By: Jaime Unda McFarlane, researcher
One of the main topics studied by behavioral sciences (the combination of disciplines that explore why humans behave the way we do and the cognitive and motivational processes that drive us) is group behavior and the influence of the group on our actions.
What has become a hypothesis, supported by increasing evidence in neuroscience and other disciplines, is that tribal behavior has an evolutionary origin and was crucial for the development of large communities and societies that exist today (1). The concept behind tribalism is that humans evolved in an environment of constant competition, where possessing traits such as loyalty and cooperation increased the likelihood of survival in a demanding and dangerous environment.
Thus, in evolutionary terms, groups of Homo sapiens unconsciously began to "reward" those members who exhibited characteristics such as empathy, cooperation, reciprocity, commitment, and coordination. Those who demonstrated these traits received higher status and resources, while those who did not were rejected, ostracized from the group, and faced the negative consequences that ensued (2). These "positive" traits of cooperation also exponentially reduced the chances of conflict within the group, expanding opportunities for cooperation, from child-rearing to trade. This led to the development of broader cultures, increasingly leveraging the emergence of ritualistic elements (some religious) that strengthened relationships among group members (3).
This evolutionary origin of cooperation and group identity can be observed in famous and simple experiments that demonstrate how much we need to categorize ourselves within a group and identify those who are not part of our group.
In one of the most famous experiments in social psychology, a group of students had to decide which paintings they enjoyed more, choosing between options by Kandinsky and Klee. These students were, in reality, being influenced to define their group identity based on their artistic preferences. After this identification exercise, participants were asked to distribute money among other participants, and the only information they had was which group (Kandinsky or Klee) they belonged to. The results were indisputable, as members exhibited behavioral patterns of group identity: the distribution of money was particularly biased in favor of those who belonged to their group (4). This experiment, published in 1971, laid a significant foundation for two of the most important theories on group identity: Social Identity Theory and Social Categorization Theory.
These experiments and the idea of group identity also reveal a perverse consequence of favoring our group: we deploy strategies such as racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, among others. As a result of an evolutionary process, the brain has developed intuitive and automatic features that motivate it to make decisions and exhibit behaviors that enhance discrimination. For instance, cognitive psychologists, philosophers, and behavioral scientists have delved into the study of implicit biases (5). These biases indicate that, even though we consciously believe we are open-minded and free from biases, we implicitly display behaviors of rejection and discrimination. This can be observed in personal environments as well as organizational settings, such as deciding whom to hire, whom to promote, with whom to do business, or reach agreements.
The effects have been felt worldwide through nationalist expressions, anti-immigration sentiments, as well as the denial of the validity and existence of certain ethnic groups. This implies dangerous elements such as dehumanization (6), which has been correlated with tragic events of genocide, heightened violence, and hate speech in various countries and continents.
1.Clark, Cory J. and Liu, Brittany S. and Winegard, Bo M. and Ditto, Peter H. (2019) 'Tribalism is human nature.', Current directions in psychological science., 28 (6). pp. 587-592.
2.Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives, 91-234.
3.Henrich, J. P. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: how the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. First edition. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
4.Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
5.Brownstein, Michael, "Implicit Bias", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/implicit-bias/>.
6. Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(5), 901.