Groups act more competitively and less cooperatively towards other groups than individuals do towards other individuals in the same mixed-motive situation.
Insko, Schopler and their co-workers found that when the same prisoner's dilemma style game was played by individuals or by groups, pairs of groups defected far more often. A 1990 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology attributed the gap to fear and greed: groups expect other groups to be competitive and untrustworthy, and members can reinforce one another's wish to take more. A 2003 meta-analysis by Wildschut, Pinter, Vevea, Insko and Schopler, covering 130 comparisons, confirmed the effect. It was larger when the other side's behaviour was unconstrained or constrained to cooperate than when it was reciprocal, when groups decided together rather than through individuals, when members could talk freely, and when the conflict of interest was severe.
In practice
- Two departments negotiating over a shared budget take harder lines than their two heads would take alone in a private conversation.
- Two online communities in a feud treat each other with a hostility that none of their members would show a lone member of the other side in person.
- Possible explanations
- The fear and greed account is that members of a group expect another group to pursue its own interest and be less trustworthy than a lone person, and members support one another in wanting more. Diffusion of responsibility and in-group favouritism are also offered as contributors.
- In its favour
- The effect has been reproduced in many laboratory studies and is reported in field settings such as sport, classes and group planning sessions. The 2003 meta-analysis found it across 130 comparisons.
- Against it
- The evidence comes largely from laboratory games with small payoffs. The meta-analysis found that the effect shrinks when the other side is known to reciprocate and that it depends on the structure of the game, so it is a tendency under particular conditions rather than a general law about groups.
- Standing
- Compare Realistic Conflict Theory, the Out-Group Homogeneity Effect, Tit-for-Tat and Diffusion of Responsibility. One reason feuds between groups are harder to settle than quarrels between people.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- A century and a half of measuring the mind