Personality traits like agreeableness and evolved responses such as group affiliation have traditionally been considered to be stable across situations. But evidence is accumulating that there is a lot of flexibility in our behavior. From an evolutionary point of view, the ability to respond differently depending on the particular social environment enables better adaptation than a strict set of behavioral “rules.”
For large tribes, circling the wagons in the face of threat is a much more effective survival technique than it is for small tribes. Living in a large tribe—or with many siblings—encourages interdependence and group cohesiveness because the cost of independence is high.
“I think what Andrew’s work is doing is marrying evolutionary approaches to culture and personality psychology, and telling us some of the ultimate reasons why people’s personalities and cultures might be different from each other in the first place,” says Cohen.
Knowing these reasons may help researchers find new ways to ameliorate intergroup conflicts. It is possible that cultures and religions that encourage large families respond to threat by banding together and ostracizing out-groups. Although empirical proof is lacking, Kenrick suggests that when negotiating with an outsized clan, the first priority is to underline your similarities. If they feel like you are one of them, you have a better chance of getting on their soft side.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentWell, personally, I don't know if I agree. This report is extremely superficial. Of course if we think it's a bad world, we will be on our guard. Part of being on our guard is to present a neutral front and keep our true assessment close to our chest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFeeling vulnerable makes me soften. Feeling empathy makes me soften. But being threatened hardens me. It subdues the vulnerability and the empathy quotient parts of my personality. That is a miscalculation by people like Police, TSA agents, parents, and others in a position of authority over us. They will inadvertently escalate a situation by presenting behavior that our instinctual brain perceives as a threat, and reacts to. In fact none of these people have total authority over us (perhaps legislatively only), and they must realize that as human animals, it's necessary to appeal to our sense of reason and fairness to avoid potential escalation and to leverage the area they do have control over. After all, what is their goal? Compliance or Control? I would hope their goal is compliance.
“Many people think in terms of mental shortcuts or heuristics: aggression leads to aggression and niceness leads to niceness."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I must say, it is confusing to me that it seems the nicer I treat people (strangers and acquaintances), the harsher they are toward me. This, I have never ever figured out. It's disheartening.
Maybe one size does not fit all when it comes to behavior heuristics.
In-group versus out-group a fact everyone remembers from adolescent and an imprimatur of tribal solidarity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe the way you are being nice pisses them off. Then again, maybe you just know way too many jerks. I grew up in a very divided and contentious family with lots of out-groups around. I always felt more welcome with them than with my own family and I still feel that way now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this