Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 6;3(1):89.
doi: 10.1038/s44271-025-00272-z.

Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in intergenerational cooperation

Affiliations

Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in intergenerational cooperation

Hirotaka Imada et al. Commun Psychol. .

Abstract

Issues related to sustainability (e.g., climate change and over-fishing) often manifest themselves as intergenerational social dilemmas, where people are faced with a choice between self-serving, unsustainable behavior and sustainable, personally costly behavior. Extending the previous literature on (non-intergenerational) intergroup cooperation, we tested whether group membership of the future generations influenced sustainable decision-making. In two preregistered studies using the intergenerational sustainability dilemma game, we found that individuals were more likely to make a sustainable (vs. selfish) decision when they believed that their current behavior would benefit future ingroup members, whereas more selfish decisions were made when benefits would accrue to outgroup members. These findings held in both the minimal group (Study 1: N = 1393) and national group (Study 2: Japan vs. China, N = 1781) contexts. The effect of ingroup intergenerational membership on cooperation was mediated by higher felt responsibility for future generations in both minimal and national group contexts. The effect of outgroup membership on intergenerational cooperation was mediated by a reduced sense of reputational concern in the minimal group context and by reduced affinity, legacy motivation, and responsibility for future generations in the nationality context.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Graphical Summary of Experimental Conditions.
a Ingroup condition. b Outgroup condition. c Control condition.

Similar articles

References

    1. Dawes, R. M. Social dilemmas. Annu. Rev. Psychol.31, 169–193 (1980).
    1. Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D. & Van Dijk, E. The psychology of social dilemmas: a review. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.120, 125–141 (2013).
    1. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. Maple trees and weeping willows: The role of time, uncertainty, and affinity in intergenerational decisions. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res.1, 220–245 (2008).
    1. Balliet, D., Wu, J. & De Dreu, C. K. W. Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.140, 1556–1581 (2014). - PubMed
    1. Imada, H., Romano, A. & Mifune, N. Dynamic indirect reciprocity: When is indirect reciprocity bounded by group membership? Evol. Hum. Behav.44, 373–383 (2023).

LinkOut - more resources