Individual-Level Predictors of Intergroup Conflict: the Roles of Guilt, Shame and Empathy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Individual-Level Predictors of Intergroup Conflict: The Roles of Guilt, Shame and Empathy Scott T. Wolf A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Psychology (Social). Chapel Hill 2007 Approved by: Advisor: Chester A. Insko Reader: Melanie C. Green Reader: Abigail T. Panter Reader: B. Keith Payne Reader: Lawrence J. Sanna ABSTRACT SCOTT T. WOLF: Individual-Level Predictors of Intergroup Conflict: The Roles of Guilt, Shame and Empathy (Under the direction of Chester A. Insko) The discontinuity effect is the tendency for intergroup interactions to be more competitive, or less cooperative, than interindividual interactions in the context of mixed- motive situations. Meta-analytic methods have shown this effect to be substantially large and robust (Wildschut, Pinter, Vevea, Insko, & Schopler, 2003). Explanations for the discontinuity effect have focused on norms, schemas, identifiability, and rationalization. Although, personality factors, in general, have received limited attention, Wildschut and Insko (2006) found that dispositional guilt of group members predicted competition in an intergroup prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) but only when group members were told that their decisions would be made public to their fellow ingroup members. The present studies sought to extend these findings by measuring guilt as well as other related personality variables (e.g., shame, empathy, and psychopathy) and assessing their relationships with intergroup competition when decisions remained private (in Study1) and when decisions were made public (in Study 2). Study 1, in which decisions remained private, showed no relationship between guilt and intergroup competition, whereas Study 2, in which decisions were made public, revealed mixed results. Possible explanations for these results are discussed. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the guidance and support of my advisor, Chet Insko. In addition to training me to be a better scientist, sparking my curiosity, and pushing me to reach my potential, you have provided me with an exemplary model of decency, warmth, and kindness. Thank you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 The Role of Personality in the Discontinuity Effect..........................................4 Guilt and Shame.....................................................................................5 Empathy .................................................................................................7 Psychopathy ...........................................................................................9 II. STUDY 1 .........................................................................................................10 Introduction......................................................................................................10 Guilt and Shame...................................................................................10 Empathy and Psychoticism..................................................................13 Personality Variables Related to Intergroup Competition...................13 Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Choices.....................................................16 Method .............................................................................................................17 Results..............................................................................................................19 Correlations with Session 2 Choices....................................................19 Factor Analysis of Significant Predictors of Choice............................21 Study 1 Discussion...........................................................................................23 iv III. STUDY 2 .........................................................................................................24 Introduction......................................................................................................24 Method .............................................................................................................25 Results..............................................................................................................26 Correlations with Session 2 Choices....................................................26 Factor Analysis of PDG Choice Predictors .........................................28 Study 2 Discussion...........................................................................................31 IV. FINAL DISCUSSION .....................................................................................34 V. APPENDICES .................................................................................................47 VI. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................126 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Study 1: Two-Factor Solution of Choice Predictors .............................................36 2. Study 1: Two-Factor Solution of Choice Predictors Without IRI Perspective-Taking............................................................................37 3 Study 2: Four-Factor Solution of Choice Predictors..............................................38 3. Study 2: Four-Factor Solution of Choice Predictors Without RFQ Prevention Orientation....................................................................40 4. Comparison of Significant Correlations with PDG Choice in Study 1 and Study 2...........................................................................................42 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. PDG matrix with ordinal outcomes .....................................................................................44 2. Two-choice PDG matrix used in pilot study........................................................................45 3. Four-choice PDG matrix used in pilot study .......................................................................46 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The idea that individuals adopt a negative persona as group members has been prevalent throughout history. In his political and philosophical dialogue The Republic, Plato (1871/1999) held a pessimistic view of democratic rule and lamented the mob-like behavior of individuals in groups. Echoing the thoughts of Plato, LeBon (1895/1896) postulated that when part of a group, otherwise civilized and thoughtful individuals become “primitive beings” because the group setting provides for the loss of individual identity and reasoning ability. Similarly, Durkheim (1898) and McDougall (1920) held that group members were less civilized than individuals in isolation. Brown (1954) referred to the difference between the behavior of isolated individuals and group members as a “discontinuity” because of this striking difference. Influenced by Brown (1954), McCallum et al. (1985), in the first study to explicitly investigate the difference between intergroup and interindividual cooperative and competitive behavior, labeled the observed difference between groups and individuals a “discontinuity effect.” In justification for the use of the term “discontinuity,” Insko and Schopler (1998) cite unpublished data indicating that in situations where competition (or noncooperation) is a viable option to cooperation, interactions between two individuals tend to be considerably more cooperative (less competitive) than interactions between two two- person groups; however, as group size increases, competition increases minimally. The number of people variable thus has a “discontinuity” in competition between one-on-one and two-on-two interactions. Most studies on the discontinuity effect have employed a prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) to investigate competition and cooperation. The PDG has been used extensively in a variety of the social sciences to investigate cooperation and competition in laboratory settings. Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher of the RAND Corporation are credited with formulating the PDG while attempting to test John Nash’s game theoretical equilibrium point solutions (Poundstone, 1992). In an attempt to make the game more understandable to an audience of psychologists, Albert Tucker, Nash’s advisor at Princeton, concocted the classic prisoner story and gave the matrix its name (Poundstone, 1992). A sample PDG matrix with ordinal outcomes is shown in Table 1. In the PDG, two sides interact by choosing either X or Y. A choice of X is interpreted as a cooperative choice, while a choice of Y is interpreted as a competitive choice. The dilemma is whether to act in a self-interested fashion (by choosing Y) or in the best interest of the collective (by choosing X). In a typical discontinuity study, upon arriving at the lab, same-gendered participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups and are led to their “homerooms.” Usually, two three-person groups comprise an intergroup session and two individuals comprise an interindividual session. Participants are familiarized with the PDG, generally represented in terms of cents earned per trial, and are told that they will interact