ArticlePNAS nexus2025
Beyond ingroup favoritism: Investigating cross-national social preferences across 25 nations.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation across nations-not only among governments but also among individuals. In an incentivized cross-national study with 6,182 participants from 25 nations, we assessed individuals' prosociality as a core predictor of cooperation toward people from 25 different nations, yielding 625 distinct national dyads. Integrating theoretical approaches, this study examines how both individual perceptions and contextual factors-unique to each national dyad-shape intergroup prosociality. Our findings reveal significant variation in cross-national prosociality beyond ingroup favoritism. Prosociality increased with greater cultural and national stereotype similarity. Individuals from nations with reliable institutions exhibited greater prosociality, and those from wealthier nations were particularly prosocial toward individuals from less wealthy nations. In contrast, prosociality decreased with increasing perceived and actual militarized conflict between nations. These results highlight the importance of incorporating social perceptions and contextual factors that reflect bilateral relationships between nations in theories of global prosociality.
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.