# Summary of a new study on out-group hate (and how to fix it)

This is a summary of the 2022 paper [Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2215633119). I spent about an hour reading the study and writing the post as I went. If I made mistakes in my interpretation, please let me know in the comments.

**Abstract excerpt:**

> *   Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than provide even minimal support to an opposing group across polarized issues (abortion access, political party, gun rights).
> *   Individuals preferred to subtract more than three times as much from their own group rather than support an opposing group, despite believing that their in-group is more effective with funds.
> *   Identity concerns drive preferences in group decision-making
> *   Individuals believe that supporting an opposing group is less value-compatible than harming their own group.

**Summary**

Let’s say you’re a highly partisan voter. Maybe you’re a Democrat, with a strong dislike of Republican politics. Now, let’s play a game of Would You Rather. Let’s say a mustache-twiddling psychologist ushers you into his lab and offers you a choice. On the table is a pair of checks. You look more closely. The checks are made out to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, each for $1,000,000!

“You’ve got to choose,” says the psychologist. “Either I make both of these donations, or tear up both checks. What do you want me to do?”

You hem and haw, then think about what each party would spend the money on. Democrats are the party of the poor. A little money can go a long way. The Republicans are the party of the rich, and they get so much money that an extra $1,000,000 won’t help them. It would make sense to have the psychologist donate both checks - on balance, the extra money will probably help the Democrats more than the Republicans.

So you’re surprised when the words out of your mouth are, “tear up both checks.”

OK, that’s not the exact methodology of this study, but it gets the point across. This study showed that participants are foolishly spiteful in lose-lose situations. Here are the individual study results:

1.  **In lose-lose situations, do people irrationally focus on hurting their opponents, even at a greater cost to their own side? **On both sides of the aisle, offered a choice of giving their opponents $1 or having their own side lose $1, they’ll take the loss about 75% of the time, even if they think their own side can make better use of the money. So yes, people will sacrifice a greater benefit to their own side to avoid helping the enemy.
2.  **How big is this effect?** The researchers found that people would rather lose more than $3 than give $1 to their political opponents.
3.  **How much of this is an identity thing, as opposed to an attempt to be strategic?** People feel like giving $1 to the opposition harms their political identity more than losing $1 for their own side. Even if they think their own side uses the money more effectively than their opponents, they’re not persuaded to change their donations on that basis.
4.  **What if we reinforce people’s partisan identities? Does that enhance the effect?** Yes it does. Reinforce people’s identity as a Democrat, and they’ll be even more likely to choose to sacrifice $1 for the Democrats in order to avoid giving $1 to the Republicans, and vice versa.
5.  **What if people thought it was normal to focus on avoiding hurting their own side, even if it helps their opponents?** This makes a huge difference. If people think a strong majority of their own side would rather let the other side have $1 in order to avoid losing $1 for their own side, they’ll conform to the this new norm.
6.  **What if nobody would find out?** The researchers found that this doesn’t matter at all. People make pretty much the same choices whether they think their choice would be public or anonymous.

We don’t know exactly why people behave this way. Are people trying to protect their self-image or reputation? The researchers checked if maybe the “reversibility” of losing $1 for your own side to keep $1 out of the hands of your opponents is the motivator (after all, if you sacrifice $1 for the Democrats to keep $1 out of the hands of the Republicans, you can always follow this up later on by donating an extra $1 to the Democrats later on). But almost nobody thinks about this.

The takeaway is that norm-setting has a powerful effect on behavior when politically polarized people face lose-lose choices. People will shoot themselves in the foot to avoid giving ammunition to their opponents, even if they think their own side has better aim.