Explore the vast range of titles available.

Intergroup competition makes social identity salient, which in turn affects how people respond to competitors' hardships. The failures of an in-group member are painful, whereas those of a rival out-group member may give pleasure—a feeling that may motivate harming rivals. The present study examined whether valuation-related neural responses to rival groups' failures correlate with likelihood of harming individuals associated with those rivals. Avid fans of the Red Sox and Yankees teams viewed baseball plays while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. Subjectively negative outcomes (failure of the favored team or success of the rival team) activated anterior cingulate cortex and insula, whereas positive outcomes (success of the favored team or failure of the rival team, even against a third team) activated ventral striatum. The ventral striatum effect, associated with subjective pleasure, also correlated with self-reported likelihood of aggressing against a fan of the rival team (controlling for general aggression). Outcomes of social group competition can directly affect primary reward-processing neural systems, which has implications for intergroup harm.

In suggesting that new nations often coalesce in the decades following war, historians have posed an important psychological question: Does the experience of war generate an enduring elevation in people's egalitarian motivations toward their in-group? We administered social-choice tasks to more than 1,000 children and adults differentially affected by wars in the Republic of Georgia and Sierra Leone. We found that greater exposure to war created a lasting increase in people's egalitarian motivations toward their in-group, but not their out-groups, during a developmental window starting in middle childhood (around 7 years of age) and ending in early adulthood (around 20 years of age). Outside this window, war had no measurable impact on social motivations in young children and had only muted effects on the motivations of older adults. These \"war effects\" are broadly consistent with predictions from evolutionary approaches that emphasize the importance of group cooperation in defending against external threats, though they also highlight key areas in need of greater theoretical development.

Animals that occupy stable home ranges tend to unevenly exploit different areas in their efforts to find fitness-limiting resources, while also reducing the risks of intergroup conflict. Most analyses of these extrinsic forces identify their effects on movement paths and home range geometry, but not on the interaction of these responses or how movements might be centrally constrained as a result of competition with neighbors. The range utilization slope is a measure of central tendency and consists of space use plotted against distance from the center of the range. Slopes tend to be linear, concave-up, or concave-down and are predicted to change as a function of feeding competition from neighbors. To test this prediction and determine the spatio-temporal scales over which the central tendency might vary, we calculated utilization slopes and an index of range overlap for grey-cheeked mangabeys (Lophocebus albigena), blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis), and red-tailed monkeys (C. ascanius) in Uganda, which consume similar diets but experience varying intensities of intergroup conflict. As predicted, we find variation in utilization slopes across and within species, which corresponds with the extent of range overlap among conspecific groups.Significance statementHow animals use different parts of the home range provides clues to the constraints they experience, such as food availability, predation risk, and competition from neighbors. Despite its importance in behavioral ecology, the role that intergroup competition plays on home range geometry is not well understood. We propose that the range utilization slope, which evaluates spatial use as a function of distance from the center of the range, is a useful measure of central tendency and indicates how animals are compressed into the center of the range by neighbors. In an analysis of monkey groups of three species, we find that utilization slopes vary across space and time, but generally correspond with the intensity of resource limitation. These slopes provide a rapid assessment of resource access at multiple spatial scales.

In social animals, areas where the home ranges of neighboring groups overlap are often underused. The Risk Hypothesis posits that the costs of intergroup conflict create a “landscape of fear,” discouraging the use of such shared areas. To test this hypothesis, we observed the behavior of white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) in central vs. peripheral areas of their home ranges. If capuchins perceive areas of home range overlap as “risky,” we predicted they would change activity budgets, vocalization rates, and foraging behavior in these areas. A spatially explicit behavioral comparison based on nearly 100 h of focal follows revealed that capuchins socialize less in the periphery (vs. the center) of their home range. Time spent resting, foraging, and engaging in vigilance, as well as vocalization rates, varied in consistent ways across all four study groups, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. Fruit trees near range borders (vs. the center) contained more ripe fruit, and groups spent more time in these trees, with more individuals entering to feed and consuming more fruits. However, capuchins did not alter their foraging behavior in potentially risky peripheral areas in a manner consistent with predictions of optimal foraging theory: intake rates at patch departure were not significantly lower and groups depleted trees to a greater extent along the periphery vs. in the center of their range. These results suggest that while peripheral areas are perceived as risky and this “landscape of fear” contributes to behavioral changes, they also provide resources whose value may outweigh the cost of intergroup encounters.

The fitness consequences of joining a group are highly dependent on ecological context, especially for non-kin. To assess the relationships between cooperation and environment, we examined variation in colony reproductive success for a harvester ant species that nests either solitarily or with multiple, unrelated queens, a social strategy known as primary polygyny. We measured the reproductive investment of colonies of solitary versus social nesting types at two sites, one with primarily single-queen colonies, and the other with a majority of polygynous nests. Our results were consistent with the hypothesis that cooperative nesting by unrelated ant queens is likely a selection response to difficult environments, rather than a strategy to maximize reproduction under favorable conditions. Fewer colonies at the primarily polygynous site reproduced than at the site with primarily single queen nests, and those that did had lower reproductive investment, as measured by number and total mass of reproductives. Assessment of ecological conditions also support the harsh environment hypothesis. Colony density in the multi-queen population was higher, and nearest neighbor distances were lower for non-reproducing than reproducing colonies. To more directly test the hypothesis that colony reproduction was ecologically constrained, we experimentally supplemented food resources for a subset of colonies at the primary polygyny site. Supplemented colonies increased reproductive investment levels to equal that of colonies at the single-queen population, further indicating that environmental pressures are severe where primary polygyny is dominant, and may drive the evolution of non-kin cooperation in this context.

This study introduced computerized collaboration scripts with an intergroup competition mechanism to foster students’ within-group collaboration in a multi-touch tabletop classroom, investigating whether the scripting effects could be further improved by integrating intergroup competition. As such, this study utilized an experimental design to investigate the effects of intergroup competition on student teamwork performance, collaborative skills and learning achievement. A real-time intergroup competition mechanism was designed and integrated into a scripted multi-touch platform that supported collaborative designs. Forty-nine fifth-grade students from two classes at an elementary school in Taiwan were assigned to distinct groups, with and without intergroup competition. The participating students were required to accomplish a tessellation-related design project in small groups on a multi-touch platform. The findings showed that the students learning with the scripts under intergroup competition on multi-touch tabletop displays demonstrated better teamwork performance, collaborative skills and learning achievement than their counterparts who did not experience intergroup competition. These findings provide empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of integrating collaboration scripts with intergroup competition to computer-supported collaborative learning in multi-touch technology enhanced classrooms, delivering a better understanding of how learning with computerized collaboration scripts can be improved and how group awareness is related to this learning setting.

The main purpose of this study was to analyse the effect of perceived intergroup competition on majority adolescents’ behavioural intentions toward two relevant immigrant groups in the Spanish context, Ecuadorians and Moroccans. We proposed an integrative path model in which perceived intergroup competition led to perception of outgroup threat, which in turn affected warmth stereotypes (morality and sociability). Perceived warmth further fostered positive and negative emotions, which in turn predicted facilitative and harmful interpersonal behavioural tendencies. Following a between subject design, participants (N = 231, Mage = 15.39, SD = 1.09) evaluated Moroccans (n = 114) or Ecuadorians (n = 117) on the examined variables. Results indicate that Ecuadorians were perceived as more moral and sociable and elicited less negative emotions than Moroccans. The model had a good fit for both groups. Perceived intergroup competition predicted perceived outgroup threat which, in turn, fostered perceived morality and sociability. Only perceived morality predicted both positive and negative emotions, whereas sociability elicited only positive emotions. Finally, facilitation intentions were predicted by both positive and negative emotions, while harm intentions were triggered only by negative ones. Results highlight the distinctive role of morality for intergroup relations during adolescence and extend previous literature regarding perceived intergroup competition, stereotype content, emotions and perceived outgroup threat.

In current society, immigration is a reality that poses important challenges. Identifying factors that favor a more positive evaluation of immigrants could lead to new avenues of intervention to achieve more positive intergroup relationships and greater social well-being. Given that a more abstract thinking style promotes less focus on obstacles and difficulties, the aim of the present study was to examine the link between construal level and stereotype, focusing on people with a more conservative ideology, a population that tends to have a higher level of prejudice towards immigrants. We hypothesized that conservative people with a more abstract thinking style would report less negative stereotypes than those with a more concrete thinking style. In a sample of Spanish adults (N = 1,208, 60.1% women), we applied a questionnaire measuring thinking style, ideology, the degree to which immigrants are perceived as competitors, and the dimension of warmth (morality and sociability) of the stereotype content of that group. We found that more conservative people perceived, to a greater extent, immigrants as competitors and considered them less moral and sociable. However, the warmth (morality and sociability) attributed to immigrants was significantly higher for those conservative individuals who presented more abstract thinking style, with perceived competition as the mediating variable. As it is possible to induce a more abstract thinking style, the results of this study open a new avenue for intervention in promoting more positive attitudes toward immigrants, especially in more conservative people who tend to present more negative stereotypes towards this collective.

Group discussion often becomes one-sided and confirmatory, with poor decisions as the unfortunate outcome. Here we examine whether intergroup competition amplifies or mitigates effects of individual versus team reward on information sharing biases and group decision quality. Individuals (N = 309) in 103 interacting groups were given private information on four decision alternatives and discussed a joint decision. Private information was distributed such that groups faced a “hidden profile” in which pushing for initial preferences and commonly held information prohibits the group from finding the best alternative. Group members were rewarded for team or individual performance, and groups faced intergroup competition or not. Whereas intergroup competition did not influence common-information bias, we find that when intergroup competition is absent, groups under individual (versus team) reward have stronger preference-consistency bias and make poorer decisions. When intergroup competition is present, however, groups under individual reward perform as good as groups under team reward. Results resonate with the possibility that intergroup competition overshadows within-group rivalry, and can promote even-handed discussions within small groups of decision-makers.

This paper experimentally investigates how inter- and intragroup heterogeneity (related to individual cooperative preferences) influences intergroup coordination. Coordination incentives are implemented through an intergroup rank-order competition. A pre-competition phase determines how individual heterogeneity is distributed across groups within an organisation. Two treatments are compared: a horizontal-heterogeneity treatment (H-Hetero, baseline), where individual differences are randomly distributed within and between groups, and a vertical-heterogeneity treatment (V-Hetero), in which groups are internally homogeneous but differ considerably from each other. In contrast to expectations, I find that vertical (intergroup) heterogeneity, when being accompanied by intragroup homogeneity, does not reduce the ability of groups to coordinate and keeps overall performance at very high levels. Indeed, subjects react more strongly to the coordination/competition incentives in vertically heterogenous organisations. Further analysis suggests that group dynamics are mainly driven by a positive orientation towards inequality (distributional preferences) of the members of the initially least cooperative groups, and their non-conditional cooperative behaviour. These results have implications for the design of group-based incentives and governance in organisations and societies.