Human nature is complicated in that it can exist and manifest itself often in antithetical and paradoxical ways. Often a contributing factor that influences how individuals engage and communicate with each other may depend more on their perceptions of the motivation and common goals shared by different groups and an awareness of intergroup ideologies that promote justice and fairness as well as bias and prejudice (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013). Different arguments historically have promoted different etiological and motivational factors in explaining both helpful (i.e., prosocial ) and antisocial behaviors. For example, altruism (the capacity to help others with no expectation of reciprocity) has recently been described as having an evolutionary genesis, where these behaviors actually were shown to be adaptive in promoting reproductive fitness and group resiliency (Buss, 2015). In some situations humans have been shown to exemplify altruistic behaviors and make sacrifices for others if they feel that this behavior may be reciprocated in the future (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981), while in different situations, they remain aggressive and opportunistic regardless of environmental circumstances or consequences (Webster, 2008).
Similarly, individuals can simultaneously engage in reprehensible acts of violence and aggression toward out-group members, yet display seemingly selfless acts of kindness and empathy to strangers who appear distressed (Hauser, Preston, & Stansfield, 2014). Psychology has tremendous capacity in influencing human behavior and (if applied correctly) can help individuals to understand one another despite perceived differences and to work cooperatively (i.e., civic engagement and community development projects) with others for mutually beneficial goals (Guillaume, Jagers, & Rivas-Drake, 2015; Hoffman , 2015). Similarly, communities that provide residents with opportunities to build relationships and partnerships can establish stronger community resilience and thus prevent youths from engaging in acts of extremism and destruction (Ellis & Abdi, 2017). Scholars, philosophers, and social science researchers have long attempted to understand the essence of human nature and the mechanisms involved that contribute to the development of prosocial and cooperative behaviors that help build communities and strengthen society. Viewing behaviors as simply “good” or “evil,” “positive” or “negative” is not a productive (nor accurate) way to view and understand the etiology of human interaction, as a “winner-take-all” or “zero-sum” mentality often increases antagonism among groups of individuals.
In this manuscript, we begin our description of the human condition by understanding and recognizing that ultimately what may define behavior is complex and an interaction among several components (genetics, social and traditional norms, evolutionary history, community structure, and our current environmental climate or zeitgeist ) that shapes and rewards different types of behaviors. As a result of this description we need to understand more specifically what types of behaviors, ideologies, and cultures were the most adaptive (i.e., cooperative and prosocial) to survival over the millennia of human evolution.
Human Choice or Is “Biology Our Destiny”?
Charles Darwin (1859) is generally credited by most scholars (along with Herbert Spencer and Alfred Wallace) with presenting the earliest and comprehensive theories in human evolution and adaptive strategies in group or community living. More importantly, Darwin described how genetic variation and environmental adaptation were important (but not sufficient) factors in determining whether or not humans survived in a given region or territory or perished. His famous quote “Biology is our destiny” implies that our physical appearances as defined by our genetic history (i.e., phenotypical characteristics and DNA) were essential features that proved to be critical in determining how well a given species could adapt to the physical demands of a given region and climate. In other words, Darwin argued that (biologically) what we are defines actually who we are and how our decisions are generally made. Certain irrational behaviors that proved to be highly adaptive to specific groups (i.e., territorial aggression, road rage, etc.) during our evolutionary history still remain with us today despite rules and laws in society that attempt to mitigate these primitive behaviors.
Those species that could adapt to the demands of the environment tended to survive and pass those key characteristics on to future generations, improving the overall reproductive fitness of that group. Groundbreaking views within the disciplines of evolutionary psychology and psychology have addressed the topics of natural selection, reproductive fitness, and aggression in an effort to determine how groups interact and exchange those behaviors that have historically facilitated survival (i.e., cooperative alliances). Additionally, psychologists have attempted to understand (and control) how social and environmental factors influence the psychological mechanisms that contribute to and maintain positive behaviors (i.e., prosocial and cooperative interaction) while simultaneously reducing antisocial behavior and conflict. Regrettably, as global populations and technology have exponentially increased, so have specific types of conflict and group violence (i.e., extremism) based on a variety of religious, economic, cultural, and ethnic factors (Ginges, Atran, Sachdeva, & Medin, 2011). Wars are now fought with cell phone technology, improvised explosive devices, and drones. The rapid growth of technology (i.e., social media) has shaped and influenced how we relate and interact with others as well as how we define our friendships or “BFF” (best friends forever). For many persons, technology, social media, and social networking sites (i.e., SNSs) have served as convenient sources of comfort (i.e., “places of belonging”) when individuals experience loneliness or rejection from their peers (Knowles, Haycock, & Shaikh, 2015).
Social Media, Technology, and Illusions of “Connectedness”
Gordon Allport (1954) noted in his classic earlier research that there may be significant positive benefits afforded to populations when opportunities (i.e., “real time”) of intergroup contact (i.e., volunteer programs and community service activities) exist among community members who share similar goals. Most important in his research addressing the benefits of intergroup contact was that bias and prejudicial attitudes toward traditional out-group (i.e., “minority”) members are reduced and negative stereotypes (especially those addressing groups of individuals) are debunked. Once these myths have been debunked, friendships and more productive partnerships are more likely to develop and improve overall communication among diverse groups of individuals. Communities and organizations that provide “real-time” engagement activities and interaction with diverse groups allow groups to see the “real person” behind the negative stereotypes and subsequently reduce the likelihood of conflict based on these negative perceptions (Staub, 2013).
In order for individuals within groups to work most effectively without prejudice, Allport argued that the perceptions (and status) of group members need to remain relatively equal among each other, frequent contact and interaction with each other is needed, and institutional support must exist. Allport further argued that providing individuals with opportunities of real-time (i.e., face-to-face) contact can help debunk common myths and stereotypes that are commonly associated with marginalized groups, thereby providing an environment that encourages mutual understanding and cooperation among diverse groups. This common link that facilitates mutual understanding among different groups is essential in the successful completion of a variety of tasks involving superordinate goals. Providing individuals with opportunities to meet and interact on various types of projects helps to build stronger relationships within groups, which in turn help to reduce prejudice and stigmas that are associated with specific groups. More recently, religious leaders throughout the world have emphasized the value and importance in direct contact with other groups as an effective method to reduce ethnic conflict and violence.
In his address from the Vatican on World Refugee Day (June 20, 2017), Pope Francis urged all people to focus more on the needs of those individuals who are vulnerable, suffering, and fleeing persecution (i.e., refugees). According to recent estimates, over 40 million people have been removed or displaced, with over 2.8 million persons seeking asylum.1 Pope Francis continued his discussion by encouraging all persons to visit those victims of violence and persecution to help debunk negative stereotypes of refugees. One of the best ways to truly understand people beyond bias and stigma is through direct contact with them: “Personally meeting with refugees dispels fears and distorted ideologies … and becomes a way for people to grow in their humanity as they learn to make room for an attitude of openness and the building of bridges” (Glatz, 2016). Direct contact with marginalized groups and individuals who have been persecuted provides us with a unique opportunity to see them as individuals and dispel myths and negative stereotypes that commonly are associated with victims of oppression.
While some research has identified fundamentalist religious beliefs to be associated with ethnocentric ideology (Banyasz, Tokar, & Kaut, 2016), it is important to note that individual personality traits (i.e., social dominance and right-wing authoritarian characteristics) that may have been associated with a particular religion were key variables in determining the existence of ethnocentrism and violent extremist behaviors. Recent research has determined that the benefits afforded to individuals who have had contact and various forms of interaction with victims of oppression (i.e., political refugees) may be generalized to broader populations of individuals (i.e., ethnic minority groups, transgender populations) suffering from similar ty...