Upload
antonia-ferguson
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kinship Cues as a Basis for Kinship Cues as a Basis for Cooperation in Groups: Cooperation in Groups:
The Familiarity Hypothesis The Familiarity Hypothesis
Mark Van VugtMark Van VugtUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity of Southampton
With Mark Schaller & Justin Park, University of British ColumbiaWith Mark Schaller & Justin Park, University of British Columbia
"A tribe including many members who, from possessing in high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection."
-- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871
Social Psychological Research on Social Psychological Research on Prosocial BehaviourProsocial Behaviour
• Lack of integration – few cross references between research on, for example,
bystander intervention, volunteering, social dilemmas, organizational citizenship
• Narrow focus on proximate, psychological processes, such as:
– Mood and helping– Empathy– Social identity– Attributions of responsibility
Evolutionary Roots of CooperationEvolutionary Roots of Cooperation
• Humans are social animals• Capacity to cooperate – joint activities to
produce mutual benefits • For much of our history, we lived in small, largely
kin-based tribal groups• Group life produced many benefits (e.g.,
parental investment, group defense, food sharing)
• But, it also came with costs (e.g., conflict, free riders, coordination problems)
• Humans are conditional cooperators
Theories of CooperationTheories of Cooperation
(1) Kin selection: individuals help their offspring and other kin because they share genetic information (inclusive fitness; Hamilton, 1964);
(2) Reciprocal altruism: individuals help if they can expect something in return (dyad: direct reciprocity; group: indirect reciprocity);
(3) Group selection: Individuals help others for the “good of the group” (see Darwin’s quote)
Kinship and Altruism Kinship and Altruism (Smith et al., 1987)(Smith et al., 1987)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
spouse siblings grandchildren nonkin
percentage of estatein will
Kinship Cues: Kinship Cues: The Familiarity HypothesisThe Familiarity Hypothesis
• Evolutionary pressures pertaining to kin selection require the emergence of mechanisms that allow the identification of kin (Krebs, 1987)
• No evidence for genetic similarity hypothesis (“green beard” mechanism, Dawkins, 1976)
• Rely on indirect cues that indicate familiarity – these cues are fallible
Heuristic Kinship CuesHeuristic Kinship Cues
• Empathy: ability to put oneself in other’s shoes (Batson, 1987)
• Proximity: decreases psychological distance and enhances aid giving (community identification and helping in a water shortage; Van Vugt, 2001)
• Similarity
SimilaritySimilarity
• Physical appearance (phenotype matching; Krebs, 1987)
– similarity in facial features – similarity in race increases helping (Gaertner
& Dovidio, 1977)
SimilaritySimilarity
• Shared norms, values, attitudes: – some attitudes are heritable (Tesser, 1993)– attitude similarity increases liking (Byrne,
1971)– attitude similarity increases empathy (Batson
et al., 1981)– attitude similarity increases cooperation in
social dilemma (Van Vugt & Hart, 2003)
High empathy increases helping regardless of costs High empathy increases helping regardless of costs
(Batson et al., 1981)(Batson et al., 1981)
% of contributors% of contributors
0102030405060708090
100
high low
attitude similarity
difficult escape
easy escape
The Step-level Public Good The Step-level Public Good Did at least four group members invest?
No Yes________________________________
Did youInvest? No £2 £2 + £4
(free rider)
Yes 0 (sucker) £4 _________________________
Members of “similar” groups are more loyal to their group Members of “similar” groups are more loyal to their group
(Van Vugt, Schaller, & Parks, 2003)(Van Vugt, Schaller, & Parks, 2003)
% of exits% of exits
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
similar dissimilar
attitudes
SimilaritySimilarity
• Group membership: – Ingroup favouritism in resource allocations (Brewer,
1979; Tajfel, 1971; Yamagishi, 1999)– Group identification increases ingroup cooperation
(De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999; Kramer & Brewer, 1984)
– Group identification promotes loyalty to group (Van Vugt & Hart, 2003) – out of genuine concern for group
– Supporters of same team come to each other’s aid (Platow et al., 1999)
High group identifiers contribute more to a public good High group identifiers contribute more to a public good
than low group identifiers, than low group identifiers, (De Cremer & Van Vugt, EJSP, 1999)(De Cremer & Van Vugt, EJSP, 1999)
% of contributors% of contributors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
high low
group identification
High group identifiers contribute more regardless of High group identifiers contribute more regardless of
their social value orientataion their social value orientataion (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999)(De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999)
% of contributors% of contributors
0102030405060708090
100
high low
group identification
prosocial
proself
High group identifiers are more loyal to their High group identifiers are more loyal to their
group than low group identifiers, group than low group identifiers, (Van Vugt & Hart, 2003)(Van Vugt & Hart, 2003)
% of exit% of exit
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
high low
group identification
High group identifiers are more loyal regardless of their trust in others High group identifiers are more loyal regardless of their trust in others
(Van Vugt & Hart, 2003)(Van Vugt & Hart, 2003)
% of exit% of exit
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
high low
group identification
low trust
high trust
Implications of Implications of Familiarity HypothesisFamiliarity Hypothesis
• Connects diverse research lines on social psychology of prosocial behaviour
• Generates novel hypotheses about roots of cooperation
– Smell as similarity cue???
• Automaticity of prosocial behaviour– Empathy often leads to “mindless” helping
(Batson et al., 1997)
Further implicationsFurther implications
• Culture as mediator and moderator: – cultural norms promote helping kin– In Japan perhaps more kin-based cooperation and
less cooperation with strangers (Yamagishi’s work)
• Individual differences in cooperation: – Prosocial value orientations may include more people
in their empathy circle (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999)
• Disentangling kinship from reciprocity: – investigate the mediators: Trust or empathy?
Practical ImplicationsPractical Implications
• Manipulating kinship labels to create familiarity– “brothers and sisters” “godfather”
• Adoption: – proximity cues at odds with similarity cues
• How to promote cooperation in larger groups? – stressing similarity between helper and receiver
(speak same dialect, Dunbar, 2003; support same team; Platow et al., 1999)
– Importance of between group friendships (similarity cues may be in conflict with each other)