Abstract
Despite the omnipresence of inter-group conflicts, little is known about the heterogeneity and stability of individuals’ social preferences toward in-group and out-group members. To identify the prevalence and stability of social preferences in inter-group conflict, we gather quota-representative, incentivized data from a lab-in-the-field study during the heated 2016 Austrian presidential election. We assess social preferences toward in-group and out-group members one week before, one week after, and three months after the election. We find considerable heterogeneity in individuals’ group-(in)dependent social preferences. Utilizing various econometric strategies, we find largely stable social preferences over the course of conflict. Yet, there is some indication of variation, particularly when the conflict becomes less salient. Variation is larger in social preferences toward in-group members and among specific preference types. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings and outline potential avenues for future research.
Highlights
Inter-group conflicts are omnipresent and can be observed between various types of groups, e.g., nations and ethnic, religious, or political groups, and within and between companies or universities
For participants matched with an in-group member, we find a mean a-value of 0.49 at stage 1, which is very close to the mean a-value of 0.48 when they were matched with an anonymous interaction partner
Participants are on average willing to give up 0.49 monetary units (MUs) to increase the payoff of an in-group member by 1 MU
Summary
Inter-group conflicts are omnipresent and can be observed between various types of groups, e.g., nations and ethnic, religious, or political groups, and within and between companies or universities. Inter-group conflict may take different forms and use different means, ranging from subtle discrimination against out-group members in everyday life to large-scale disputes between political groups and even violent encounters in wars. Inter-group conflicts are part and parcel of human interactions, having important impact on our psychological, physical, and economic welfare (Bohm, Rusch, and Baron 2020; Kimbrough, Laughren, and Sheremeta 2020). Individuals’ conflict engagement should be at least partly related to their social preferences: it benefits the in-group but harms the out-group at personal cost. Inter-individual differences in conflict engagement should be explained by differences in individuals’ (groupdependent) social preferences, i.e., how they are concerned about the welfare of in-group members vs out-group members
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
