Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41528876›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

The co-occurrence of ingroup and outgroup prosociality across 121 societies.

Kasper Otten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. The co-occurrence of ingroup and outgroup prosociality across 121 societies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kasper OttenAsylum and Migration Group, WODC Research and Data Centre, The Hague 2500 EH, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9456-7280

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Group ProcessesSocial BehaviorGroup DynamicsHumansPrisoner DilemmaSocial GroupTrustingroupintergroupoutgroupparochialismprosociality

Identifiers

PMID41528876
PMCPMC12818421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.