Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T18:34:57.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Myths and fitness interdependence: Beyond coalitional longevity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2025

Rachel Z. Friedman Open the ORCID record for Rachel Z. Friedman [Opens in a new window]
Rachel Z. Friedman*
Affiliation:
The Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel Rachelf3@tauex.tau.ac.il https://en-law.tau.ac.il/profile/rachelf3
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This comment seeks to extend the authors' argument by considering how perceived fitness interdependence is generated in different settings. Based primarily on research from political science, it argues that strategic agents may seek to design myths that emphasize not only the longevity of their coalitions, but also internal features such as material and status equality and institutional impartiality.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e179
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barclay, P. (2020). Reciprocity creates a stake in one's partner, or why you should cooperate even when anonymous. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287, 1–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Becker, L. (1986). Reciprocity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bonomi, G., Gennaioli, N., & Tabellini, G. (2021). Identity, beliefs, and political conflict. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136(4), 2371–2411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. (2020). Reciprocity without compliance. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 48(4), 382–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchak, L. (2017). Taking risks behind the veil of ignorance. Ethics, 127(3), 610–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., & Xin Li, S. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99(1), 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronk, L., & Atkipis, A. (2018). Identity fusion and fitness interdependence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (1998). Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of Homo Reciprocans. European Economic Review, 42, 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. (2010). Assessing risky social situations. Journal of Political Economy, 118(4), 649–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, M., & Bühlmann, M. (2009). Crafting trust: The role of political institutions in a comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 42(12), 1537–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (2002). Structures of mutual obligation. Journal of Social Policy, 31(4), 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2022). Cognitive-motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 560–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahan, D. M. (2003). The logic of reciprocity: Trust, collective action, and law. Michigan Law Review, 102, 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. (2008). Reciprocity: An economics of social relations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, S. (2004). Welfare regimes and the norms of social exchange. Current Sociology, 52(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosse, G. L. (1990). Fallen soldiers: Reshaping the memory of the world wars. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a behavioral theory linking trust, reciprocity, and reputation. In Ostrom, E. & Walker, J. (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research (pp. 19–79). Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2017). Solidarity, diversity, and the quality of government. In Banting, K. & Kymlicka, W. (Eds.), The strains of commitment: The political sources of solidarity in diverse societies (pp. 300–326). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2003). Social capital, impartiality, and the welfare state: An institutional approach. In Hooghe, M. & Stolle, D. (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 191–209). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shayo, M. (2009). A model of social identity with an application to political economy: Nation, class, and redistribution. American Political Science Review, 103(2), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, P. (2015). How solidarity works for welfare: Subnationalism and social development in India. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D. (2003a). Chosen peoples. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. M. (2003b). Stories of peoplehood: The politics and morals of political membership. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2013). Government quality, egalitarianism, and attitudes to taxes and social spending: A European comparison. European Political Science Review, 5(3), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks Cole.Google Scholar