Outgroup Aggression Research Articles

Sadism in the context of intergroup aggression.

People more readily harm members of outgroups than ingroups, often enjoying the inflicted agony. Yet it remains unclear how these malevolent tendencies towards outgroups relate to sadism. Sadists often harm others, driven by a desire to feel pleasure from their suffering. In attempt to bridge these two lines of research, this work examined relationships between sadism and aggression against ingroup and outgroup members in three studies (total N = 755) that focused on two groups with a history of conflict (i.e., the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland). Across all studies, British participants' sadistic tendencies were just as strongly linked to their aggression against ingroup members (i.e., British partners) as to their aggression against outgroup members (i.e., Irish partners). Despite this lack of a preference for greater outgroup aggression, they tended to enjoy outgroup aggression more than ingroup aggression, especially at its extreme levels. These findings extend works linking sadism to aggression into the domain of intergroup relations and bind together research on sadism and intergroup schadenfreude.

Neural representation of perceived race mediates the opposite relationship between subcomponents of self-construals and racial outgroup punishment.

Outgroup aggression characterizes intergroup conflicts in human societies. Previous research on relationships between cultural traits and outgroup aggression behavior showed inconsistent results, leaving open questions regarding whether cultural traits predict individual differences in outgroup aggression and related neural underpinnings. We conducted 2 studies to address this issue by collecting self-construal scores, EEG signals in response to Asian and White faces with painful or neutral expressions, and decisions to apply electric shocks to other-race individuals in a context of interracial conflict. We found that interdependent self-construals were well explained by 2 subcomponents, including esteem for group (EG) and relational interdependence (RI), which are related to focus on group collectives and harmonious relationships, respectively. Moreover, EG was positively associated with the decisions to punish racial outgroup targets, whereas RI was negatively related to the decisions. These opposite relationships were mediated by neural representations of perceived race at 120-160ms after face onset. Our findings highlight the multifaceted nature of interdependent self-construal and the key role of neural representations of race in mediating the relationships of different subcomponents of cultural traits with racial outgroup punishment decisions in a context of interracial conflict.

Environmental stress increases out-group aggression and intergroup conflict in humans.

Peaceful coexistence and trade among human groups can be fragile and intergroup relations frequently transition to violent exchange and conflict. Here we specify how exogenous changes in groups' environment and ensuing carrying-capacity stress can increase individual participation in intergroup conflict, and out-group aggression in particular. In two intergroup contest experiments, individuals could contribute private resources to out-group aggression (versus in-group defense). Environmental unpredictability, induced by making non-invested resources subject to risk of destruction (versus not), created psychological stress and increased participation in and coordination of out-group attacks. Archival analyses of interstate conflicts showed, likewise, that sovereign states engage in revisionist warfare more when their pre-conflict economic and climatic environment were more volatile and unpredictable. Given that participation in conflict is wasteful, environmental unpredictability not only made groups more often victorious but also less wealthy. Macro-level changes in the natural and economic environment can be a root cause of out-group aggression and turn benign intergroup relations violent.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Intergroup conflict across taxa’.

Null results for the steal-framing effect on out-group aggression

Whether intergroup conflict is a necessary condition for the evolution of human prosociality has been a matter of debate. At the center of the debate is the coevolutionary model of parochial altruism—that human cooperation with in-group members has coevolved with aggression toward out-group members. Studies using the intergroup prisoner’s dilemma–maximizing difference game to test the model have repeatedly shown that people do not exhibit out-group aggression, possibly because of an inappropriate operationalization and framing of out-group aggression. The coevolutionary model predicts out-group aggression when the actor understands that it will lead to the in-group’s benefit. However, in the game, such an aspect of out-group aggression that benefits the in-group is typically not well communicated to participants. Thus, this study tested the hypothesis that out-group aggression in the game would be promoted by a framing that emphasizes that attacking out-group members enhances the in-group’s gain. Results of two laboratory experiments with 176 Japanese university students in total showed that such a framing did not promote out-group aggression and individuals invested more money to cooperate with in-group members only, avoiding the strategy of cooperating with in-group members to harm out-group members. These results do not support the coevolutionary model.

Ethnic outgroup aggression: A pilot study on the importance of emotion regulation, nationalism and susceptibility to persuasion

The current pilot study investigated the psychological mechanisms behind ethnic outgroup aggression, a significant outcome of intergroup conflicts. While previous research suggested several impactful predictors of ethnic outgroup aggression, such as intergroup contact and nationalism, no attempt has been made to synthesize all these constructs into a single cross-cultural study. Building on existing research, this pilot study is the first to assess a refined framework where we tested a proposed mediation model according to nationalism and emotion regulation mediate the relationship between intergroup contact, susceptibility to persuasion, and intergroup anxiety on the one hand and ethnic outgroup aggression on the other hand within a cross-cultural sample. An online questionnaire was distributed using convenience sampling among 2482 students with an ethnic majority background living and studying in ten (European) countries. Multigroup path analysis supported the larger part of the hypothesized model where we found that emotion regulation partially mediated the relationship between susceptibility to persuasion as a predictor and aggression as an outcome. As expected, we found that the higher the susceptibility to persuasion, the higher the emotion regulation, and the higher the regulation, the lower the aggression in all countries. Our pilot study provided preliminary evidence that emotion regulation, nationalism and susceptibility to persuasion are critical for the understanding of ethnic outgroup aggression in ethnically diverse societies. Future research needs to be carried out focusing on the development of an intergroup anxiety assessment in which possible gender differences in assessed constructs are considered.

American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti‐Establishment Orientations

AbstractContemporary political ills at the mass behavior level (e.g., outgroup aggression, conspiracy theories) are often attributed to increasing polarization and partisan tribalism. We theorize that many such problems are less the product of left‐right orientations than an orthogonal “anti‐establishment” dimension of opinion dominated by conspiracy, populist, and Manichean orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, we find that this dimension of opinion is correlated with several antisocial psychological traits, the acceptance of political violence, and time spent on extremist social media platforms. It is also related to support for populist candidates, such as Trump and Sanders, and beliefs in misinformation and conspiracy theories. While many inherently view politics as a conflict between left and right, others see it as a battle between “the people” and a corrupt establishment. Our findings demonstrate an urgent need to expand the traditional conceptualization of mass opinion beyond familiar left‐right identities and affective orientations.

Towards the elucidation of evolution of out-group aggression.

We focus on the implications of De Dreu and Gross's findings for the evolutionary perspective on out-group aggression and in-group cooperation. Although their experimental protocols are potentially useful in determining the origins of out-group aggression in humans, they so far provide inconclusive evidence only. We suggest ways of furthering our understanding of the connection between parochial cooperation and intergroup conflict.

The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare.

Historically, dehumanization has enabled members of advantaged groups to ‘morally disengage’ from disadvantaged group suffering, thereby facilitating acts of intergroup aggression such as colonization, slavery and genocide. But is blatant dehumanization exclusive to those at the top ‘looking down’, or might disadvantaged groups similarly dehumanize those who dominate them? We examined this question in the context of intergroup warfare in which the disadvantaged group shoulders a disproportionate share of casualties and may be especially likely to question the humanity of the advantaged group. Specifically, we assessed blatant dehumanization in the context of stark asymmetric conflict between Israelis (Study 1; N = 521) and Palestinians (Study 2; N = 354) during the 2014 Gaza war. We observed that (a) community samples of Israelis and Palestinians expressed extreme (and comparable) levels of blatant dehumanization, (b) blatant dehumanization was uniquely associated with outcomes related to outgroup hostility for both groups, even after accounting for political ideologies known to strongly predict outgroup aggression, and (c) the strength of association between blatant dehumanization and outcomes was similar across both groups. This study illuminates the striking potency and symmetry of blatant dehumanization among those on both sides of an active asymmetric conflict.

In-group defense, out-group aggression, and coordination failures in intergroup conflict

Intergroup conflict persists when and because individuals make costly contributions to their group's fighting capacity, but how groups organize contributions into effective collective action remains poorly understood. Here we distinguish between contributions aimed at subordinating out-groups (out-group aggression) from those aimed at defending the in-group against possible out-group aggression (in-group defense). We conducted two experiments in which three-person aggressor groups confronted three-person defender groups in a multiround contest game (n = 276; 92 aggressor-defender contests). Individuals received an endowment from which they could contribute to their group's fighting capacity. Contributions were always wasted, but when the aggressor group's fighting capacity exceeded that of the defender group, the aggressor group acquired the defender group's remaining resources (otherwise, individuals on both sides were left with the remainders of their endowment). In-group defense appeared stronger and better coordinated than out-group aggression, and defender groups survived roughly 70% of the attacks. This low success rate for aggressor groups mirrored that of group-hunting predators such as wolves and chimpanzees (n = 1,382 cases), hostile takeovers in industry (n = 1,637 cases), and interstate conflicts (n = 2,586). Furthermore, whereas peer punishment increased out-group aggression more than in-group defense without affecting success rates (Exp. 1), sequential (vs. simultaneous) decision-making increased coordination of collective action for out-group aggression, doubling the aggressor's success rate (Exp. 2). The relatively high success rate of in-group defense suggests evolutionary and cultural pressures may have favored capacities for cooperation and coordination when the group goal is to defend, rather than to expand, dominate, and exploit.

They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization.

Although the act of dehumanizing an outgroup is a pervasive and potent intergroup process that drives discrimination and conflict, no formal research has examined the consequences of being dehumanized by an outgroup-that is, "metadehumanization." Across 10 studies (N = 3,440) involving several real-world conflicts spanning 3 continents, we provide the first empirical evidence that metadehumanization (a) plays a central role in outgroup aggression that is (b) mediated by outgroup dehumanization, and (c) distinct from metaprejudice. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate experimentally that Americans who learn that Arabs (Study 1a) or Muslims (Study 1b) blatantly dehumanize Americans are more likely to dehumanize that outgroup in return; by contrast, experimentally increasing outgroup dehumanization did not increase metadehumanization (Study 1c). Using correlational data, Study 2 documents indirect effects of metadehumanization on Americans' support for aggressive policies toward Arabs (e.g., torture) via Arab dehumanization. In the context of Hungarians and ethnic minority Roma, Study 3 shows that the pathway for Hungarians from metadehumanization to aggression through outgroup dehumanization holds controlling for outgroup prejudice. Study 4 examines Israelis' metaperceptions with respect to Palestinians, showing that: (a) feeling dehumanized (i.e., metadehumanization) is distinct from feeling disliked (i.e., metaprejudice), and (b) metadehumanization uniquely influences aggression through outgroup dehumanization, controlling for metaprejudice. Studies 5a and 5b explore Americans' metaperceptions regarding ISIS and Iran. We document a dehumanization-specific pathway from metadehumanization to aggressive attitudes and behavior that is distinct from the path from metaprejudice through prejudice to aggression. In Study 6, American participants learning that Muslims humanize Americans (i.e., metahumanization) humanize Muslims in turn. Finally, Study 7 experimentally contrasts metadehumanization and metahumanization primes, and shows that resulting differences in outgroup dehumanization are mediated by (a) perceived identity threat, and (b) a general desire to reciprocate the outgroup's perceptions of the ingroup. In summary, our research outlines how and why metadehumanization contributes to cycles of ongoing violence and animosity, providing direction for future research and policy. (PsycINFO Database Record

The social activist: conformity to the ingroup following rejection as a predictor of political participation

Humans have an overwhelming desire to belong to social groups and if rejected, may act ingratiatory, and conform more easily, to a new accepting group (Williams, 2007) to establish themselves as a valued group member. We investigated whether following rejection, individuals were more willing to participate in and condone varying political actions against an excluding and opposing organization on behalf of a new organization. Results showed that rejected participants were more inclined to be politically active toward the outgroup, and this effect was magnified in those high in rejection sensitivity. Effects were mediated by thwarted inclusionary needs, suggesting that actions directed toward an outgroup may be driven by pro-social belongingness needs rather than outgroup aggression.

Impairment of interstrain social recognition during territorial aggressive behavior in oxytocin receptor-null mice

In humans, oxytocin has been shown to be involved in in-group cooperative behaviors and out-group aggression. Studies have also demonstrated that oxytocin plays a pivotal role in social recognition. However, no empirical research has investigated the effect of oxytocin on in-group and out-group aggressiveness. We employed a resident-intruder paradigm to assess the ability of resident male mice to discriminate intruder male strain differences. We found that resident male mice exhibited higher frequencies of attack bites against intruders of different strains than against intruders of their own strain. Subsequently, we examined whether the interstrain recognition was regulated by the oxytocin system using oxytocin receptor (OTR)-null mice. OTR wild-type or heterozygous residents displayed higher aggression toward intruders of a strain different from their own (C57BL/6J). On the other hand, OTR-null residents exhibited greater aggression toward intruders of the same strain compared to OTR wild-type or heterozygous residents, and aggression levels were not different compared to those exhibited toward other strains. Our findings demonstrated that the oxytocin system contributes to interstrain social recognition in territorial aggression in male mice, implying that one function of oxytocin is to promote an in-group “tend-and-defend” response, such as in-group favoritism, which could be evolutionarily conserved in mammals.

Oxytocin motivates non-cooperation in intergroup conflict to protect vulnerable in-group members.

Intergroup conflict is often driven by an individual's motivation to protect oneself and fellow group members against the threat of out-group aggression, including the tendency to pre-empt out-group threat through a competitive approach. Here we link such defense-motivated competition to oxytocin, a hypothalamic neuropeptide involved in reproduction and social bonding. An intergroup conflict game was developed to disentangle whether oxytocin motivates competitive approach to protect (i) immediate self-interest, (ii) vulnerable in-group members, or (iii) both. Males self-administered oxytocin or placebo (double-blind placebo-controlled) and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their fellow in-group members, and a competing out-group. Game payoffs were manipulated between-subjects so that non-cooperation by the out-group had high vs. low impact on personal payoff (personal vulnerability), and high vs. low impact on payoff to fellow in-group members (in-group vulnerability). When personal vulnerability was high, non-cooperation was unaffected by treatment and in-group vulnerability. When personal vulnerability was low, however, in-group vulnerability motivated non-cooperation but only when males received oxytocin. Oxytocin fuels a defense-motivated competitive approach to protect vulnerable group members, even when personal fate is not at stake.

We Were, We Are,Will We Be?The Social Psychology of Collective Angst

AbstractNot all social groups survive the passage of time. Groups once in existence are now but memories of the past. If history is any indication, other social groups are likely to experience a similar fate and join the list of groups that once were. The concern that one’s group might one day join such a list is the focus of this paper. Specifically, we examine the social psychology of collective angst – a group‐based emotion that stems from concern for the future vitality of one’s social group. We begin by discussing the anatomy of collective angst and how it differs from other collective emotions. We then outline factors that foster collective angst. Importantly, we provide a novel theoretical framework outlining both constructive and destructive means by which members may defend against a future that does not include their group. For example, we examine collective angst as a facilitator of, among other things, ingroup cohesion and outgroup aggression. Finally, we discuss how collective angst has manifested on the world stage as well as implications for relations within and between groups.

Guns, Germs, and Sex: How Evolution Shaped Our Intergroup Psychology

AbstractA phenomenon of perennial interest to social psychologists is people’s tendency to categorize others on the basis of group membership and to exhibit a preference for members of the ingroup relative to the outgroup. Recent work emphasizing the evolutionary functions of outgroup aggression, exploitation, and avoidance have shed new light on previously observed intergroup phenomena and generated many new empirical findings. We delineate two distinct evolved psychologies of intergroup relations and review recent research pertaining to each. One research line (on the psychology of warfare) focuses on the intergroup competition for resources; as we describe below, such competition – and the associated exploitative psychology – is more amplified among men. The other research line (on the psychology of disease avoidance) focuses on the need to avoid contagious disease. Because the threats posed by competitive versus disease‐carrying outgroups are qualitatively distinct, the psychological reactions may also be qualitatively distinct.

We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways

Despite the fact that SDO and RWA are correlated with one another and both predict support for ethnic persecution of immigrants, it is argued that this aggression is provoked for very different reasons. For authoritarians, outgroup aggression against immigrants should primarily be provoked by immigrant refusal to assimilate into the dominant culture because this violates ingroup conformity. In contrast, SDO should be associated with aggression against immigrants who do assimilate into the dominant culture because this blurs existing status boundaries between groups. Using samples of American and Swiss college students, the data were consistent with this status boundary enforcement hypothesis regarding social dominators and largely consistent with the ingroup conformity hypothesis regarding authoritarians. National and ethnic identification did not account for these results. The results further support the argument that outgroup prejudice and discrimination is most fruitfully seen as an interactive function of individual differences and situational constraints.