ArticleNature communications2024
Prosocial preferences can escalate intergroup conflicts by countering selfish motivations to leave.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- How defense rhetoric escalates intergroup conflict.iScience · 2025Article
- Increased complexity of social category markers leads to diverse rule-based categorizations and reduced intergroup bias.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Comparing AI and human decision-making mechanisms in daily collaborative experiments.iScience · 2025Article
- Article
- Prosocial preferences can escalate intergroup conflicts by countering selfish motivations to leave.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When defending against hostile enemies, individual group members can benefit from others staying in the group and fighting. However, individuals themselves may be better off by leaving the group and avoiding the personal risks associated with fighting. While fleeing is indeed commonly observed, when and why defenders fight or flee remains poorly understood and is addressed here with three incentivized and preregistered experiments (total n = 602). In stylized attacker-defender contest games in which defenders could stay and fight or leave, we show that the less costly leaving is, the more likely individuals are to abandon their group. In addition, more risk-averse individuals are more likely to leave. Conversely, individuals more likely stay and fight when they have pro-social preferences and when fellow group members cannot leave. However, those who stay not always contribute fully to group defense, to some degree free-riding on the efforts of other group members. Nonetheless, staying increased intergroup conflict and its associated costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.