The impact of group membership on punishment versus partner rejection.

People often display ingroup bias in punishment, punishing outgroup members more harshly than ingroup members. However, the impact of group membership may be less pronounced when people are choosing whether to stop interacting with someone (i.e., partner rejection). In two studies (N = 1667), we investigate the impact of group membership on both response types. Participants were assigned to groups based on a "minimal" groups paradigm (Study 1) or their self-reported political positions (Study 2) and played an incentivized economic game with other players. In this game, participants (Responders) responded to other players (Deciders). In the Punishment condition, participants could decrease the Decider's bonus pay. In the Partner Rejection condition, participants could reject future interactions with the Decider. Participants played once with an ingroup member and once with an outgroup member. To control for the effects of intent and outcome, scenarios also differed based on the Decider's Intent (selfish versus fair) and the Outcome (equal versus unequal distribution of resources). Participants punished outgroup members more than ingroup members, however group membership did not influence decisions to reject partners. These results highlight partner rejection as a boundary condition for the impact of group on responses to transgressions.