Femke S. Ten Velden

The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans

Oxytocin and Intergroup Conflict Human society is organized into groups, such as those based on nationality or religion, which can lead to intergroup conflicts, with sometimes devastating consequences. Intergroup conflict engages a human behavior termed parochial altruism: For example, a soldier who fights against the enemy at risk to themselves to protect their country is a parochial altruist. De Dreu et al. (p. 1408; see the cover; see the News story by Miller) have discovered a role for oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, in regulating parochial altruism during human intergroup competition and conflict. Oxytocin is already known to play a role in trusting behavior, and naturally occurring genetic variants of the oxytocin receptor exist within the human population. Administration of oxytocin modulated defense-related aggression toward competing groups, but did not affect unprovoked, hateful behavior. Thus, there may be a neurobiological basis for intergroup conflict in humans. A hypothalamic hormone modulates bonding within a group and defense-related aggression between competing groups. Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in-group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out-groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a “tend and defend” response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.

Reality at Odds With Perceptions Narcissistic Leaders and Group Performance

Although narcissistic individuals are generally perceived as arrogant and overly dominant, they are particularly skilled at radiating an image of a prototypically effective leader. As a result, they tend to emerge as leaders in group settings. Despite people’s positive perceptions of narcissists as leaders, it was previously unknown if and how leaders’ narcissism is related to the performance of the people they lead. In this study, we used a hidden-profile paradigm to investigate this question and found evidence for discordance between the positive image of narcissists as leaders and the reality of group performance. We hypothesized and found that although narcissistic leaders are perceived as effective because of their displays of authority, a leader’s narcissism actually inhibits information exchange between group members and thereby negatively affects group performance. Our findings thus indicate that perceptions and reality can be at odds and have important practical and theoretical implications.

Majority and minority influence in group negotiation : The moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules

In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. Although such situations may give rise to majority coalitions that exclude the minority or to minorities blocking unfavorable agreements, structural and motivational factors may stimulate groups to engage in integrative negotiation, leading to collectively beneficial agreements. An experiment with 97 3-person groups was designed to test hypotheses about the interactions among decision rule, the majoritys social motivation, and the minoritys social motivation. Results showed that under unanimity rule, minority members block decisions, thus harming the group, but only when the minority has proself motivation. Under majority rule, majority members coalesce at the minoritys expense, but only when the majority has a proself motivation. Implications for negotiation research and group decision making are discussed.

Specific Mindfulness Skills Differentially Predict Creative Performance

Past work has linked mindfulness to improved emotion regulation, interpersonal skills, and basic cognitive abilities, but is unclear about the relation between mindfulness and creativity. Studies examining effects of mindfulness on factors pertinent to creativity suggest a uniform and positive relation, whereas work on specific mindfulness skills suggests that mindfulness skills may differentially predict creativity. To test whether the relation between mindfulness and creativity is positive and uniform (the uniform hypothesis) or differentially depends on particular components of mindfulness (the differential hypothesis), we conducted four studies in which mindfulness skills were measured, extensively trained, or manipulated with a short, incidental meditation session. Results supported a differential relation between mindfulness and creativity: Only the ability to observe and attend to various stimuli consistently and positively predicted creativity. Results regarding other mindfulness skills were less consistent. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

In intergroup conflict, self-sacrifice is stronger among pro-social individuals, and parochial altruism emerges especially among cognitively taxed individuals

Parochial altruism is decomposed in a tendency to benefit the in-group along with a tendency to ignore, derogate, and harm rivaling out-groups. Building off recent work suggesting that decisions to cooperate can be relatively fast and intuitive, we examine parochial altruism in intergroup conflict when cognitive deliberation is rendered difficult or not. Predictions were tested in an experiment using an incentivized Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma–Maximizing Differences Game with 95 subjects classified as either pro-social or pro-self being randomly allocated to high vs. low impulse-control conditions. Results showed, first of all, that self-sacrificial decisions to contribute were made faster than decisions not to contribute, and that faster decision time associated with more positive expectations of in-group members. Second, we observed that lowering impulse control with a difficult rather than easy Stroop Task increased the amount contributed to a pool that benefited in-group members while harming out-group members; thus reducing deliberation increased parochial altruism. Finally, results replicated earlier work showing that especially pro-social (vs. pro-self) individuals contributed more to the in-group and did not lower their contributions to the between-group pool that benefitted their in-group and, simultaneously, hurt the out-group. This pattern emerged independent of their impulse control. Thus, (in-group bounded) cooperation is more prominent among individuals with strong rather than weak other-regarding preferences. Moreover, the intuitive tendency to cooperate may have evolved in the context of intergroup conflict and therefore is sharp-edged—in-group bounded and including willingness to aggress out-groups.

Oxytocin differentially modulates compromise and competitive approach but not withdrawal to antagonists from own vs. rivaling other groups

In humans, oxytocin promotes cognitive and motivational tendencies that benefit the groups on which humans depend for their survival and prosperity. Here we examined decision making in an incentivized two-player poker game with either an in-group or out-group antagonist. Sixty nine healthy males received 24 IU oxytocin or matching placebo, and played four rounds of a simplified poker game. On each round they received either low or high value cards to create differences in competitive strength, and then responded to a bet placed by their (simulated) (in-group or out-group) antagonist. Under placebo, participants withdrew and competed depending on their own (low vs. high) competitive strength, regardless of their antagonists group membership. Under oxytocin, however, participants settled more and competed less with an in-group as compared to an out-group antagonist; withdrawal was unaffected by group membership. We conclude that oxytocin sensitizes humans to the group membership of their interaction partner, rendering them relatively more benevolent and less competitive towards those seen as belonging to their own group. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Oxytocin and Social Behav.

It Takes One to Tango: The Effects of Dyads’ Epistemic Motivation Composition in Negotiation

This study examined the effects of epistemic motivation composition in negotiation. Results from Experiment 1 revealed that dyads in which at least one member had high epistemic motivation (measured by personal need for structure) reached higher joint outcomes than dyads in which both members had low epistemic motivation. In Experiment 2, epistemic motivation was manipulated and negotiators were provided with full information or incomplete information about their counterpart’s preferences. Two competing sets of hypotheses were developed and tested. Negotiation behavior was coded, and mediation analysis established that the presence of one negotiator with high epistemic motivation helped negotiators overcome information insufficiency and benefited the dyad as a whole because of increased information search rather than heuristic trial and error. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Oxytocin promotes intuitive rather than deliberated cooperation with the in-group

Abstract A contribution to a special issue on Hormones and Human Competition. In intergroup settings, individuals prefer cooperating with their in‐group, and sometimes derogate and punish out‐groups. Here we replicate earlier work showing that such in‐group bounded cooperation is conditioned by oxytocin and extend it by showing that oxytocin‐motivated in‐group cooperation is intuitive rather than deliberated. Healthy males (N = 65) and females (N = 129) self‐administered intranasal placebo or 24 IU oxytocin in a double‐blind placebo‐controlled between‐subjects design, were assigned to a three‐person in‐group (that faced a 3‐person out‐group), and given an endowment from which they could contribute to a within‐group pool (benefitting the in‐group), and/or to a between‐group pool (benefitting the in‐group and punishing the out‐group). Prior to decision‐making, participants performed a Stroop Interference task that was either cognitively taxing, or not. Cognitively taxed individuals kept less to themselves and contributed more to the within‐group pool. Furthermore, participants receiving placebo contributed more to the within‐group pool when they were cognitively taxed rather than not; those receiving oxytocin contributed to the within‐group pool regardless of cognitive taxation. Neither taxation nor treatment influenced contributions to the between‐group pool, and no significant sex differences were observed. It follows that in intergroup settings (i) oxytocin increases in‐group bounded cooperation, (ii) oxytocin neither reduces nor increases out‐group directed spite, and (iii) oxytocin‐induced in‐group cooperation is independent of cognitive taxation and, therefore, likely to be intuitive rather than consciously deliberated. HighlightsWe replicate that oxytocin motivates in‐group bounded, parochial cooperation (PC).Reducing executive control increases PC when given placebo and not under oxytocin.Effects of oxytocin on PC appear similar in male and female subjects.Oxytocin‐motivated PC appears an intuitive rather than controlled strategy.PC rests on expected indirect reciprocity rather than social identity striving.

Parochial Cooperation in Nested Intergroup Dilemmas Is Reduced When It Harms Out-Groups.

In intergroup settings, humans often contribute to their in-group at a personal cost. Such parochial cooperation benefits the in-group and creates and fuels intergroup conflict when it simultaneously hurts out-groups. Here, we introduce a new game paradigm in which individuals can display universal cooperation (which benefits both in- and out-group) as well as parochial cooperation that does, versus does not hurt the out-group. Using this set-up, we test hypotheses derived from group selection theory, social identity, and bounded generalized reciprocity theory. Across three experiments we find, first, that individuals choose parochial over universal cooperation. Second, there was no evidence for a motive to maximize differences between in- and out-group, which is central to both group selection and social identity theory. However, fitting bounded generalized reciprocity theory, we find that individuals with a prosocial value orientation display parochial cooperation, provided that this does not harm the out-group; individualists, in contrast, display parochialism whether or not nut it hurts the out-group. Our findings were insensitive to cognitive taxation (Experiments 2–3), and emerged even when universal cooperation served social welfare more than parochialism (Experiment 3).

How representatives with a dovish constituency reach higher individual and joint outcomes in integrative negotiations

Representative negotiations often take a competitive course due to constituency pressures. However, in multi-issue integrative negotiation settings, using a competitive value-claiming strategy may result in less than optimal outcomes for both parties. In this experiment, we compared the negotiation process and outcomes of representatives with hawkish versus dovish constituencies. Representatives with a dovish constituency engaged in more information exchange and less contentious tactics, resulting in fewer impasses and higher quality agreements. Although representatives with a hawkish constituency claimed more value by placing higher demands, this negatively affected not only their joint, but also their individual outcomes. Overall, results suggest that representatives with a dovish constituency achieve better outcomes, both on an individual and dyadic level.