Evolutionary Approaches to Group Dynamics: an Introduction

Evolutionary Approaches to Group Dynamics: An Introduction

Mark Van Vugt Mark Schaller University of Kent University of British Columbia

An evolutionary perspective offers many new insights in the study of group dynamics. First, groups are an inevitable aspect of human evolution, suggesting that humans have evolved a range of psychological mechanisms to deal with speciﬁc challenges of group living. Second, an evolutionary perspective combines and integrates knowledge from different social science disciplines such as psychology, biology, anthropology, and economics to ﬁnd evidence for group-related psychological adaptations. Third, an evolutionary analysis produces many unique hypotheses about group psychology, showing the promise and generativity of this approach.

Keywords: special issue, group dynamics, evolutionary psychology, leadership, intergroup conﬂict

With those animals which were benefited by living in unique opportunities that group living provides, close association, the individuals which took the great- while avoiding the unique dangers associated est pleasure in society would best escape various dangers, while those that cared least for their comrades, with groups. These opportunities and dangers and lived solitary, would perish in greater numbers. exist in many different, highly distinct social —Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man domains (e.g., navigation of status hierarchies, The father of modern evolutionary theory, opportunities for reciprocal exchange, finding Charles Darwin, pointed out long ago that group mates, communal parental care, disease avoid- living is an adaptive strategy for species such as ance). The conceptual implication is that, in humans. Groups are critical to human survival response to the many unique prospects and per- and reproduction. For ancestral humans, groups ils of group living, humans may have evolved provided a buffer against hostile environments various unique psychological mechanisms that and facilitated access to many resources that have profound implications for many different were essential to reproductive fitness. As a con- aspects of group dynamics. That conceptual im- sequence, humans may well have evolved a plication yields a practical implication as well: range of psychological mechanisms that pro- By applying the logical tools provided by evo- mote an attraction to and capacity for living in lutionary psychology, we have the potential to groups. strengthen groups and foster beneficial group Of course, the benefits of group living would dynamics. not have accrued equally to every member of an Consider just one of many potentially useful ancestral group. The greatest benefits presum- implications: Among ancestral humans, fitness ably accrued to those individuals who were may have depended crucially upon the sharing most adept at availing themselves of the many of valued resources, such as food; but this cre- ated the problem of finding trustworthy partners to share food with. Because it was potentially lethal to share with people unlikely to recipro- Mark Van Vugt, Department of Psychology, University cate, natural selection processes may have fa- of Kent; Mark Schaller, Department of Psychology, Uni- vored psychological mechanisms that facilitate versity of British Columbia. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- the identification, avoidance, and ostracism of dressed to Mark Van Vugt, Centre for the Study of Group nonreciprocators. There is growing evidence Processes, Department of Psychology, University of Kent, that humans indeed have specialized decision Canterbury, UK, CT2 7BD. E-mail: [email protected] or rules for cheater detection and social exclusion Mark Schaller, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4. E-mail: (Kerr & Levine, 2007; Kurzban & Leary, 2001). [email protected] By understanding how and when these mecha-

1 2 VAN VUGT AND SCHALLER nisms operate, we may be better equipped to tered. This is increasingly acknowledged in the develop interventions that encourage groups— literature. For instance, the latest version of the and the people that comprise them—to be more well-known textbook on evolutionary psychol- socially inclusive and less prejudiced (Schaller ogy by Buss (2007) devotes considerable space & Neuberg, in press). to obviously group-relevant topics such as sta- Another example is provided by an evolu- tus, dominance, prejudice, and intergroup rela- tionary analysis of risk taking among adoles- tions. Evolutionary approaches are also increas- cents. It has long been known that young men, ingly prominent in the study of real-world in particular, are prone to potentially self- groups in management, business, marketing, destructive forms of risk taking (e.g., crime, law, and health (Barkow, 2006). gambling, drug use). Why is this? One evolu- Advances in evolutionary psychology, and its tionarily informed explanation (buttressed by applications, may not yet be evident to every considerable supportive data; M. Wilson & researcher interested in groups and group dy- Daly, 1985) indicates that in ancestral times, namics. Indeed, even enthusiasts of evolution- risk taking enhanced the social status of young ary psychology may be unfamiliar with many of men and made them more attractive sexual part- the new directions that are emerging within this ners. A practical implication is that organiza- burgeoning field of inquiry. It is for this reason tions fare better if they acknowledge the greater that we have assembled this special issue on status sensitivity of young men and try to chan- evolutionary approaches to group dynamics. nel it in socially desirable directions (e.g., com- The special issue comprises a set of theoretical petitive altruism; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). articles, authored by eminent researchers with joint interests in evolutionary processes and Evolutionary Psychology and Group group dynamics. For readers who are new to Dynamics this method of inquiry, these articles may provide a useful introduction to the field and an An evolutionary approach to group dynamics illustration of the many useful insights that can begins with the recognition that human psychol- emerge by thinking simultaneously about evo- ogy (like human physiology) is the product of a lution and human groups. For readers who are long history of biological evolution. It follows, already familiar with evolutionary psychology, therefore, that conceptual insights of evolution- these articles provide a stimulating and diverse ary biology can, when applied with rigor and sample of the many creative ways in which care, produce novel discoveries about human evolutionary logic is now being applied produc- psychology. This is demonstrably the case. tively in the study of group processes. Evolutionary inquiries not only have provided Dunbar discusses the possibility that the hu- deeper explanations for the origins of already- man brain evolved in response to a specific set recognized psychological phenomena such as of problems associated with sizes of social phobias and mate preferences but also have groups; he identifies implications of this social produced an impressive array of novel theories, brain hypothesis for contemporary social hypotheses, and empirical discoveries about the interactions and group dynamics. O’Gorman, way the human mind works in contemporary Sheldon, and Wilson provide an overview of environments. multilevel selection theory—a theory that artic- Within evolutionary psychology, much re- ulates a means through which groups play a search has focused on behaviors that have ob- fundamental role in evolutionary processes— vious reproductive consequences, such as mat- and describe important implications for under- ing and parenting. As the field grows, the tools standing group behavior and group outcomes. of evolutionary inquiry are being applied to a Webster addresses the topic of kinship, which is much wider and diverse set of phenomena. fundamental to evolutionary theory but is rela- Many of these phenomena pertain directly to tively neglected in the study of group dynamics. groups and group dynamics. This is not surpris- His analysis suggests that kinship plays a non- ing. As a group-living species, the environment obvious but important role in many aspects of in which our ancestors evolved was primarily interpersonal and intergroup aggression. Kerr social. We therefore expect that many evolved and Levine speculate about the evolution of a aspects of human psychology are group cen- social exclusion detection mechanism in hu- SPECIAL ISSUE: EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES TO GROUP DYNAMICS 3 mans. They suggest different ways in which Barring the unlikely invention of a time ma- social exclusion may be signaled, with various chine, it is impossible to collect data in ancestral implications for the psychology of groups. Buss environments or to empirically track the actual and Duntley consider the potential for exploita- evolution of any alleged psychological adaptation that exists in any social interaction and tion. Instead, evolutionary psychologists must suggest that humans have evolved strategies to rely on a multitude of other, more indirect, both exploit and avoid being exploited by other sources of evidence (Schmitt & Pilcher, 2004). group members. Their analysis produces novel Some of these methods—such as the methods of insights about the origins of robbery, rape, and experimental psychology—are familiar to most murder and about mechanisms that may help researchers of group dynamics. Many research- prevent them. Neuberg and Cottrell apply an ers are also familiar with mathematical models evolutionary analysis to topics such as person and computer simulations of group outcomes, perception, impression formation, and impres- and these methods are an important tool in sion management within group settings. The evolutionary psychological inquiries. Consider, result is a set of novel discoveries pertaining to for instance, game models of the evolution of intragroup trust and cooperation and intergroup cooperation (Nowak & Sigmund, 1998). A third prejudice. Finally, Kessler and Cohrs tackle an form of evidence emerges from recent advances old topic of considerable importance to the in neuroscience. Brain imaging studies, for in- study of groups: authoritarianism. They demon- stance, have the potential to provide data attest- strate the usefulness of an evolutionary ap- ing to specific physiological structures associ- proach to produce novel insights into the under- ated with specific kinds of group-relevant cog- lying psychology of authoritarianism. nition and behavior (Adolphs, 1999; Duchaine, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2001). One recent break- through is the discovery that the brain structure Methodological Pluralism and the Benefits governing physical pain, the anterior cingulate of Evolutionary Informed Research cortex, is also implicated in the experience of the pain of social exclusion (Eisenberger, Regardless of whether the reader is an evo- Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). Anthropologi- lutionary novice or an old hand, it is worth cal and ethnographic databases provide a fourth bearing in mind that evolutionary psychology rep- important kind of evidence, testing the extent to resents an enormously diverse set of theories, which specific kinds of group-relevant phenom- methods, and analytical perspectives (Gangestad ena are universal across human cultures. This & Simpson, 2007; Scher & Rauscher, 2003). The kind of evidence is necessary to differentiate articles in this special issue reflect this diversity. between phenomena that are evolutionary adap- This conceptual and methodological diversity re- tations and those that are more superficial, cul- sults, in part, from the fact that evolutionary psy- ture-specific manifestations (Norenzayan, chology attracts contributions from scientists with Schaller, & Heine, 2006). Finally, cross-species an unusually diverse range of scholarly back- evidence is instrumental in testing speculations grounds—not only scholars with different kinds of about the evolutionary history of any alleged training within psychology but also scholars from adaptation. Both chimpanzees and humans, for biology, anthropology, economics, neuroscience, instance, form coalitions to engage in inter- and other academic disciplines. In addition, this group violence—a finding that implies that the diversity is a functional response to the high evi- underlying psychological mechanisms may dentiary standards that attend theories and hypoth- have already been present in the common an- eses in evolutionary psychology (Conway & cestor from which both humans and chimps Schaller, 2002). Truly convincing support for an descended some 5–7 million years ago (Van evolutionary psychological hypothesis about Vugt, De Cremer, & Janssen, 2007). group psychology needs to attest not only to the When considered in conjunction, these and existence of the predicted psychological phenom- other forms of evidence can produce novel in- enon itself but also to the alleged evolutionary sights into many different kinds of group phe- origins for that phenomenon. The first part is rel- nomena and their evolutionary origins. The util- atively easy. The second part is hard and requires ity of an evolutionary approach becomes appar- input from several behavioral science disciplines. ent to just about anyone who seriously employs 4 VAN VUGT AND SCHALLER such an approach. We speak from personal ex- less of rational assessments of actual threat, perience. make people feel vulnerable—such as simply Consider, for example, Van Vugt’s work on being in the dark (e.g., Schaller, Park, & leadership within groups (for details, see Van Faulkner, 2003). In an additional study, this Vugt, 2006). There are multiple indications evolutionarily informed conceptual approach that leadership might be a group-specific ad- was applied toward an understanding of ethnic aptation. Game-theory models show that lead- stereotypes and sociopolitical attitudes within ership is the optimal solution in coordination the context of the ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka games (Browning & Colman, 2004). Leader- (Schaller & Abeysinghe, 2006). Among other ship has been documented across many dif- results, this study identified a very simple inter- ferent animal species that face functionally vention that influenced support for a peaceful similar coordination problems such as group resolution to the conflict. This last point under- movement (in birds and social insects) and scores the fact that when group processes are peacekeeping (in nonhuman primates). viewed through an evolutionary lens, the in- Among human beings, these kinds of coordi- sights that emerge are useful not merely at a nation problems result, predictably, in the conceptual level but at a practical level as well. emergence of leader–follower relations; this occurs quickly and spontaneously across Final Thoughts many different situations and cultures. More- over, the underlying evolutionary logic yields An evolutionary approach to group dynamics novel hypotheses about the characteristics of can be fruitful in at least four different ways. leaders that are appealing under different First, an evolutionary perspective can provide a kinds of circumstances. For instance, support more complete understanding of any particular for charismatic leadership increases when group process. A more complete account inev- people are reminded of their mortality (Cohen, itably follows from rigorous attempts to forge Solomon, Maxfield, Pyszcynski, & Greenberg, conceptual linkages between evolutionary pro- 2004); when under threat, people prefer taller, cesses operating on ancestral populations and more dominant, masculine, and healthier look- psychological processes operating within con- ing leaders—presumably these are reminiscent temporary groups. The study of human altruism of an ancestral past in which leaders led by provides one instructive example. There are example (Little, Burriss, Jones, & Roberts, multiple evolutionary processes through which 2007). a capacity for altruism appears to have evolved Consider work by Schaller and colleagues on (e.g., McAndrew, 2002; Van Vugt & Van prejudice and intergroup conflict. That the roots Lange, 2006). These different evolutionary pro- of intergroup conflict are evolutionarily ancient cesses are likely to be associated with distinct is indicated not only by the ubiquity of coali- psychological processes as well, each of which tional conflict across human societies but also in may have different and nonobvious implica- other primate species (Schaller & Neuberg, in tions for the prediction of contemporary behav- press). Many contemporary prejudices can be ior. For instance, many people assume that the understood as the products of evolutionary se- evolutionary mechanism of kin selection is ir- lection pressures imposed by the persistent relevant to our understanding of altruism di- threat of coalitional conflict in ancestral envi- rected toward nonkin. In fact, however, when ronments. These evolutionary products, in turn, kin-selection mechanisms are considered in instigate and sustain intergroup conflict in con- conjunction with the evolution of kin-recogni- temporary environments. By pursuing this line tion mechanisms, it becomes clear that this par- of reasoning and its implications, there have ticular evolutionary process may have implica- emerged many novel hypotheses about specific tions for interactions with nonkin as well. circumstances under which specific kinds of Among the many insights is the finding that prejudices are especially likely to be inflamed people respond more favorably to any group and specific kinds of interventions that might member who happens to be superficially more put out those psychological fires. Many studies similar to themselves—and thus more kin- have revealed that specific kinds of prejudices like—in some way (e.g., DeBruine, 2002; Oates are exaggerated by circumstances that, regard- & Wilson, 2002; Park & Schaller, 2005). SPECIAL ISSUE: EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES TO GROUP DYNAMICS 5

Second, an evolutionary perspective can help nature—more completely. The articles in this overcome biases and blind spots in the study of special issue attest to those two promises. groups. For instance, the literature on group decision making is replete with studies docu- menting deficiencies in decision making such as References research on brainstorming, groupthink, and group polarization. A cursory reading of this Adolphs, R. (1999). Social cognition and the human literature all too easily impels the conclusion brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 469–479. Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion’s evo- that people are poor collective decision makers, lutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commit- but from an evolutionary viewpoint this makes ment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and little sense. D. S. Wilson, Timmel, and Miller Brain Sciences, 27, 713–777. (2004) have shown that groups outperform even Barkow, J. (2006). Missing the revolution: Darwin- the most competent individual when cognitive ism for social scientists. New York: Oxford Uni- tasks get complicated. An evolutionary perspec- versity Press. tive can yield more sophisticated, complete, and Boyer, P. (2003). Religious thought and behaviour as accurate conclusions about group decision mak- by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive ing (Kameda & Tindale, 2006). Sciences, 7, 119–124. Third, an evolutionary approach can be used Browning, L., & Colman, A. (2004). Evolution of coordinated alternating reciprocity in repeated dy- to deduce many novel hypotheses bearing on adic games. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 229, traditional group phenomena. For example, 549–557. working within the domains of social influence Buss, D. M. (2007). Evolutionary psychology: The and group norm formation, Kenrick and his new science of the mind (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & colleagues have applied evolutionary reasoning Bacon. toward the deduction of a remarkable number of Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszcynski, new hypotheses that are unlikely to have been T., & Greenberg, J. (2004). Fatal attraction: The arrived at through any other means (e.g., Kenrick, effects of mortality salience on evaluations of Li, & Butner, 2003; Sundie, Cialdini, Griskevicius, charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship- & Kenrick, 2006). Among other discoveries, this oriented leaders. Psychological Science, 15, 846– 851. line of research has revealed that men and women Conway, L. G. III, & Schaller, M. (2002). On the show equally high levels of group conformity verifiability of evolutionary psychological theo- under conditions of threat; however, when mating ries: An analysis of the psychology of scientific goals are made salient, conformity rates are sub- persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Re- stantially lower among men than women view, 6, 152–166. (Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, & DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance en- Kenrick, 2006). hances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Finally, an evolutionary approach can expand 269, 1307–1312. the boundaries of scientific inquiry into group Duchaine, B., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2001). dynamics by opening our eyes to important Evolutionary psychology and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 225–230. group phenomena that have previously been Dunbar, R. (2004). The human story. London: Faber relatively ignored or overlooked. Laughter, mu- & Faber. sic, dance, religion, and philanthropy are in- Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, creasingly being understood as group phenom- K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt: An fMRI study ena (e.g., manifestations of psychological pro- of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292. cesses that connect individuals to each other in Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2007). The large and diverse groups), and these insights evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and have benefited from evolutionarily informed in- controversies. New York: Guilford Press. quiries (Atran & Norenzayan, 2004; Boyer, Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., 2003; Dunbar, 2004; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006) Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental mo- In short, an evolutionary perspective rein- tives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal forces our awareness that group dynamics are of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281– fundamental to the study of human nature. It 294. also provides a set of tools that can be used to Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys understand group dynamics—and thus human finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. 6 VAN VUGT AND SCHALLER

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, intergroup attitudes: A double-minority study in 1402–1413. Sri Lanka. Political Psychology, 27, 615–631. Kameda, T., & Tindale, R. S. (2006). Groups as Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (in press). Intergroup adaptive devices: Human docility and group ag- prejudices and intergroup conﬂicts. In C. Crawford gregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. In & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Foundations of evolutionary M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications. Mah- (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 317– wah, NJ: Erlbaum. 341). New York: Psychology Press. Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Faulkner, J. (2003). Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dy- Prehistoric dangers and contemporary prejudices. namical evolutionary psychology: Individual deci- European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 105– sion-rules and emergent social norms. Psycholog- 137. ical Review, 110, 3–28. Scher, S. J., & Rauscher, F. (2003). Evolutionary psy- Kerr X., & Levine, X. (2008). The detection of social chology: Alternative approaches. Boston: Kluwer. exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynam- Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 39–52. evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we Kurzban, R. K., & Leary, M. (2001). Evolutionary know one when we see one? Psychological Sci- origins of stigmatization: The functions of social ence, 15, 643–649. exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208. Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolutionary social inﬂu- ence. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. S. C. (2007). Facial appearance affects voting de- Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology cisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, (pp. 287–316). New York: Psychology Press. 18–27. Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of lead- McAndrew, F. T. (2002). New evolutionary perspec- ership and followership. Personality and Social tives on altruism: Multilevel- selection and costly- Psychology Review, 10, 354–371. signalling theories. Current Directions in Psycho- Van Vugt, M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). logical Science, 11, 79–82. Psychological adaptations for prosocial behavior: Norenzayan, A., Schaller, M., & Heine, S. J. (2006). The altruism puzzle. In M. Schaller, D. Kenrick, & Evolution and culture. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simp- J. Simpson. Evolution and social psychology (pp. son, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social 237–261). New York: Psychology Press. psychology (pp. 343–366). New York: Psychology Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. (2007). Press. Gender differences in cooperation and competi- Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of tion: The male warrior hypothesis. Psychological indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393, Science, 18, 19–23. 573–777. Wilson, D. S., Timmel, J. J., & Miller, R. R. (2004). Oates, K., & Wilson, M. (2002). Nominal kinship Cognitive cooperation. Human Nature, 15, 225– cues facilitate altruism. Proceedings of the Royal 250. Society B, 269, 105–109. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, Park, J. H., & Schaller, M. (2005). Does attitude risk-taking, and violence: The young male syn- similarity serve as a heuristic cue for kinship? drome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59–73. Evidence of an implicit cognitive association. Evo- lution and Human Behavior, 26, 158–170. Received July 27, 2007 Schaller, M., & Abeysinghe, A. M. N. D. (2006). Revision received July 27, 2007 Geographical frame of reference and dangerous Accepted July 30, 2007 Ⅲ