CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Social and Intergroup PsychologyEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Parochial altruism: What it is and why it varies

Open access
Pisor, Anne C., Ross, Cody T.·2024·Evolution and Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.06.005

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Parochial altruism (PA), or in-group favoritism paired with out-group hostility, is sometimes treated as a synonym for human intergroup relations. However, empirical data suggest that PA is highly variable—across individuals, across situations, and across groups. Here, we review theory and data on PA to explore the candidate sources for this variability. Along the way, we unpack assumptions (e.g., what constitutes a group?), identify precursors to PA behavior (e.g., context and internal states), and review evidence for the pairing of in-group favoritism with out-group hostility. We discuss phenomena with measurable impact on downstream behavior, including resource access and cultural institutions, but also flag how researcher expectations and methodological design impact reported variability in PA. We close by making recommendations for how researchers can reduce noise in the study of PA by checking assumptions and being deliberate in research design; this is key, as the PA literature is part of sensitive public discourse.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.06.005

Cites

153 of 153 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The same argument might hold for varying intensities of parochial altruism across different groups, which is an additional expression of the moral ambivalence of human sociality.

    “The same argument might hold with respect to varying intensities of parochial altruism across different groups (Pisor & Ross, 2024), which is, in the end, an additional expression of the moral ambivalence of human sociality.”

    From Durkheim, Indoctrinability and the Moral Ambivalence of Human Sociality (2026) · cites this paper as Pisor & Ross, 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

11 of the 164 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Balliet, D., Wu, J. & De Dreu, C. (2014). Ingroup Favoritism in Cooperation. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1556-1581.
  2. Böhm, R., Rusch, H. & Baron, J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 178, 947-962.
  3. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2004). Persistent parochialism. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55, 1-23.
  4. Brewer, M. B. (2010). Intergroup Relations. In R. F. Baumeister, & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced Social Psychology (pp. 535-571). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Brewer, M. B. & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes. Oxford: Sage.
  6. Chuang, Y. & Schechter, L. (2015). Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences. Journal of Development Economics, 117, 151-170.
  7. Dave, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A. et al. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 219-243.
  8. de Dreu, C. K., Balliet, D. & Halevy, N. (2014). Parochial cooperation in humans. In Advances in Motivation Science (pp. 1-47). Elsevier volume 1.
  9. Ensminger, J. (1997). Transaction costs and Islam. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, (pp. 4-29).
  10. Gil-White, F. J. (2004). Ultimatum game with an ethnicity manipulation: Results from Khovdiin Bulgan Sum, Mongolia. In Foundations of Human Sociality: Ethnography and Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies (pp. 260-304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral tribes. Penguin.
  12. Guala, F. & Mittone, L. (2010). The Dictator Game. Journal of Socio-Economics, 39, 578-584.
  13. Jackson, J. E. (1983). The Fish People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Levine, R. A. & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior. (First edition ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Lönnqvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Walkowitz, G. et al. (2015). Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 119, 254-266.
  16. Naar, N. (2020). Gaming anthropology. American Anthropologist, (pp. 1-15).
  17. Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
  18. Ross, C. T. & Pisor, A. C. (2023). Identity-group boundaries, perceived inequality, and variability in the expression of parochial altruism. OSF Preprint, (pp. 1-15).
  19. Ruben, B. D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 229-240.
  20. Rusch, H. (2014). The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281.
  21. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. New York, NY: Routledge Chapman Hall. ISSN: 00251496.
  22. Schaub, M. (2017). Threat and parochialism in intergroup relations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 284, 20171560.
  23. Seabright, P. (2004). The Company of Strangers. Princeton University Press.
  24. Silva, A. S. & Mace, R. (2014). Cooperation and conflict. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281, 20141435.
  25. Singer, P. (1981). The expanding circle. Princeton University Press.
  26. Sterelny, K. (2016b). Cooperation, culture, and conflict. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67, 31-58.
  27. Yamagishi, T. (2011). Trust. Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pisor, A. C., & Ross, C. T.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
Corresponding author
Pisor, Anne C.
ORCID
Venue
Evolution and Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
2-12
ISSN
1090-5138 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.06.005
OpenAlex
W4383368494
Cited by
38
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
14.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Evolution and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
parochial altruism, in-group favoritism, outgroup hostility, intergroup relations, group identity, access to resources, cultural institutions, researcher expectations, methodological design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review