Mark Van Vugt

Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis

Three experimental studies examined the relationship between altruistic behavior and the emergence of status hierarchies within groups. In each study, group members were confronted with a social dilemma in which they could either benefit themselves or their group. Study 1 revealed that in a reputation environment when contributions were public, people were more altruistic. In both Studies 1 and 2, the most altruistic members gained the highest status in their group and were most frequently preferred as cooperative interaction partners. Study 3 showed that as the costs of altruism increase, the status rewards also increase. These results support the premise at the heart of competitive altruism: Individuals may behave altruistically for reputation reasons because selective benefits (associated with status) accrue to the generous.

Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past.

This article analyzes the topic of leadership from an evolutionary perspective and proposes three conclusions that are not part of mainstream theory. First, leading and following are strategies that evolved for solving social coordination problems in ancestral environments, including in particular the problems of group movement, intragroup peacekeeping, and intergroup competition. Second, the relationship between leaders and followers is inherently ambivalent because of the potential for exploitation of followers by leaders. Third, modern organizational structures are sometimes inconsistent with aspects of our evolved leadership psychology, which might explain the alienation and frustration of many citizens and employees. The authors draw several implications of this evolutionary analysis for leadership theory, research, and practice.

Social identification effects in social dilemmas: a transformation of motives

Three experimental studies were conducted to examine two alternative explanations for the widely established positive eAect of social identification in promoting cooperation in social dilemmas. We hypothesised that social identification eAects could be either ascribed to (1) an increase in the value assigned to the collective good (i.e. goaltransformation hypothesis) or (2) an enhancement of trust in the cooperation of other group members (i.e. goal-amplification hypothesis). To disentangle these two explanations, we examined the eAects of social identification on the contributions to a public good of people with a diAerent social value orientation (i.e. pre-existing diAerences in preferred outcome distribution between self and others). Following the goal transformation hypothesis, we predicted that an increased group identification would raise contributions, in particular for people essentially concerned with their personal welfare (i.e. pro-self value orientation). Alternatively, following the goal amplification hypothesis it was expected that increased group identification would primarily aAect decisions of people concerned with the collective welfare (i.e. prosocial value orientation). The results of all three studies provided support for the goal-transformation rather than goal-amplification hypothesis, suggesting that ‘selfish’ individuals can be encouraged to cooperate by increasing the salience of their group membership. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evolutionary Origins of Leadership and Followership

Drawing upon evolutionary logic, leadership is reconceptualized in terms of the outcome of strategic interactions among individuals who are following different, yet complementary, decision rules to solve recurrent coordination problems. This article uses the vast psychological literature on leadership as a database to test several evolutionary hypotheses about the origins of leadership and followership in humans. As expected, leadership correlates with initiative taking, trait measures of intelligence, specific task competencies, and several indicators of generosity. The review finds no link between leadership and dominance. The evolutionary analysis accounts for reliable age, health, and sex differences in leadership emergence. In general, evolutionary theory provides a useful, integrative framework for studying leader-follower relationships and generates various novel research hypotheses.

Gender Differences in Cooperation and Competition The Male-Warrior Hypothesis

Evolutionary scientists argue that human cooperation is the product of a long history of competition among rival groups. There are various reasons to believe that this logic applies particularly to men. In three experiments, using a step-level public-goods task, we found that men contributed more to their group if their group was competing with other groups than if there was no intergroup competition. Female cooperation was relatively unaffected by intergroup competition. These findings suggest that men respond more strongly than women to intergroup threats. We speculate about the evolutionary origins of this gender difference and note some implications.

The Origins and Evolution of Leadership

How groups of individuals achieve coordination and collective action is an important topic in the natural sciences, but until recently the role of leadership in this process has been largely overlooked. In contrast, leadership is arguably one of the most important themes in the social sciences, permeating all aspects of human social affairs: the election of Barack Obama, the war in Iraq, and the collapse of the banks are all high-profile events that draw our attention to the fundamental role of leadership and followership. Converging ideas and developments in both the natural and social sciences suggest that leadership and followership share common properties across humans and other animals, pointing to ancient roots and evolutionary origins. Here, we draw upon key insights from the animal and human literature to lay the foundation for a new science of leadership inspired by an evolutionary perspective. Identifying the origins of human leadership and followership, as well as which aspects are shared with other animals and which are unique, offers ways of understanding, predicting, and improving leadership today.

Leadership in social dilemmas : The effects of group identification on collective actions to provide public goods

Two experimental studies investigated the role of group identification in the selection of and cooperation with leaders to manage public good dilemmas. The findings of the 1st study revealed that there was a general preference to select leaders with a legitimate power base (i.e., democratic, elected, and internal leaders), but these preferences were particularly pronounced when peoples identification with their group was high rather than low. The 2nd study complemented these findings by showing that when group identification was low, an instrumental leader (i.e., who punishes noncontributing members) was far more efficient than a relational leader (i.e., who builds positive intragroup relations) in raising contributions. Yet, when group identification was high, both leader types appeared to be equally efficient.

Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future.

This study examines preference for commuting towork by car or public transportation (PT) within an expanded social dilemma framework (i.e., one that recognizes the importance of both social and temporal concerns). Commuters completed scales assessing commuting preferences, beliefs regarding the environmental impact of cars, social value orientation (SVO), and the consideration of future consequences (CFC). Preference for PT was higher among commuters who believed that commuting by car harms the environment and among those scoring high in CFC. Most important, a significant two-way interaction revealed that preference for commuting by PT was positively related to beliefs regarding the harmful environmental consequences of commuting by car only among those high in CFC. SVO was unrelated to commuting preferences. In sum, a future orientation may be more important than a prosocial orientation in shaping commuting preferences.

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.

Sex Differences in Cooperation: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Dilemmas

Although it is commonly believed that women are kinder and more cooperative than men, there is conflicting evidence for this assertion. Current theories of sex differences in social behavior suggest that it may be useful to examine in what situations men and women are likely to differ in cooperation. Here, we derive predictions from both sociocultural and evolutionary perspectives on context-specific sex differences in cooperation, and we conduct a unique meta-analytic study of 272 effect sizes-sampled across 50 years of research-on social dilemmas to examine several potential moderators. The overall average effect size is not statistically different from zero (d = -0.05), suggesting that men and women do not differ in their overall amounts of cooperation. However, the association between sex and cooperation is moderated by several key features of the social context: Male-male interactions are more cooperative than female-female interactions (d = 0.16), yet women cooperate more than men in mixed-sex interactions (d = -0.22). In repeated interactions, men are more cooperative than women. Women were more cooperative than men in larger groups and in more recent studies, but these differences disappeared after statistically controlling for several study characteristics. We discuss these results in the context of both sociocultural and evolutionary theories of sex differences, stress the need for an integrated biosocial approach, and outline directions for future research.