the tribal instinct hypothesis

8/13/2019 The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis

1/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis 1

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis:

Evolution and the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations

Mark Van Vugt

University of Kent

Justin H. Park

University of roningen

To appear in! ". "tr#er $ M. "ny%er&Psychology of Helping: New Directions in Intergroup

Prosocial Behavior.'on%on! (lack)ell.

*%%ress of +orrespon%ence! Mark van Vugt& ,epart#ent of Psychology& University of Kent&

+anterbury UK& +T- /P0 #vvkent.ac.uk

P'2*"2 ,3 /3T +IT2 34 5U3T2 6ITH3UT P24MI""I3/ 743M TH2 *UTH34"
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis -

Abstract

The social science literature aboun%s )ith e8a#ples of people9s ten%ency to categori:e others

on the basis of group #e#bership an% to preferentially help ingroup #e#bers over outgroup

#e#bers. 6e argue that this is largely a pro%uct of an evolve% psychology of intergroup

relations& )hich )e refer to as the tribal instinct hypothesis. 7urther#ore& )e argue that tribal

ten%encies are #ore po)erful a#ong #en than a#ong )o#en& )hich )e refer to as the male

warrior hypothesis. In this chapter& )e outline the evolutionary history of the tribal instinct

an% #ale )arrior psychology& an% )e revie) evi%ence consistent )ith these hypotheses. 6e

also %iscuss i#plications of these hypotheses for #anaging real;)orl% intergroup relations.


3/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis such as ants&

bees& an% ter#ites>that also engage in tribal )arfare ?6ilson& 1@AB.

'uckily& )e %o not have to )ait for inva%ing aliens to #ake such astute observations

about hu#ans. *l#ost 1AC years ago& +harles ,ar)in ?1D1B& the father of the theory of

evolution by natural selection& #a%e the follo)ing state#ent in his bookDescent of Man!

* tribe inclu%ing #any #e#bers )ho& fro# possessing in a high %egree the spirit of

patriotis#& fi%elity& obe%ience& courage& an% sy#pathy& )ere al)ays rea%y to ai% one

another& an% to sacrifice the#selves for the co##on goo%& )oul% be victorious over

#ost other tribes0 an% this )oul% be natural selection. ?p. 1


4/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis E

In recent years& an increasing nu#ber of scholars have a%opte% an evolutionary

approach to integrate e8isting theories of hu#an group psychology an% %e%uce novel

hypotheses ?(uss& -CCA0 Van Vugt $ "challer& -CCDB. This approach is base% on the si#ple

pre#ise that the hu#an #in%>an% its behavioral outco#es>have been shape% by biological

evolution& Fust as hu#an physiology has been shape% by evolution& an% Fust as all other ani#al

species have been shape% by evolution. 2volutionary social psychology& an inter%isciplinary

branch of evolutionary psychology& proposes that because other people constitute% a

pro#inent feature of hu#an environ#ents& the hu#an #in% has evolve% to be a highly social

#in%& co#prising #any functional psychological a%aptations specifically %esigne% to solve

proble#s associate% )ith group life ?(uss& -CCA0 +os#i%es $ Tooby& 1@@-B.

*lthough sociality conferre% consi%erable benefits to hu#ans>lea%ing to the

evolution of a %iverse array of psychological #echanis#s that #ake cooperative group living

possible>it also generate% a large nu#ber of proble#s& both )ithin an% bet)een groups.

,ifferent proble#s call for %ifferent& functionally speciali:e% solutions& an% several research

progra#s have #a%e significant stri%es by focusing on those functionally speciali:e%

a%aptations ?"challer& Park& $ Kenrick& -CCB. "uggeste% instances of such a%aptations

inclu%e theory of #in%& social intelligence& language& se8;specific #ating tactics& altruis# an%

aggression& an% specific strategies for #anaging intergroup relations ?Kenrick& 'i& $ (utner&

-CC


5/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis A

inGuire into the specific aspects of in%ivi%uals or conte8ts that lea% people to %isplay such

ten%encies0 this is the strategy a%opte% by the vast #aFority of social psychologists>see& for

instance& (atson9s ?e.g.& (atson et al.& 1@@B an% +ial%ini9s stu%ies ?+ial%ini et al.& 1@@B

regar%ing the relationship bet)een e#pathy an% helping& or research into the costs an%

benefits of %ifferent helping acts ?,ovi%io& Piliavin& "chroe%er& $ Penner& -CCB. "econ%& one

coul% inGuire into the ulti#ate& evolutionaryfunctions of such acts& by asking Guestions such

as! In )hat )ays %i% the capacity for e#pathy or helping increase the repro%uctive fitness of

ancestral hu#ans an% groups= 3r& )hat specific proble#s associate% )ith survival an%

repro%uction )ere solve% by ten%encies to e#pathi:e )ith an% preferentially help ingroup

#e#bers over outgroup #e#bers=

* relate% Guestion concerns thephylogeneticorigins of such ten%encies>)hen %i%

e#pathy an% helping e#erge in our species& an% are there perhaps ho#ologues in other

species= *%%ressing such %ifferent kin%s of Guestions is likely to pro%uce a #ore co#plete

picture of the pheno#enon0 ho)ever& it is i#portant not to confuse these %istinct levels of

e8planation ?(uss& -CCA0 Van Vugt $ Van 'ange& -CCB. 7or instance& e8planations invoking

evolutionary function %o not i#ply that people are actually #otivate%>consciously or

unconsciously>to behave in a #anner that #a8i#i:es their repro%uctive fitness. ?The actual

contents of people9s #otivations are e#pirical #atters& to be illu#inate% by psychological

research.B

(elo)& )e procee% by %iscussing so#e key fin%ings fro# the literature on intergroup

relations that len% cre%ence to the i%ea that hu#ans #ay have a specific tribal psychology. 6e

then offer three possible evolutionary scenarios for the e#ergence of the peculiar ten%encies

that are suggeste% by the literature. The #ost likely scenario& in our vie)& is that intergroup

psychology e#erge% as a specific a%aptation to %eal )ith the pressures of co#ple8 group life

in ancestral environ#ents& )hich )ere #arke% by coalitional conflict an% cooperation>)e


6/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis

refer to this as the tribal instinct hypothesis. 6e revie) pieces of evi%ence consistent )ith this

hypothesis. This hypothesis further suggests that there #ay be se8 %ifferences in particular

aspects of our evolve% intergroup psychology& %ue to the %ifferential selection pressures on

#en an% )o#en in ancestral environ#ents>)e refer to this as the male warrior hypothesis.

6e %escribe evi%ence for a specific #ale )arrior psychology. 7inally& )e %iscuss

i#plications of the tribal instinct hypothesis for #anaging intergroup relations in

conte#porary society.

Key Findings on Intergroup Relations

The social science literature on intergroup relations is substantial an% %iverse ?*bra#s

$ Hogg& 1@@C0 (re)er $ (ro)n& 1@@D0 He)stone& 4ubin $ 6illis& -CC-B. *#i%st the

#ountain of %ata& there are at several consistent e#pirical fin%ings that paint a clear picture

about hu#an intergroup psychology. Here )e present a non;e8haustive list of eight key

fin%ings than can be %istille% fro# this literature.

7irst& hu#ans #ake spontaneous ingroupoutgroup categori:ations an% preferentially

help ingroup #e#bers over outgroup #e#bers. People so#eti#es perfor# Guite costly

helping acts on behalf of ethnic groups& religious groups& businesses& or states ?Van Vugt&

"ny%er& Tyler& $ (iel& -CCCB. In life;an%;%eath situations& people are #ore likely to help kin

than nonkin ?(urnstein& +ran%all& $ Kitaya#a& 1@@EB. Intergroup %iscri#ination also occurs

un%er #ini#al group con%itions. Many e8peri#ents have sho)n that people preferentially

give #oney or points to ingroup rather than outgroup #e#bers even )hen people are %ivi%e%

into groups base% on a trivial criterion& such as the preference for a particular painter ?(re)er&

1@@0 TaFfel $ Turner& 1@@B.

"econ%& hu#ans appear to be uniGue in their capacity to for# %eep e#otional

attach#ents to large& anony#ous groups that are #erely sy#bolic in #any )ays. 3nce people

i%entify )ith a particular group& such as a sports tea#& they feel goo% )hen it %oes )ell an%


7/36


8/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis D

effect0 e.g.& Insko et al.& 1@@EB. 7ear an% %istrust of outgroups see# to un%erlie the

%iscontinuity effect ?Insko& "chopler& Hoyle& ,ar%is& $ raet:& 1@@CB. 6hen groups ?rather

than in%ivi%ualsB )ork together& people al#ost auto#atically e8pect the other party to cheat&

)hich then serves as Fustification for a pre;e#ptive strike ?Johnson et al.& -CC0 cf. "ny%er&

1@DEB.

"i8th& intergroup helping so#eti#es happens. 6hen in%ivi%ual #e#bers of ingroups

an% outgroups for# a frien%ship or cooperative partnership& this can serve as a catalyst for

re%ucing intergroup preFu%ice an% hostility. * successful e8a#ple is the Jigsa) class roo# in

)hich school chil%ren of %ifferent ethnic groups are encourage% to )ork together on

cooperative tasks& an%& un%er the right con%itions& these activities pro#ote positive intergroup

relations ?*ronson& (laney& "tephan& "ikes& $ "napp& 1@DB. 7urther#ore& high;status groups

so#eti#es offer help to lo);status groups to affir# their superior status>an e8a#ple of

competitive altruism?Har%y $ Van Vugt& -CCB. Ho)ever& as /a%ler an% Halabi ?-CCB have

recently sho)n in the conte8t of relations bet)een Israeli *rabs an% Israeli Je)s& lo);status

group #e#bers ?*rabsB #ight refuse help fro# high;status group #e#bers ?Je)sB if they

believe that the status relations bet)een the groups are either unstable or illegiti#ate.

"eventh& fin%ing fro# the anthropological an% sociological literatures in%icate that

#anaging intergroup relations is pri#arily a #ale activity. In #ost societies& intergroup

aggression an% )arfare occurs al#ost e8clusively bet)een coalitions of #en in the for# of

ar#ies& #ilitias& street gangs& an% hooligans ?ol%stein& -CC


9/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis @

tea# )as eli#inate% on penalties fro# a #aFor tourna#ent ?6itte& (ots& Hoes& $ robbee&

-CCCB.

2ighth& an% finally& hu#ans share so#e aspects of their tribal psychology )ith other

species such as ants& ter#ites& bees& an%>our closest living genetic relatives>chi#pan:ees.

6il% chi#pan:ees for# coalitions to %efen% their territory against neighboring troops an% are

kno)n to attack an% kill foreignN chi#ps& )hich is also li#ite% to #ales ?oo%all& 1@D0

6rangha# $ Peterson& 1@@B. 7urther#ore& fe#ale chi#ps can safely #igrate bet)een

co##unities& )hereas #ale chi#ps are often inFure% or kille%.

In su#& the social psychological literature suggests that hu#ans have a pronounce%

tribal psychology& co#prising ten%encies to ?aB Guickly %istinguish ingroup fro# outgroup

#e#bers an% prefer ingroup #e#bers& ?bB for# %eep affections to)ar% ingroups& ?cB %islike

%isloyal ingroup #e#bers& ?%B actively %iscri#inate against outgroup #e#bers& an% ?eB

engage in co#petition )ith outgroups. 4elate% literatures suggest that ?fB acts of intergroup

helping so#eti#es occur& ?gB #anaging intergroup relations in the real )orl% is pri#arily a

#ale activity& an% ?hB so#e aspects of tribal psychology are observe% in other social species&

inclu%ing nonhu#an pri#ates an% social insects& suggesting a %egree of continuity across

species.

Evolutionary rigins of Tribal Instincts

6here %oes this tribal psychology co#e fro#= More to the point& )ere there a%aptive

proble#s that #ight have been solve%& at least partly& by this tribal psychology= 2volutionary

e8planations fall into three broa% categories ?see also Kur:ban $ /euberg& -CCAB.

The first e8planation interprets our tribal psychology as a bypro%uct of a %o#ain;

general capability for sti#ulus categori:ation. The influential social i%entity an% self;

categori:ation theories of intergroup relations are base% on this assu#ption ?TaFfel $ Turner&

1@D0 Turner& 1@DB. 2ssentially& the argu#ent is that intergroup processes result fro# our


10/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis 1C

cognitive ten%ency to #ake sense of the )orl% aroun% us. Just as )e %istinguish bet)een& say&

plants an% ani#als to categori:e our physical )orl%& )e categori:e people as belonging to the

sa#e versus %ifferent groups to #ake sense of our social )orl%.

7ro# an evolutionary perspective& it is Guite unlikely that intergroup psychology is

#erely the pro%uct of a general cognitive categori:ation capacity& because %ifferent categories

of people ?e.g.& ingroupoutgroup& #alefe#ale& kinnonkinB pose specific a%aptive threats

an% opportunities that are si#ply not encountere% in other& nonsocial categori:ation conte8ts.

Upon encountering a group of strangers& it )oul% be crucial for our ancestors to kno)>an%

kno) Guickly>)hether they )ere #e#bers of the sa#e or a %ifferent clan& )hich )oul% then

elicit %ifferent a%aptive responses ?e.g.& fight;or;flightB. Inappropriate responses coul% have

been lethal. *lthough %o#ain;general cognitive processes>such as #e#ory an% recognition

>no %oubt play a role in shaping tribal psychology& such processes& by the#selves& cannot

pro%uce the functional content of a%aptive responses& inclu%ing specific cognitions an%

e#otions pertaining to the social category in Guestion& an% the specific behavioral response

that is #ost likely to be a%aptive.

The secon% e8planation vie)s our tribal psychology as a si%e effect of the e8tre#e

sociality of our species. The argu#ent is that the innate ten%ency to help ingroup #e#bers

so#eti#es unintentionally pro%uces conflict )ith other groups ?(re)er& 1@@0 (re)er $

+aporael& -CCB. 7or instance& it )oul% have #a%e sense for ancestral hu#ans to share foo%

)ith #e#bers of the sa#e ban% because of the likelihoo% of reciprocation ?Trivers& 1@1B.

Thus& a reGuest for foo% co#ing fro# #e#bers of a %ifferent ban% shoul% be #et )ith so#e

suspicion. Perhaps a proble# )ith this secon% hypothesis is that it cannot e8plain )hy

hu#ans are so#eti#es openly hostile against #e#bers of outgroups rather than Fust #il%ly

%istrusting. 3ne possibility& suggeste% by realistic group conflict theory ?+a#pbell& 1@-B& is

that intergroup contact is a relatively #o%ern pheno#enon. In ancestral environ#ents&


11/36


population %ensities )oul% have been #uch lo)er an% thus co#petition a#ong groups #ight

have been rare. In #o%ern environ#ents& resource co#petition bet)een groups is #ore

intense an% so a certain suspicion against outgroups coul% easily turn into intergroup hostility.

In%ee%& intergroup %iscri#ination is often stronger )hen there is resource co#petition

?(re)er $ +a#pbell& 1@B. Ho)ever& it is )ell %ocu#ente% that intergroup preFu%ice occurs

in the absence of %irect resource inter%epen%ence ?Turner& 1@DB& suggesting that it is perhaps

a #ore %eeply ingraine% response. Thus& it see#s unlikely that our tribal psychology is a

bypro%uct of a %eep ingroup co##it#ent.

The thir% e8planation is that hu#ans have evolve% specific a%aptations for #anaging

intergroup relations>specifically& evolve% ten%encies to for# coalitional alliances in or%er to

e8ploit an% %o#inate other in%ivi%uals or groups ?Kur:ban $ 'eary& -CC10 "i%anius $ Pratto&

1@@@0 Van Vugt& ,e +re#er& $ Janssen& -CCB. In%ee%& intergroup conflict appears to have

been Guite co##on in ancestral environ#ents ?*le8an%er& 1@D0 Tooby $ +os#i%es& 1@DDB.

7ossil evi%ence of )arfare %ates back at least -CC&CCC years& an% it is esti#ate% that -C


12/36

The Tribal Instinct Hypothesis 1-

6e refer to this i%ea as the tribal instinct hypothesis.It assu#es that our tribal

psychology is the result of a long history of intense intergroup rivalry an% co#petition& a

history that shape% the )ay )e think an% behave in intergroup conte8ts.

*ccor%ing to the tribal instinct hypothesis& not all intergroup conte8ts are eGual.

/ot)ithstan%ing the fact that people spontaneously for# ingroupoutgroup categories an%

favor ingroups in #ini#al group setting& po)erful attach#ents to the ingroup an% #alicious

hostility to)ar% outgroups are observe% in only a li#ite% subset of all possible ingroup

outgroup conte8ts. ?I#agine all the possible ingroupoutgroup categories& such as #ale

fe#ale& ol%young& richpoor& tallshort& blon%ebrunette& rightylefty& innieoutie& a%

infinitu#.B "pecifically& only outgroups that confor# to a sort of tribal outgroupN status are

targets of the various functional psychological an% behavioral responses associate% )ith the

tribal instinct ?"challer& Park& $ 7aulkner& -CCfor e8a#ple& patterns of coor%inate%

action& cooperation& an% co#petitionN ?Kur:ban& Tooby& $ +os#i%es& -CC1& p. 1Aregar%less of )hether they actually signal tribal alliances>#ay activate these #echanis#s

?Kur:ban et al.& -CC10 "challer& Park& $ 7aulkner& -CC


13/36


the tribal instinct hypothesis

Documents