Spoils division rules shape aggression between natural groups

Abstract

Violent intergroup conflicts cause widespread harm; yet, throughout human history, destructive hostilities occur time and time again1,2. Benefits that are obtainable by victorious parties include territorial expansion, deterrence and ascendency in between-group resource competition3,4,5,6. Many of these are non-excludable goods that are available to all group members, whereas participation entails substantial individual risks and costs. Thus, a collective action problem emerges, raising the question why individuals participate in such campaigns at all7,8,9. Distinguishing offensive and defensive intergroup aggression provides a partial answer: defensive aggression is adaptive under many circumstances10,11,12,13,14. However, participation in offensive aggression, such as raids or wars of conquest, still requires an explanation. Here, we focus on one condition that is hypothesized to facilitate the emergence of offensive intergroup aggression: asymmetric division of a conflict’s spoils may motivate those profiting from such inequality to initiate between-group aggression, even if doing so jeopardizes their group’s welfare15,16,17. We test this hypothesis by manipulating how benefits among victors are shared in a contest experiment among three Ethiopian societies whose relations are either peaceful or violent. Under equal sharing, between-group hostility increased contest contributions. By contrast, unequal sharing prompted offensive contribution strategies in privileged participants, whereas disadvantaged participants resorted to defensive strategies, both irrespective of group relations.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Unconditional contribution decisions in stage one.
Fig. 2: Conditional strategy choice in stage two.

References

  1. 1.

    Allen, M. W., Bettinger, R. L., Codding, B. F., Jones, T. L. & Schwitalla, A. W. Resource scarcity drives lethal aggression among prehistoric hunter-gatherers in central California. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12120–12125 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pinker, S. The Better Angels of our Nature. Why Violence has Declined (Viking, New York, NY, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gat, A. War in Human Civilization (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Glowacki, L., Wilson, M. & Wrangham, R. The evolutionary anthropology of war. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.014 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Wilson, M. L. in War, Peace, and Human Nature (ed. Fry, D. P.) 361–388 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2013).

  6. 6.

    Wrangham, R. W. & Glowacki, L. Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and war in nomadic hunter-gatherers. Hum. Nat. 23, 5–29 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gavrilets, S. Collective action problem in heterogeneous groups. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20150016 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mathew, S. & Boyd, R. Punishment sustains large-scale cooperation in prestate warfare. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11375–11380 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rusch, H. The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: a review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141539 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Böhm, R., Rusch, H. & Gürerk, Ö. What makes people go to war? Defensive intentions motivate retaliatory and preemptive intergroup aggression. Evol. Hum. Behav. 37, 29–34 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    de Dreu, C. K. W. et al. In-group defense, out-group aggression, and coordination failures in intergroup conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10524–10529 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Halevy, N. Preemptive strikes: fear, hope, and defensive aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 112, 224–237 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rusch, H. Asymmetries in altruistic behavior during violent intergroup conflict. Evol. Psychol. 11, 973–993 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Rusch, H. The two sides of warfare. An extended model of altruistic behavior in ancestral human intergroup conflict. Hum. Nat. 25, 359–377 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gavrilets, S. & Fortunato, L. A solution to the collective action problem in between-group conflict with within-group inequality. Nat. Commun. 5, 3526 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Glowacki, L. & Wrangham, R. W. The role of rewards in motivating participation in simple warfare. Hum. Nat. 24, 444–460 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Rusch, H. & Gavrilets, S. The logic of animal intergroup conflict: a review. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.05.004 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Almagor, U. Raiders and elders. A confrontation of generations among the Dassanetch. Senri Ethnol. Stud. 3, 119–145 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Glowacki, L. & Wrangham, R. Warfare and reproductive success in a tribal population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 348–353 (2015).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Walker, R. S. & Bailey, D. H. Body counts in lowland South American violence. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34, 29–34 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Glowacki, L. Incentives for War in Small-Scale Societies. PhD thesis, Harvard Univ. (2015).

  22. 22.

    Sääksvuori, L., Mappes, T. & Puurtinen, M. Costly punishment prevails in intergroup conflict. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3428–3436 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bauer, M. et al. Can war foster cooperation? J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 249–274 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Schaub, M. Threat and parochialism in intergroup relations: lab-in-the-field evidence from rural Georgia. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20171560 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Weisel, O. & Böhm, R. ‘‘Ingroup love’’ and ‘‘outgroup hate’’ in intergroup conflict between natural groups. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 60, 110–120 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Böhm, R., Rusch, H. & Baron, J. The psychology of intergroup conflict: a review of theories and measures. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020 (2018).

  27. 27.

    Chen, Y. & Li, S. X. Group identity and social preferences. Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 431–457 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Konrad, K. A. Strategy and Dynamics in Contests (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Glowacki, L. et al. Formation of raiding parties for intergroup violence is mediated by social network structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12114–12119 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Centola, D. M. Homophily, networks, and critical mass. Solving the start-up problem in large group collective action. Ration. Soc. 25, 3–40 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Glowacki, L. & von Rueden, C. Leadership solves collective action problems in small-scale societies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20150010 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Boehm, C. Blood Revenge. The Anthropology of Feuding in Montenegro and Other Tribal Societies (Penn Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Chowdhury, S. M. & Sheremeta, R. M. A generalized Tullock contest. Public Choice 147, 413–420 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kimbrough, E. O., Laughren, K. & Sheremeta, R. War and conflict in economics: theories, applications, and recent trends. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.07.026 (2017).

  35. 35.

    Ryvkin, D. Tullock contests of weakly heterogeneous players. Public Choice 132, 49–64 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Dechenaux, E., Kovenock, D. & Sheremeta, R. M. A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments. Exp. Econ. 18, 609–669 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Sheremeta, R. M. Overbidding and heterogeneous behavior in contest experiments. J. Econ. Surv. 27, 491–514 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Sheremeta, R. M. Behavior in group contests. A review of experimental research. J. Econ. Surv. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12208 (2017).

  39. 39.

    Falk, A. & Heckman, J. J. Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 326, 535–538 (2009).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kessler, J. B. & Vesterlund, L. in Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (eds Fréchette, G. R. & Schotter, A.) 391–406 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2015).

  41. 41.

    Wiessner, P. Experimental games and games of life among the Ju/’hoan Bushmen. Curr. Anthropol. 50, 133–138 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Glowacki, L. & Molleman, L. Subsistence styles shape human social learning strategies. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0098 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Yntiso, G. in Creating and Crossing Boundaries in Ethiopia (ed. Epple, S.) 49–71 (LIT, Zürich, 2014).

  44. 44.

    Tornay, S. Armed conflicts in the lower Omo Valley, 1970–1976. An analysis from within Nyangatom society. Senri Ethnol. Stud. 3, 97–117 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Albert, R. Böhm, T. Friehe, M. Greiff, M. Hoffman, R. Ligtvoet, F. Morath, K. M. Zimmermann and the audiences at MPI Bonn, NCBEE 2016 Oslo, ESA 2016 Bergen, GfeW 2016 Giessen and MACIE Marburg for helpful comments and suggestions. G.D. gratefully acknowledges financial support by the Dr. Jürgen Meyer Foundation. H.R. gratefully acknowledges financial support by VU Amsterdam. L.G. gratefully acknowledges support from the Eric M. Mindich Research Fund for the Foundations of Human Behavior, the Mind Brain and Behavior Interfaculty Initiative at Harvard University and the ANR Labex IAST. This work was assisted through participation of L.G. and H.R. in the ‘Evolution & Warfare’ Investigative Workshop at NIMBIOS, sponsored by the National Science Foundation through the NSF Award no. DBI-1300426, with additional support from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work and are listed alphabetically.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Luke Glowacki or Hannes Rusch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–3, Supplementary Tables 1–6, Supplementary Note

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doğan, G., Glowacki, L. & Rusch, H. Spoils division rules shape aggression between natural groups. Nat Hum Behav 2, 322–326 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0338-z

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing