ArticleCommunications psychology2025
Free mobility across group boundaries promotes intergroup cooperation.
Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The co-occurrence of ingroup and outgroup prosociality requires cross-group partner choice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Group cooperation is a cornerstone of human society, enabling achievements that surpass individual capabilities. However, groups also define and restrict who benefits from cooperative actions and who does not, raising the question of how to foster cooperation across group boundaries. This study investigates the impact of voluntary mobility across group boundaries on intergroup cooperation. Participants, organized into two groups, decided whether to create benefits for themselves, group members, or everyone. In each round, they were paired with another participant and could reward the other's actions during an 'enforcement stage', allowing for indirect reciprocity. In line with our preregistered hypothesis, when participants interacted only with in-group members, indirect reciprocity enforced group cooperation, while intergroup cooperation declined. Conversely, higher intergroup cooperation emerged when participants were forced to interact solely with out-group members. Crucially, in the free-mobility treatment - where participants could choose whether to meet an in-group or an out-group member in the enforcement stage - intergroup cooperation was significantly higher than when participants were forced to interact only with in-group members, even though most participants endogenously chose to interact with in-group members. A few 'mobile individuals' were sufficient to enforce intergroup cooperation by selectively choosing out-group members, enabling indirect reciprocity to transcend group boundaries. These findings highlight the importance of free intergroup mobility for overcoming the limitations of group cooperation.
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.