Tribalism Is Human Nature
Open accessAbstract
Humans evolved in the context of intense intergroup competition, and groups comprised of loyal members more often succeeded than groups comprised of nonloyal members. Therefore, selective pressures have sculpted human minds to be tribal, and group loyalty and concomitant cognitive biases likely exist in all groups. Modern politics is one of the most salient forms of modern coalitional conflict and elicits substantial cognitive biases. The common evolutionary history of liberals and conservatives gives little reason to expect protribe biases to be higher on one side of the political spectrum than the other. This evolutionarily plausible null hypothesis has been supported by recent research. In a recent meta-analysis, liberals and conservatives showed similar levels of partisan bias, and several protribe cognitive tendencies often ascribed to conservatives (e.g., intolerance toward dissimilar other people) were found in similar degrees in liberals. We conclude that tribal bias is a natural and nearly ineradicable feature of human cognition and that no group—not even one’s own—is immune.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Las estrategias de competición entre élites y medios penetran en el electorado para generar actitudes tribales de confrontación nosotros-ellos o amigo-enemigo.
“Como es obvio, la clave está en que las estrategias de competición entre élites y medios penetren en el electorado o la ciudadanía más allá de los simples alineamientos o formación de preferencias para generar actitudes, más o menos, «tribales» (Clark et al., 2019) de confrontación nosotros-ellos o amigo-enemigo.”
From Editorial: La polarización política: definición, dimensiones, medición, resultados y efectos (2025) · cites this paper as Clark et al., 2019
Cites
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · see citing works
Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government
KAHAN, D. M., PETERS, E., DAWSON, E. C., & SLOVIC, P. (2017) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.2 · Cited by 883 · cited 2× · see citing works
“fervidly supporting their agenda and promoting their goals, even if that means having or promoting erroneous beliefs, is often a reasonable strategy (Kahan et al., 2017).”
BackgroundThe Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence.
Geary, D. C. (2005) · doi:10.1037/10871-000 · Cited by 551 · see citing works
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716214555474 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413510932 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010) · Human Morality and Sociality · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-05001-4_8 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1721233 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationParochial altruism: What it is and why it varies
Pisor, A. C., & Ross, C. T. (2024) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.06.005 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Partisan Bias in Political Judgment
Ditto, P. H., Celniker, J. B., Siddiqi, S. S., Güngör, M., & Relihan, D. P. (2025) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationNorth, S., Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2021) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.247 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
The normative permissiveness of political partyism
Lane, T., Miller, L., & Rodriguez, I. (2024) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2023.104661 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Editorial: La polarización política: definición, dimensiones, medición, resultados y efectos
Llera Ramo, F. J. (2025) · Revista CENTRA de Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.54790/rccs.109 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Clark, C. J., Liu, B. S., Winegard, B. M., & Ditto, P. H.
- Affiliations
- Durham University (GB)
- Kalamazoo College (US)
- Marietta College (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Clark, Cory J.
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-08-20
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 587-592
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2969908971
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 24.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- tribalism, group loyalty, intergroup competition, evolutionary psychology, cognitive biases, partisan bias, liberals and conservatives, political ideology, null hypothesis
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
