Men Are More Likely to Cooperate in Difficult Circumstances

When men are in stressful and difficult circumstances, they are much more likely to work together and cooperate. The stereotype, er, traditional view, is that men respond to stress or threat with "fight or flight” (aggression or escape), whereas women are more prone to “tend and befriend” (help others). New research, however, overturns this stereotype . . . finally.

Anyone who has served in combat or has seen a documentary like Restrepo knows that men under extreme duress not only bond and cooperate, but willingly give their lives for each other.

When Stress Leads to Male Bonding and Compassion

New evidence that men are more likely to cooperate in difficult circumstances

Published on February 19, 2013 by Emma M. Seppala, Ph.D. in Feeling It

Ever feel that stress makes you more cranky, hot-headed or irritable? For men in particular, we think of stress as generating testosterone-fueled aggression – thus instances of road rage, or the need to “blow off steam” after work with a trip to the gym or a bar. On the other hand, in circumstances of extreme trauma such as the Sandy Hook incident or during natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy, we hear moving accounts of people going out of their way to help others. The tsunami in Asia a couple of years ago led to a huge influx of financial support to help afflicted areas. Many who lived in New York City during 9/11 remember that, for a few days afterward, the boundaries and class divisions between people dissolved: people greeted each other on the street and were more considerate, sensitive to each other, and gentle than normal.

The classic view is that, under stress, men respond with "fight or flight,” i.e. they become aggressive or leave the scene, whereas women are more prone to “tend and befriend,” as has been shown in research by Shelley Taylor. A new study by Markus Heinrichs and Bernadette von Dawans at the University of Freiburg, Germany, however, suggests that acute stress may actually lead to greater cooperative, social, and friendly behavior, even in men. This more positive and social response could help explain the human connection that happens during times of crises, a connection that may be responsible, at least in part, for our collective survival as a species.

In Heinrichs’ and Dawans’ study, male participants were assigned to either an experimental group, with a stress procedure (a public speaking exercise followed by a complicated mental arithmetics), or a control group with no stress. They all were then asked to play an economics game involving potential financial gain based on the choices they make. In this game, they could choose to cooperate with others and trust them or not. The researchers found that, rather than becoming more aggressive after stress, men in the stress group actually became more trusting of others, displayed more trustworthy behavior themselves, and were more likely to cooperate and share profits. The researchers also found that these results were not due to weakened judgment in the stress group: the stress group did not differ from the control groups in their ability to make decisions or their willingness to sanction another participant who behaved unfairly.

One reason why stress may lead to cooperative behavior is our profound need for social connection. Human beings are fundamentally social animals and it is the protective nature of our social relationships that has allowed our species to thrive. Decades of research shows that social connection is a fundamental human need linked to both psychological and and physical health including a stronger immune system, faster recovery from disease and even longevity.

Social connection may be particularly important under stress because stress naturally leads to a sense of vulnerability and loss of control. A study by Benjamin Converse and colleagues at the University of Virginia found that feeling out of control (through a reminder of one’s mortality) leads to greater generosity and helpfulness while research at Stanford University by Aneeta Rattan and Krishna Savani showed that the opposite is true when we are primed with feelings of self-determination and control. Think back to a time when you felt out of control, for example during a romantic break-up, when you had an empty bank account, or lost a job. Chances are your feeling of vulnerability and feelings of lack of control may have made you seek the comfort of others in some way. Brene Brown, Professor at the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work and expert in the field of social connection, explains that vulnerability is a core ingredient of social bonding (for more on vulnerability, see this post).

War is one of the greatest stresses anyone could ever encounter yet it also often leads to deep human friendships and incredible acts of heroism and sacrifice for one other. In my research with returning veterans, I have often heard them speak of the tight bond that occurs between service members on the battlefield — one of the most stressful situations that exists. Countless soldiers have perished running into a line of fire to save an injured brother-in-arms. Some believe that it these experiences of profound human bonding that, despite the acute anguishes of war, makes some veterans long to return to war.

If stress leads to bonding, why then do we sometimes experience stress as making us cranky? The cause may be explained by a difference between acute and chronic stress.We know from research by Robert Sapolsky that acute stress prepares the body for resistance (physiological readiness, increased immune response, and heightened awareness) but that chronic stress slowly beats down the body. It may be that “acute” stress, i.e. a one-time stressful experience may lead to social bonding, as shown in the study, but that “chronic” stress, i.e. repeated exposure to stress over a long period, might wear us out. More research is needed to thoroughly examine the impact of chronic stress on social behavior.

Acute stress may help remind us of a fundamental truth: our common humanity. Understanding our shared vulnerability — life makes no promises — may be frightening, but it can inspire kindness, connection, and desire to stand together and support each other. Acute stress, as unpleasant as it may be, may also be an opportunity to experience the most beautiful aspects of life: social connection and love.

----------------

For more on the science of happiness, health and social connection: www.emmaseppala.com.

Follow Emma on Twitter: https://twitter.com/emmaseppala
Subscribe Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/emma.seppala

Photo Credit: DavidMixner.com

[a version of this article was originally published in Scientific American Mind]

Rick Nauert - Men Cooperate as Well as Women, Sometimes

Psychological research is breaking down the male stereotypes one by one - it's good to see more research heading in this direction. As the statistical cliche goes, there is more variation within each sex than between the sexes. From Psych Central.

Men Cooperate as Well as Women – Sometimes

By Rick Nauert PhD Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on September 23, 2011 

 

Coooperation, it turns out, is a little more complex than the common assumption that women tend to be better at it than men. In fact, researchers have found that that men cooperate as well as women — and cooperate better with other men than women do with each other.

However, women tend to cooperate more than men when interacting with the opposite-sex – in other words, women cooperate better with men than men cooperate with women.

Study findings are published online by the American Psychological Association in the publication Psychological Bulletin.

Researchers began the study by conducting a quantitative review of 50 years of research; 272 studies comprising 31,642 participants in 18 countries.

Most of the studies were conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, England and Japan.

Only articles written in English were examined, and to be included in the analysis, the articles needed to contain at least one social dilemma, in which two or more people must choose between a good outcome for themselves or a good outcome for a group.

If everyone chooses selfishly, everyone in the group ends up worse off than if each person had acted in the interest of the group.

Although researchers did not find a statistical difference between the sexes when it came to cooperating when faced with a social dilemma, closer examination did reveal some differences.

Specifically, women were more cooperative than men in mixed-sex studies and men became more cooperative than women in same-sex studies and when the social dilemma was repeated.

In the study, researchers primarily used a common experiment called the “prisoner’s dilemma.” In this trial, a pair of people must decide whether to cooperate or defect. If they both cooperate, each person receives a modest amount of money, such as $10.

However, if only one person cooperates, then the defecting participant receives more money, such as $40, while the cooperating person receives nothing. If both people decide to defect, they would each receive a small amount – say, $2.

“It is a social dilemma because each individual gains more by defecting regardless of what the other person does, but they will both be better off if they both cooperate,” said the study’s lead author, Daniel Balliet, Ph.D, of the VU University Amsterdam.

Researchers have found that laboratory studies using this tool predict cooperation outside the laboratory very well.

In an effort to interpret their findings, the authors conjectured that evolution and cultural perspectives explain why men were found to be more cooperative than women during same-sex interactions.

“The argument is that throughout human evolutionary history, male coalitions have been an effective strategy for men to acquire resources, such as food and property,” said Balliet.

“Both hunting and warfare are social dilemmas in that they firmly pit individual and group interests against each other. Yet, if everyone acts upon their immediate self-interest, then no food will be provided, and wars will be lost. To overcome such social dilemmas requires strategies to cooperate with each other.”

Evolutionary theory may also explain why women are less cooperative with other women when faced with a social dilemma, according to Balliet.

“Ancestral women usually migrated between groups and they would have been interacting mostly with women who tended not to be relatives, and many were co-wives,” he said. “Social dynamics among women would have been rife with sexual competition.”

Source: American Psychological Association