Identity and Interdependence: Two Views on Groups
Simon Columbus
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
November 21, 2016
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 1 / 49
Three Questions
What does it mean to be a group?
What are the forces that govern group life?
How can (and should) we study group life?
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 2 / 49
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 3 / 49
Lewin (1948, p. 84)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 4 / 49
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 5 / 49
Situations are Games
Any interpersonal situation can be represented as a ‘game’, a matrix ofoutcomes given choices.
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 6 / 49
Kelley et al. (2003)
Game Theory
In game theory, each matrix has a solution
a pure or mixed strategy a payoff-maximising player should play
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 7 / 49
Outcome Controls
In game theory, each matrix has a solution
a pure or mixed strategy a payoff-maximising player should play
Interdependence theory decomposes the matrix into sources of control:
the person’s own actions (‘Actor Control’, AC)
the partner’s actions (‘Partner Control’, PC)
the interaction between their two actions (‘Joint Control’, JC)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 8 / 49
Outcome Controls
In game theory, each matrix has a solution
a pure or mixed strategy a payoff-maximising player should play
Interdependence theory decomposes the matrix into sources of control:
the person’s own actions (‘Bilateral Actor Control’, BAC)
the partner’s actions (‘Mutual Partner Control’, MPC)
the interaction between their two actions (‘Mutual Joint Control’,MJC)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 9 / 49
Outcome Controls
In game theory, each matrix has a solution
a pure or mixed strategy a payoff-maximising player should play
Interdependence theory decomposes the matrix into sources of control:
the person’s own actions (‘Bilateral Actor Control’, BAC)
the partner’s actions (‘Mutual Partner Control’, MPC)
the interaction between their two actions (‘Mutual Joint Control’,MJC)
Interdependence theoryA theory of how people control their own and other’s outcomes.
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 10 / 49
Outcome Controls
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 11 / 49
Kelley et al. (2003)
Outcome Controls
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 12 / 49
Kelley et al. (2003)
Dimensions of Interdependence
From ratios of the outcome controls, we can derive four fundamentaldimensions of interdependence, on which all situations vary:
Degree of interdependence =PC 2
e + JC 2e
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e
In some situations, individuals control their own outcomes; in othersituations, they are fully dependent on their partner’s actions.
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 13 / 49
Dimensions of Interdependence
From ratios of the outcome controls, we can derive four fundamentaldimensions of interdependence, on which all situations vary:
Basis of interdependence =PCe
JCe
The basis of interdependence varies from exchange, in which each persondetermines their partner’s outcomes, to coordination.
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 14 / 49
Dimensions of Interdependence
From ratios of the outcome controls, we can derive four fundamentaldimensions of interdependence, on which all situations vary:
Conflict of interest = 2 ×(
ACe × PCk + ACk × PCe + JCe × JCk
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e + AC 2
k + PC 2k + JC 2
k
)Interests vary from corresponding to conflicting.
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 15 / 49
Dimensions of Interdependence
From ratios of the outcome controls, we can derive four fundamentaldimensions of interdependence, on which all situations vary:
Asymmetry of dependence =PC 2
e + JC 2e
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e
−PC 2
k + JC 2k
AC 2k + PC 2
k + JC 2k
Dependence ranges from a person having unilateral power over theirpartner to depending unilaterally on their partner; with symmetricdependence in the middle.
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 16 / 49
Dimensions of Interdependence
From ratios of the outcome controls, we can derive four fundamentaldimensions of interdependence, on which all situations vary:
Degree of interdependence =PC 2
e + JC 2e
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e
Basis of interdependence =PCe
JCe
Conflict of interest = 2
(ACe × PCk + ACk × PCe + JCe × JCk
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e + AC 2
k + PC 2k + JC 2
k
)Asymmetry of dependence =
PC 2e + JC 2
e
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e
−PC 2
k + JC 2k
AC 2k + PC 2
k + JC 2k
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 17 / 49
Dimensions of Interdependence
From ratios of the outcome controls, we can derive four fundamentaldimensions of interdependence, on which all situations vary:
Degree of interdependence =PC 2
e + JC 2e
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e
Basis of interdependence =PCe
JCe
Conflict of interest = 2
(ACe × PCk + ACk × PCe + JCe × JCk
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e + AC 2
k + PC 2k + JC 2
k
)Asymmetry of dependence =
PC 2e + JC 2
e
AC 2e + PC 2
e + JC 2e
−PC 2
k + JC 2k
AC 2k + PC 2
k + JC 2k
Future interdependence
Information certainty
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 18 / 49
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 19 / 49
Kelley et al. (2003)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 20 / 49
Kelley et al. (2003)
Summary
Interdependence is the idea that in interpersonal situations, one’soutcomes are, in part, determined by the actions of others (and onemay likewise control their outcomes)
Any situation can be represented as a matrix of actions and outcomes
A person’s outcomes are controlled by
the person’s own actionstheir partner’s actionsthe interaction between their two actions
Each situation is characterised by six dimensions of interdependence
Degree of interdependenceBasis of interdependenceConflict of interestAsymmetry of dependenceFuture interdependenceInformation certainty
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 21 / 49
The Minimal Group Paradigm
Minimal Group Paradigm
What is the least of a group people will still favour over another?
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 22 / 49
The Minimal Group Paradigm
You can reward and punish other participants. For each matrix, how wouldyou like to divide rewards and punishments?
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 23 / 49
Tajfel et al. (1971)
The Minimal Group Paradigm
People favour their in-group—even when the group is based on anarbitrary characteristic.
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 24 / 49
Tajfel et al. (1971)
Social Identity Theory
The Social Identity Approach
Based on Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1974) and Self-categorisationTheory (Turner et al., 1987)
Two parts of the self, personal and social identity,
“the part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from hisknowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups)together with the emotional significance attached to thatmembership.” (Tajfel, 1974)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 25 / 49
Social Identity Theory
People are motivated to maintain positive self-esteem
As a consequence, people are motivated to maintain a positive socialidentity
When people self-categorise as belonging to a group, merecategorisation initiates thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that attemptto positively differentiate the ingroup from the outgroup
The meta-contrast principle
Without the presence of an outgroup, ingroup categorisation does notoccur and subsequent discrimination should not emerge (VanKnippenberg & Wilke, 1988)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 26 / 49
Not as Minimal as You Thought
In Tajfel et al.’s experiments, who rewarded the rewarders?
‘Implicit interdependence’: If I control their outcomes, maybe theycontrol mine. . . ? (Rabbie, Schot, & Visser, 1989)
i.e., participants assumed mutual partner control (Yamagishi, Jin, &Kiyonari, 1999)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 27 / 49
Not as Minimal as You Thought
In Tajfel et al.’s experiments, who rewarded the rewarders?
‘Implicit interdependence’: If I control their outcomes, maybe theycontrol mine. . . ? (Rabbie, Schot, & Visser, 1989)
i.e., participants assumed mutual partner control (Yamagishi, Jin, &Kiyonari, 1999)
Outgroup Favouritism
If participants knew their outcomes were determined by outgroupmembers, they favoured—the outgroup (Rabbie et al., 1989).
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 28 / 49
Not as Robust as You Thought, Either
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 29 / 49
Yamagishi et al. (1999)
The Essence of a Group
What Makes a Group?
There is a difference between“perceiving oneself as merelysubsumed under the ‘sameabstract concept’ versus‘belonging to a group”’ (Lewinin Rabbie & Horwitz, 1988)
That difference, most simplyspeaking, is interdependence
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 30 / 49
“. . . reciprocation of the favor given to a particular ingroupmember is expected to come from any ingroup member ratherthan directly from that particular member.” (Yamagishi et al.,1999)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 31 / 49
A System of Generalised Exchange
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 32 / 49
Nowak & Sigmund (2005)
A System of Generalised Exchange
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 33 / 49
Nowak & Sigmund (2005)
Cooperation Through Reputation
Concern for their reputation makes people cooperative
When people know that their future interaction partners know abouttheir history, they behave more cooperative in the present (e.g.Wedekind & Milinski, 2000; Milinski & Wedekind, 2001, 2002; Seinen& Schram, 2006)
Both because cooperators are treated nicer, and are more likely to bechosen as interaction partners in the first place (cf. Roberts, 1998)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 34 / 49
Cooperation Through Reputation
Concern for their reputation makes people cooperative
When people know that their future interaction partners know abouttheir history, they behave more cooperative in the present (e.g.Wedekind & Milinski, 2000; Milinski & Wedekind, 2001, 2002; Seinen& Schram, 2006)
Both because cooperators are treated nicer, and are more likely to bechosen as interaction partners in the first place (cf. Roberts, 1998)
Reputation Overcomes Boundaries
Observation by an out-group partner can lead people to favour otherout-group members (Chang, n.d.)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 35 / 49
Gossip
Gossip spreads one’s reputation
A reputation is built from theexperience of one’s interactionpartners...
... but it is spread by partnersand onlookers alike
The group is the naturalcontainer for gossip
However, networks cantranscend group boundaries
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 36 / 49
Nowak & Sigmund (2005)
Gossip
Gossip spreads one’s reputation
It is only gossip to futureinteraction partners thatenhances cooperation
... and only among those whodo not cooperate voluntarily
The larger the network ofpotential recipients of gossip,the stronger its effect
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 37 / 49
Wu et al. (2015,2016)
Bounded Generalised Reciprocity
Groups are containers for a network of generalised exchange (Yamagishi etal., 1999; Kiyonari & Yamagishi, 2000))
People prefer to cooperate with others who have a good reputation
Therefore, people are motivated to maintain a good reputation bycooperating
As a consequence, people have generalised trust that other in-groupmembers will cooperate
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 38 / 49
In-group Favouritism
Comparing Social Identity Theory and Bounded Generalised Reciprocity
Comparison SIT BGR
In- vs. outgroup + +Ingroup vs. stranger 0 +Outgroup vs. stranger 0 0Interdependence +/++ +/++Reciprocity +/+ +/++Common knowledge + +Unilateral knowledge + 0
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 39 / 49
Meta-Analysing Economics Games
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 40 / 49
Balliet, Wu, & de Dreu (2014)
In-group Favouritism
Comparing Social Identity Theory and Bounded Generalised Reciprocity
Comparison SIT BGR
In- vs. outgroup + +Ingroup vs. stranger 0 +Outgroup vs. stranger 0 0Interdependence +/++ +/++Reciprocity +/+ +/++Common knowledge + +Unilateral knowledge + 0
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 41 / 49
There is in-group favouritism in cooperation (d = .32)
Discrimination between in-group members and strangers (d = .30)
But not between out-group members and strangers (d = -.09)
More in-group favouritism in interdependent situations (d = .19)
No intergroup discrimination when reputational concerns are muted(d = .04)
In contrast, discrimination occurs when reputational concerns areactive (d = .32)
Overall, eight out of eight predictions of BGR were correct
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 42 / 49
Summary
Even where no objective interdependence exists, people may perceivea shared fate
The ‘Minimal Group Paradigm’ is not that minimal, after all
Interdependence is crucial to feeling ‘like a group’
Within a group, people expect generalised reciprocity
Generalised reciprocity is based on reputational concernReputation spreads via gossip
Generalised reciprocity explains intergroup discrimination better thansocial identity theory
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 43 / 49
Functional Interdependence Theory
How do people make sense of situations?
Over the course of evolution, our mind has been shaped to perceivevariations in interdependence
Take in cues from the environment (Brunswik, 1955)
Cues are integrated into internal regulatory variables (Tooby et al.,2008)
Four IRV represent the four dimensions of interdependence (Balliet,Tybur, & van Lange, 2016)
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 44 / 49
Functional Interdependence Theory
How do people make sense of situations?
People can distinguish five dimensions of interdependence (Gerpott,Balliet, & de Vries, forthcoming)
Degree of interdependence
Conflict of interest
Asymmetry of dependence
Future interdependence
Information certainty
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 45 / 49
Do perceptions of interdependence matter for cooperation?
Study 1: People played a prisoner’s dilemma
Study 2: People played a prisoner’s dilemma and a dictator game
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 46 / 49
Do perceptions of interdependence matter for cooperation?
Study 1: People played a prisoner’s dilemma
Study 2: People played a prisoner’s dilemma and a dictator game
ResultsPerceptions of interdependence explain 24% of variance in cooperation ina prisoner’s dilemma.
More cooperative when more interdependent, less conflict, and lesspower
People are more cooperative in the PD than the DG
Due to differences in perceived (greater) interdependence and (less)conflict
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 47 / 49
Where Do People Live?
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 48 / 49
Kelley et al. (2003)
Thank You
Simon Columbus (VU) Interdependence November 21, 2016 49 / 49