ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
The co-occurrence of ingroup and outgroup prosociality across 121 societies.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to Xiao and Imada: Prosociality across group boundaries is possible without partner choice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- 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
- The co-occurrence of ingroup and outgroup prosociality across 121 societies.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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an increasingly interconnected world, prosociality across group boundaries becomes ever more important. Yet, a common premise in the behavioral and social sciences is that people are prosocial mainly toward their ingroup and not outgroups. So far, evidence for this premise comes mostly from studies in which people must choose between ingroup and outgroup prosociality, thereby precluding positive associations between the two types of prosociality. We study situations in which people make separate decisions regarding the ingroup and outgroup, allowing us to examine how ingroup and outgroup prosociality are related. Across six large-scale and cross-societal datasets spanning 743,402 individuals in 121 societies, we find a robust positive relationship between ingroup and outgroup prosociality. This relationship holds across societies, different group categorizations, and a diverse range of prosociality measures, including prisoner's dilemmas, public good dilemmas, dictator games, and survey items on trust and tolerance. Although people are slightly more prosocial toward their ingroup than the outgroup, those who are prosocial toward the ingroup also tend to be prosocial toward the outgroup. The results offer an optimistic message for prosociality across group boundaries. When people are not made to choose between the ingroup and outgroup, they are generally prosocial toward both.
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.