The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect.
Abstract
This quantitative review of 130 comparisons of interindividual and intergroup interactions in the context of mixed-motive situations reveals that intergroup interactions are generally more competitive than interindividual interactions. The authors identify 4 moderators of this interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect, each based on the theoretical perspective that the discontinuity effect flows from greater fear and greed in intergroup relative to interindividual interactions. Results reveal that each moderator shares a unique association with the magnitude of the discontinuity effect. The discontinuity effect is larger when (a) participants interact with an opponent whose behavior is unconstrained by the experimenter or constrained by the experimenter to be cooperative rather than constrained by the experimenter to be reciprocal, (b) group members make a group decision rather than individual decisions, (c) unconstrained communication between participants is present rather than absent, and (d) conflict of interest is severe rather than mild.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
Self-citationA strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game
Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/364056a0 · Cited by 1,797
The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792779343000004 · Cited by 1,559
Cited by
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans
De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., Ten Velden, F. S., Van Dijk, E., & Feith, S. W. W. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1189047 · Cited by 1,148
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037737 · Cited by 1,126
Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis.
Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0030939 · Cited by 659
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012) · Hormones and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.12.009 · Cited by 455
Kteily, N., Hodson, G., & Bruneau, E. (2016) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspa0000044 · Cited by 376
Metadata
- Authors
- Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 698-722
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2118046039
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 16.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.698
- The paper
- Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.698
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
