Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:18:23.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developmental antecedents of representing “group” behavior: A commentary on Pietraszewski's theory of groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Anthea Pun Open the ORCID record for Anthea Pun [Opens in a new window]  and
Andrew Baron
Anthea Pun
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada [email protected] [email protected]; https://childdevelopment.psych.ubc.ca
Andrew Baron
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada [email protected] [email protected]; https://childdevelopment.psych.ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Central to Pietraszewski's theory is a set of group-constitutive roles within four triadic primitives. Although some data from the developmental and biological sciences support Pietraszewski's theory, other data raise questions about whether similar behavioral expectations hold across various ecological conditions and interactions. We discuss the potential for a broader set of conceptual primitives that support reasoning about groups.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e116
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avilés, L. (2002). Solving the freeloaders paradox: Genetic associations and frequency-dependent selection in the evolution of cooperation among nonrelatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(22), 14268–14273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avilés, L., Fletcher, J. A., & Cutter, A. D. (2004). The kin composition of social groups: Trading group size for degree of altruism. The American Naturalist, 164(2), 132–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batchelor, T. P., & Briffa, M. (2011). Fight tactics in wood ants: Individuals in smaller groups fight harder but die faster. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1722), 3243–3250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bian, L., Sloane, S., & Baillargeon, R. (2018). Infants expect ingroup support to override fairness when resources are limited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2705–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonner, J. T. (1982). Evolutionary strategies and developmental constraints in the cellular slime molds. The American Naturalist, 119(4), 530–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, C. A., & Teichroeb, J. A. (2012). What influences the size of groups in which primates choose to live. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 9.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K., Gross, J., Méder, Z., Giffin, M., Prochazkova, E., Krikeb, J., & Columbus, S. (2016). In-group defense, out-group aggression, and coordination failures in intergroup conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(38), 10524–10529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, S. A. (2003). Repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution, 57(4), 693–705.Google ScholarPubMed
Jin, K. S., & Baillargeon, R. (2017). Infants possess an abstract expectation of ingroup support. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8199–8204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, J., Ruxton, G. D., Ruxton, G., & Ruxton, I. G. (2002). Living in groups. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, C., Miettinen, A., Freitak, D., Ketola, T., López-Sepulcre, A., Mäntylä, E., & Pakkanen, H. (2018). Ecological conditions alter cooperative behaviour and its costs in a chemically defended sawfly. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 285(1884), 20180466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, K., Packer, C., & Pusey, A. (1994). Roaring and numerical assessment in contests between groups of female lions, Panthera leo. Animal Behaviour, 47(2), 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pun, A., Birch, S. A., & Baron, A. S. (2016). Infants use relative numerical group size to infer social dominance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(9), 2376–2381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pun, A., Birch, S. A., & Baron, A. S. (2021). The power of allies: Infants’ expectations of social obligations during intergroup conflict. Cognition, 211, 104630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, M., & Brickman, D. (2011). The influence of competition on children's social categories. Journal of Cognition and Development, 12(2), 194–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, M., Hetherington, C., Brink, K., & Wellman, H. M. (2015). Infants’ use of social partnerships to predict behavior. Developmental Science, 18(6), 909–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rullo, M., Presaghi, F., & Livi, S. (2015). Reactions to ingroup and outgroup deviants: An experimental group paradigm for black sheep effect. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0125605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusch, H. (2013). Asymmetries in altruistic behavior during violent intergroup conflict. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(5), 973–993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ting, F., He, Z., & Baillargeon, R. (2019). Toddlers and infants expect individuals to refrain from helping an ingroup victim's aggressor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(13), 6025–6034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M. L., Hauser, M. D., & Wrangham, R. W. (2001). Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees?. Animal Behaviour, 61(6), 1203–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar