↓ Skip to main content

The development of ingroup favoritism in repeated social dilemmas

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The development of ingroup favoritism in repeated social dilemmas
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00476
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela R. Dorrough, Andreas Glöckner, Dshamilja M. Hellmann, Irena Ebert

Abstract

In two comprehensive and fully incentivized studies, we investigate the development of ingroup favoritism as one of two aspects of parochial altruism in repeated social dilemmas. Specifically, we test whether ingroup favoritism is a fixed phenomenon that can be observed from the very beginning and remains stable over time, or whether it develops (increases vs. decreases) during repeated contact. Ingroup favoritism is assessed through cooperation behavior in a repeated continuous prisoner's dilemma where participants sequentially interact with 10 members of the ingroup (own city and university) and subsequently with 10 members of the outgroup (other city and university), or vice versa. In none of the experiments do we observe initial differences in cooperation behavior for interaction partners from the ingroup, as compared to outgroup, and we only observe small differences in expectations regarding the interaction partners' cooperation behavior. After repeated interaction, however, including a change of groups, clear ingroup favoritism can be observed. Instead of being due to gradual and potentially biased updating of expectations, we found that these emerging differences were mainly driven by the change of interaction partners' group membership that occurred after round 10. This indicates that in social dilemma settings ingroup favoritism is to some degree dynamic in that it is enhanced and sometimes only observable if group membership is activated by thinking about both the interaction with the ingroup and the outgroup.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 51%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 17 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,936,411
of 23,523,017 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,612
of 31,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,596
of 265,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#120
of 501 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,523,017 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 501 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.