Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-7j4dq Total loading time: 1.246 Render date: 2022-09-28T07:11:24.658Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Fundamental freedoms and the psychology of threat, bargaining, and inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2013

Adam Sparks
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. asparks@uoguelph.cabarclayp@uoguelph.ca
Sandeep Mishra
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business Administration, University of Regina, Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada. mishrs@gmail.comhttp://www.sandeepmishra.ca/
Pat Barclay
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. asparks@uoguelph.cabarclayp@uoguelph.ca

Abstract

Van de Vliert's findings may be explained by the psychology of threat and bargaining. Poor people facing extreme threats must cope by surrendering individual freedom in service of shared group needs. Wealthier people are more able to flee from threats and/or resist authoritarianism, so their leaders must concede greater freedom. Incorporating these factors (plus inequality) can sharpen researchers' predictions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Benard, S. & Doan, L. (2011) The conflict-cohesion hypothesis: Past, present, and possible futures. Advances in Group Process 28:189224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988) Homicide. Aldine de Gruyter.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, R. (2000) Models of reproductive skew: A review and synthesis. Ethology 106:526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P. & Spencer, S. J. (2009) Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97:421–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahti, D. C. & Weinstein, B. S. (2005) The better angels of our nature: Group stability and the evolution of moral tension. Evolution and Human Behavior 26:4763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurin, K., Shepherd, S. & Kay, A. C. (2010) Restricted emigration, system inescapability, and defense of the status quo: System-justifying consequences of restricted exit opportunities. Psychological Science 21:1075–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishra, S. & Lalumière, M. L. (2010) You can't always get what you want: The motivational effect of need on risk-sensitive decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46:605–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. N. (2008) Duration and outcome of intergroup conflict influences intragroup affiliative behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 275:2787–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, G. (2005) Cooperation through interdependence. Animal Behaviour 70:901908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, S. F. & Reeve, H. K. (2010) Reproductive skew theory unified: The general bordered tug-of-war model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 263 112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vugt, M. (2006) Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10:354–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. B. (2008) Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist 63:182–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, S. A., Griffin, A. S. & Gardner, A. (2007) Social semantics: Altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20:415–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, R. G. & Pickett, K. (2009) The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Penguin Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Willer, R. (2004) The effects of government-issued terror warnings on presidential approval ratings. Current Research in Social Psychology 10(1):112.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Fundamental freedoms and the psychology of threat, bargaining, and inequality
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Fundamental freedoms and the psychology of threat, bargaining, and inequality
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Fundamental freedoms and the psychology of threat, bargaining, and inequality
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *