the Jewish majority. Among Jewish participants, an empathetic teaching approach led to a decrease in perceived IR while the critical approach led to the opposite outcome. The trends were inverted for Arab participants. Engagement with historical perspectives also moderated the impact of interest in out-group perspectives on acceptance of IR. Educational implications point to the harmful effects of enforcing a single narrative in conflicted societies and to the beneficial outcomes of multiple perspective teaching.     

The Solidary Relationship’s Consequences for the Ebb and Flow of Activism: Collaborative Evidence from Life-History Interviews and Social Media Event Analysis,

Acting in solidarity with deprived others has become a central topic in social movement research. The explanations of solidarity activism or political altruism are few. However, social movement researchers have claimed that solidarity with out-of-group others is a by-product of in-group interaction. In contrast, we argue that out-group interaction with the deprived other and the formation of a solidary relationship is central to the ebb and flow of solidarity activism. We investigate the Danish refugee solidarity movement and show that the meeting with the deprived other 1) brings about an interaction order which makes an ethical demand on the activists to care for the other both within the bounds of the situations and in the future; 2) enacts and amplifies activists’ values and beliefs because the deprived other becomes an exemplar of the injustice and the need to help the broader group of people in the same fragile situation. We develop and test this theory drawing on 42 life-history interviews and a social media dataset containing a panel of 87,455 activists participating in refugee solidarity groups.     

BONDING AND BRIDGING ACTIVITIES OF U.S. PENTECOSTALS

A growing body of literature weighs the influence of religion on civic life. Largely missing from prior analysis is Pentecostals. With novel religious beliefs and practices, Pentecostals might be expected to focus more on in-group bonding activities than out-group bridging activities. We test this expectation using national data from the 2005 Baylor Religion Survey. We contrast three measures of Pentecostalism: denominational affiliation, speaking in tongues at a place of worship, and self-described Pentecostal/charismatic identity. Results affirm high rates of bonding activity (church attendance and other congregation activity) for contemporary Pentecostals. Results for Pentecostal bridging are more complicated. People in Pentecostal denominations and those who speak in tongues participate less in community organizations and politics. However, this is more a function of social class and general conservatism than religious culture or sense of identity. Comparable to other conservative Protestants, the vitality of Pentecostal groups seems no impediment to democratic society.     

Cooperation between newcomers and incumbents: The role of normative disagreements

Cooperation in groups often requires individual members to make costly contributions that benefit the group as a whole. Prior research suggests that shared norms can help to support ingroup cooperation by prescribing common standards of how much to contribute. These common standards may be disrupted when groups undergo membership change, i.e., when members from outgroups enter the ingroup. When newcomers and incumbents have different notions about how much to contribute, a normative disagreement ensues that could undermine cooperation and the extent to which individuals identify with the group. In a laboratory experiment, we manipulate whether newcomers and incumbents disagree about how much to contribute in a public goods game with peer punishment. We examine whether normative disagreement between newcomers and incumbents affects newcomer-incumbent relations in terms of group identification, the emergence of a social norm, and costly punishment. The main goal is to test whether normative disagreement and the resulting newcomer-incumbent relations harm cooperation in terms of contributions to the common good. We find that normative disagreement between newcomers and incumbents negatively affects the emergence of a shared social norm and lowers feelings of group identification. Contrary to expectations, normative disagreement does not affect cooperation negatively. Instead, participants adjust their behavior to each other’s standards, using punishment for norm enforcement. This punishment is especially directed at low-contributing newcomers, leading them to conform to the incumbents’ higher contribution standards.     

Determinants of in-group bias: Is group affiliation mediated by guilt-aversion?

In-group favoritism in social dilemma situations is one of Social Identity Theory’s main findings. We investigate what causes the in-group bias: is it merely due to group affiliation or, alternatively, is guilt-aversion moderating the strength of in-group favoring? We induce group membership in a minimal group setting, observe in-/out-group transfers and elicit corresponding beliefs. According to our experimental data group affiliation affects beliefs and explains a substantial part of the bias. Evidence for guilt-aversion is found only when beliefs are elicited before actions.     

IMMATERIAL REWARDS AND SANCTIONS IN A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION EXPERIMENT

In this article, we compare the causes and effects of immaterial rewards and sanctions on cooperation in a voluntary contribution experiment. It appears that both rewards and sanctions increase contributions (and that rewards are more effective than sanctions) only when subjects interact repeatedly within the same group. The effect is, however, insignificant, which could be due to the higher variance in presence of rewards and sanctions. Furthermore, it is evidenced that rewards have some negative effect on the future contribution for both the imposer and the imposed when the partner matching is applied, but both rewards and sanctions have mainly positive effects under the stranger matching. Thus it seems that the recipient of the feedback takes the message as a reliable external evaluation of her contribution only under the stranger matching protocol when the strategic use of feedback can largely be excluded. (JEL C92, H41)     

When publics collide: Developing the dual orientation conflict model in inter-public conflict

Inter-public conflict has largely been neglected in PR research. When left to fester, such conflict may perpetuate prejudice, injustice, inequality, and other societal ills. From a PR standpoint, organizations may find it increasingly difficult to operate in the resulting climate of hostility. This piece aims to shift focus from managing direct, organization-public conflict to navigating indirect, inter-public conflict, thus broadening conflict management perspectives. Based on contingency and social identity theories, we test the dual orientation conflict model (DOCM) in the field of government public relations. The model posits two dimensions (embracing/excluding and in-group/out-group) and categorizes four types of conflict orientation (adaptation, in-group adoption, out-group adoption, and avoidance). The proposed four-factor model, comprised of 16 items, was found to be reliable and valid in an online survey of 2498 South Korean citizens across different conflictual problems. Theoretical and strategic implications are discussed.     

RANK‐ORDER COMPETITION IN THE VOLUNTARY PROVISION OF IMPURE PUBLIC GOODS

Publicly provided goods often create differential payoffs due to timely or spatial distances of group members. We design and test a provision mechanism which utilizes rank competition to mitigate free‐riding in impure public goods. In our Rank‐Order Voluntary Contribution Mechanism (Rank‐Order‐VCM) group members compete via observable contributions for a larger share of the public good; high contributors receive preferential access (a larger share), while low contributors receive restricted access (a lower share). In a laboratory experiment, Rank‐Order‐VCM elicits median contributions equal to the full endowment throughout the finitely played games with constant groups. In the control treatment, with randomly assigned ranks, the contributions are significantly lower and decline over time. We thus provide evidence of rank competition, in situations where discriminatory access to public goods is possible, being efficiency enhancing. (JEL C91, H41)     

No praise without effort: experimental evidence on how rewards affect Wikipedia's contributor community

The successful provision of public goods through mass volunteering over the Internet poses a puzzle to classic social science theories of human cooperation. A solution suggested by recent studies proposes that informal rewards (e.g. a thumbs-up, a badge, an editing award, etc.) can motivate participants by raising their status in the community, which acts as a select incentive to continue contributing. Indeed, a recent study of Wikipedia found that receiving a reward had a large positive effect on the subsequent contribution levels of highly-active contributors. While these findings are suggestive, they only pertained to already highly-active contributors. Can informal rewards also serve as a mechanism to increase participation among less-active contributors by initiating a virtuous cycle of work and reward? We conduct a field experiment on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia in which we bestowed rewards to randomly selected editors of varying productivity levels. Analysis of post-treatment activity shows that despite greater room for less-active contributors to increase their productive efforts, rewards yielded increases in work only among already highly-productive editors. On the other hand, rewards were associated with lower retention of less-active contributors. These findings suggest that the incentive structure in peer production is broadly meritocratic, as highly-active contributors accumulate the most rewards. However, this may also contribute to the divide between the stable core of highly-prodigious producers and a peripheral population of less-active contributors with shorter volunteer tenures.     

PROVIDING GLOBAL PUBLIC GOODS: ELECTORAL DELEGATION AND COOPERATION

This study experimentally examines the effect of electoral delegation on providing global public goods shared by several groups. Each group elects one delegate who can freely decide on each group member's contribution to the global public goods. Our results show that people mostly vote for delegates who assign equal contributions for every group member. However, in contrast to standard theoretical predictions for our delegation mechanism, unequal contributions across groups drive cooperation down over time, and it decreases efficiency by almost 50% compared to the selfish benchmark. This pattern is not driven by delegates trying to exploit their fellow group members, as indicated by theory. It is driven by conditional cooperation of delegates across groups. Since one of the potential sources of the resulting inefficiency is the polycentric nature of global public goods provision together with other‐regarding preferences, we use the term P‐inefficiency to describe our finding. (JEL C92, D72, H41)     

More Than Help? Volunteerism in US Latino Culture

Volunteerism makes critical contributions to individual lives and society as a whole. However, to date, few studies have investigated volunteerism within Latino communities, a large and growing US population. The aim of this study was to understand how non-metropolitan US Latinos perceive volunteerism, as well as to determine what motivates and what deters their participation in volunteer programs. Our research team conducted six focus groups with 36 Latina women living in the State of Illinois. The focus groups covered topics such as the definition of volunteerism, participation motives and barriers, personal volunteer experience, and Latino culture, community, and organizations. We also assessed demographic information. Results from this study indicate that Latinas have a unique understanding of the concept of volunteerism. Participants associated everyday “helping” with volunteerism, establishing commonplace forms of aid as perhaps a “Latino way of volunteering.” We found time-consuming activities such as family responsibilities and work to be deterrents to Latinas participating in more formal volunteer activities.     

The effect of conflict history on cooperation within and between groups: Evidence from a laboratory experiment

We study cooperation within and between groups in the laboratory, comparing treatments in which two groups have previously been in conflict with one another, in conflict with a different group, or not previously exposed to conflict. We model conflict using an inter-group Tullock contest, and measure its effects upon cooperation using a multi-level public good game. We find that conflict increases cooperation within groups, while decreasing cooperation between groups. Moreover, we find that an increase in the gains from cooperation only increases cooperation between groups when the two groups have not previously interacted.