Anticipatory Threat Mitigates the Breakdown of Group Cooperation

Abstract

Humans are exposed to environmental and economic threats that can profoundly affect individual survival and group functioning. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that threat exposure can increase collective action, the effects of threat on decision-making have been mainly investigated at the individual level. Here we examine how threat exposure and concomitant physiological responses modulate cooperation in small groups. Individuals ( N = 105, ages 18–34 years) in groups of three were exposed to threat of electric shocks while deciding how much to contribute to a public good. Threat of shock induced a state of physiological freezing and, compared with no-threat conditions, reduced free riding and enabled groups to maintain higher cooperation over time. Exploratory analyses revealed that more cooperative responses under threat were driven by stronger baseline prosociality, suggesting that habitual prosociality is reinforced under threat. The current results support the view that human groups respond to outside threat with increased cooperation.

Equality and efficiency shape cooperation in multiple-public-goods provision problems.

“…Per this perspective, as long as the defining features of a social dilemma are maintained and free-riding remains in the individual's best interest, neither the public good's efficiency nor its (in)equality in returns should matter (R. M. Dawes, 1980;van Dijk & De Dreu, 2021). This conjecture contrasts with empirical findings that cooperation is common and frequent, even when it comes at a potential cost to individual interests (Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1994;Lojowska et al, 2023;Ostrom, 1998;Rand & Nowak, 2013;van Dijk & De Dreu, 2021;Van Lange, 1999;van Vugt & Hardy, 2009;Weber & Murnighan, 2008). In addition, experiments have revealed that larger rather than smaller returns from public goods (i.e., efficiency) further boost such cooperation (e.g., Engelmann & Strobel, 2004;Gunnthorsdottir et al, 2007;Isaac & Walker, 1998;Lugovskyy et al, 2017;Rapoport, 1967;Reuben & Riedl, 2013;van den Berg et al, 2020;Vlaev & Chater, 2006;C.…”

Group Formation and the Evolution of Human Social Organization

“…Axelrod, 2006a;Mateo & Johnston, 2000;Platek et al, 2004). Fitting these possibilities, altruistic helping and cooperation increase when people share a common fate (Lojowska et al, 2023), are physically proximate (Buchan et al, 2002;Handley & Mathew, 2020), or are more rather than less similar (Balliet et al, 2014;Bian & Baillargeon, 2022;Lane, 2016).…”

“…For example, people may (assume they) have more positive interdependence when they share a common fate ( Ayers et al, 2023 ; Tjosvold, 1998 ), are physically close rather than distant ( Carsten, 1995 ; Columbus et al, 2021 ), and are phenotypically similar rather than dissimilar ( Hammond & Axelrod, 2006a ; Mateo & Johnston, 2000 ; Platek et al, 2004 ). Fitting these possibilities, altruistic helping and cooperation increase when people share a common fate ( Lojowska et al, 2023 ), are physically proximate ( Buchan et al, 2002 ; Handley & Mathew, 2020 ), or are more rather than less similar ( Balliet et al, 2014 ; Bian & Baillargeon, 2022 ; Lane, 2016 ).…”