Multilevel Selection and Terror Management

Multilevel Selection: When Competition Operates at Different Scales Simultaneously

The tension Catherine experienced between individual hospital interests and system-wide optimisation reflects a fundamental reality of evolution: selection operates at multiple levels simultaneously, often with conflicting pressures at different scales. Understanding multilevel selection theory provides conceptual tools for navigating these inevitable tensions.

For much of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists debated the levels at which natural selection operates. The modern synthesis resolves this debate by recognising that selection operates at multiple levels simultaneously -- genes, individuals, groups -- with the relative strength of selection at each level depending on specific conditions. Wilson and Wilson (2007) articulated this framework clearly: there is no single level of selection that is always dominant. Instead, we must analyse specific traits and ask what levels of selection affect their evolution and with what relative strength.

Sober and Wilson (1998) demonstrated mathematically that group selection can operate powerfully under certain conditions. When groups vary in their composition, when group-level traits affect group success, when successful groups propagate their characteristics to new groups, and when group boundaries are maintained sufficiently to prevent complete mixing, group selection can favour traits that benefit groups despite costs to individuals within groups. The key insight is that what matters is variation between groups relative to variation within groups. If most variation in a trait exists within groups, individual selection dominates. If most variation exists between groups, group selection can operate powerfully.

For humans, cultural group selection represents a particularly important multilevel selection process. Henrich (2004) and Richerson and Boyd (2005) argue that human cultural capacity enabled group selection to operate far more powerfully than in other species because cultural transmission allows successful group-level traits to spread rapidly through learning and imitation rather than requiring genetic inheritance. Groups with cultural norms promoting cooperation, coordination, and collective action outcompete groups lacking such norms. The successful groups expand, absorb failing groups, or are copied by other groups, spreading their cooperative cultural practices -- a process that operates much faster than genetic evolution because cultural traits can spread within generations through learning.

Henrich et al. (2006) examined costly punishment and cooperation in economic games across fifteen small-scale societies, and found enormous variation across groups. The argument here reads that variation as consistent with cultural group selection and plausibly linked to societies' ecological and historical conditions: groups that historically engaged in warfare or required large-scale cooperation for subsistence may have developed stronger cooperative norms that participants brought to experimental games. That link to warfare and subsistence is the chapter's interpretation and goes beyond the study's focus on costly punishment. Bowles (2009) synthesised archaeological and ethnographic evidence showing that groups with stronger internal cooperation and more effective institutions for managing collective action outcompeted groups lacking these features.

This creates a paradox that Catherine experienced directly during the pandemic. The same processes that create cooperation within groups often depend on competition between groups. Parochial altruism -- the combination of in-group cooperation and out-group competition -- emerges from multilevel selection where groups compete and groups with better internal cooperation win. De Dreu et al. (2010) studied the neuropeptide oxytocin and parochial altruism in intergroup conflict experimentally, which the chapter takes as support for the argument that intergroup competition can enhance within-group cooperation. On this argument, when groups compete for resources, internal cooperation may increase, people may contribute more to collective efforts, sanction free-riders more vigorously, and coordinate more effectively. But this creates a problem for modern large-scale cooperation. The mechanisms that evolved to foster cooperation within groups cannot scale to global challenges requiring cooperation across all of humanity.

Greene (2013) argues that overcoming parochial altruism to achieve genuinely global cooperation represents one of humanity's greatest challenges. Our evolved psychology creates cooperation within groups defined by markers like nationality, ethnicity, or religion, while creating competition or indifference toward out-groups. Expanding the circle of cooperation to include all humans requires working against these evolved tendencies.

For Catherine, the multilevel selection dynamics operated at several scales simultaneously: individual healthcare workers optimising for their own safety; individual departments optimising for their own patients; individual hospitals optimising for their own communities; Meridian as a system optimising for collective health outcomes; the healthcare industry optimising for pandemic response; and society as a whole requiring healthcare while balancing economic and public health trade-offs. Each level faced selection pressures, and what benefited individual hospitals often harmed system-wide outcomes. Understanding multilevel selection does not resolve these tensions, but it clarifies their nature. The conflicts are not simply moral failures or coordination problems -- they reflect genuine evolutionary tensions where selection operates simultaneously at multiple levels with different optimal strategies at each level.

Leading for Collective Outcomes: Aligning Individual and Group Interests

Van Vugt et al. (2008) examined leadership challenges when individual incentives diverge from collective welfare , a tension between individual and group interests. Traditional leadership theories often assume that leaders simply need to identify optimal strategies and persuade others to implement them. But when individual and collective optima conflict, persuasion alone fails because people correctly recognise that cooperation requires them to sacrifice their own interests for others' benefit.

Catherine's first intervention was making individual costs and benefits of cooperation more transparent. When resources were distributed opaquely, hospital CEOs suspected others were free-riding while they sacrificed. She created a real-time dashboard showing each hospital's PPE consumption, COVID patient load, and resource requests. This transparency made free-riding visible and cooperation recognisable, activating reputational concerns that discouraged selfish behaviour. The intervention worked because it tapped into evolved psychology around reputation and indirect reciprocity: when behaviour is visible and reputations matter for future interactions, people cooperate more readily because cooperation builds valuable reputations while free-riding damages them.

Her second intervention involved restructuring payoffs to align individual and collective success. Rather than each hospital's performance being evaluated independently, she created system-wide metrics where all hospitals' bonuses depended partly on collective outcomes. If the system overall handled the surge effectively, maintained quality, and preserved workforce wellbeing, all hospitals shared rewards. This created positive interdependence where each hospital's success required others' success -- plausibly shifting the incentive structure from something like a prisoner's dilemma toward a coordination game where mutual cooperation may be stable once achieved (this is the chapter's own analysis, offered without citation).

Her third intervention used selective leadership of coalitions willing to cooperate. Rather than trying to force all forty-three hospitals to coordinate immediately, Catherine identified eight hospitals whose leaders understood system-wide thinking and were willing to experiment with coordinated resource allocation. She gave this coalition preferential access to certain resources in exchange for their willingness to share across the coalition. Other hospitals observed this coalition performing better collectively than non-cooperating hospitals and asked to join. Within six weeks, in the case's account, thirty-seven of forty-three hospitals had voluntarily joined the coordination scheme because they recognised that collective cooperation produced better individual outcomes than isolated competition. The evolutionary logic is argued here to mirror how cooperation spreads through populations (a claim offered without citation): small clusters of cooperators who preferentially interact with each other may outperform defectors, allowing cooperation to spread through imitation and learning.

Her fourth intervention addressed mortality salience effects directly. She recognised that terror management was making everyone more tribal, more focused on immediate in-group protection, and less capable of system-level thinking. Rather than denying these psychological responses, she explicitly acknowledged them while creating meaning frameworks that expanded the in-group definition. She reframed the crisis not as hospital versus hospital but as healthcare workers versus COVID-19, shifting the coalitional boundary to include all Meridian hospitals as the in-group facing a common external threat. The reframing was backed by tangible actions -- celebrating collective successes, sharing stories of cross-hospital collaboration, and creating symbols that signalled common identity. The tribalism was not eliminated but redirected toward a system-wide identity facing the virus rather than hospital-specific identities competing with each other.

Her fifth intervention established clear decision rights and escalation procedures. Ambiguity about authority creates paralysis during crises when speed matters. She specified which decisions each level controlled, which required consultation, and which required central authorisation -- providing clarity without completely centralising authority, allowing distributed intelligence to operate within defined boundaries. The combination of interventions shifted Meridian's response from competitive fragmentation toward coordinated cooperation. The success was not primarily moral or rational: people did not suddenly become more altruistic or more capable of system-level thinking. Instead, Catherine designed conditions that aligned evolved psychological tendencies with collective welfare by making reputation visible, creating positive interdependence, enabling cooperating coalitions to demonstrate success, expanding in-group boundaries, and establishing clear coordination procedures.

Terror Management Theory: When Death Becomes Psychologically Present

Of all the dynamics Catherine navigated, none was more powerful or more dangerous than terror management. Ernest Becker (1973) proposed that humans face a unique existential burden: we are intelligent enough to understand our own mortality yet psychologically incapable of accepting it fully. We know we will die, we know death means permanent annihilation of consciousness, yet we cannot live with that knowledge consciously present without experiencing paralysing anxiety.

Terror management theory (TMT), developed by Greenberg, Solomon, and Pyszczynski, proposes that much of human behaviour serves to manage the existential terror of death awareness. We construct cultural worldviews -- systems of meaning, value, and significance -- that provide symbolic immortality through identification with entities that transcend individual death. We pursue self-esteem within those cultural worldviews, achieving the sense that we matter, that our lives have significance beyond mere biological existence.

Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski (1991) articulated TMT's core propositions. Humans possess self-preservation instincts alongside the cognitive capacity to recognise mortality. Cultural worldviews explain reality and provide standards for valued behaviour, making existence meaningful and death less terrifying. Self-esteem derived from living up to those cultural standards provides the sense that we are valuable members of meaningful realities, reducing anxiety about personal annihilation. When mortality becomes salient --when death shifts from abstract knowledge to conscious awareness -- people strengthen their commitment to cultural worldviews and increase efforts to maintain self-esteem.

Terror management researchers (Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2015) have documented the effects of mortality salience across a large body of experimental research. Participants reminded of death show systematic psychological changes: increased defence of cultural worldviews against challenges, greater punitiveness toward those who violate cultural norms, more hostility toward out-groups, stronger support for charismatic leaders, greater attraction to simple solutions promising security, and more willingness to sacrifice civil liberties for safety. Pyszczynski et al. (2006) studied mortality salience, martyrdom and military might, and the chapter takes the study as part of the evidence that mortality salience increases in-group loyalty and out-group hostility -- when reminded of death, people may show stronger allegiance to their own national, ethnic, or religious groups while showing increased prejudice and aggression toward out-groups, particularly those threatening their worldview. Burke, Martens, and Faucher (2010) meta-analysed over 400 studies, reporting support for these core predictions across cultures, age groups, and populations; the figure rests on that single review.

For leadership, TMT's most concerning implication involves how mortality salience affects leadership preferences. Landau et al. (2004) found that mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 increased support for President George W. Bush. The argument here generalises that finding: mortality salience may increase support for charismatic and authoritarian leaders who promise security and project confidence. When death is salient, people may not want leaders who acknowledge uncertainty, admit limitations, or engage collaboratively. They want leaders who claim absolute knowledge, project invulnerability, and promise protection. This may create a terrible selection dynamic during crises involving mortality threat: the leaders who rise are often not the ones with best judgment but rather those who project the most confidence and promise the most security, regardless of whether they can deliver.

Catherine witnessed this dynamic throughout the COVID-19 response. Some healthcare systems elevated leaders who projected absolute confidence, issued clear directives without acknowledging uncertainty, and promised definitive solutions. Those leaders were wildly popular initially because they provided exactly what terror management psychology craved. But their overconfident strategies often proved disastrous because they were based on insufficient evidence and inadequate consideration of complexity. Meanwhile, leaders who acknowledged uncertainty, admitted limitations, and involved others in decision-making -- all hallmarks of effective leadership in complex crises -- faced criticism for appearing weak or indecisive.

Kakkar and Sivanathan (2017) found that people favoured dominant leaders over prestigious ones more under economic uncertainty, partly because it left them feeling a lack of personal control. Crises can reshape political preferences in this way. Fritsche, Jonas, and Fankhanel (2008) found that reminders of uncontrollable death increased support for and defence of one's own group, while the possibility of self-determined dying did not, which suggests that the threat works partly through a loss of control. In such moments, leaders who promise structure, order, and certainty, with simple explanations, clear enemies to blame, and confident solutions, may seem especially attractive.

The manipulation potential is enormous and deeply troubling. Leaders who understand terror management can exploit mortality salience to gain power and suppress dissent. Making death salient through vivid imagery, constant reminders of threats, or amplification of dangers creates psychological conditions where people will accept authoritarian control they would normally reject. But TMT also suggests constructive leadership responses. Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg (2015) argue that meaning-making represents leadership's essential function during existential crises. Rather than exploiting death anxiety through authoritarian control, leaders can help people construct meaningful narratives about the crisis that provide psychological coherence without requiring authoritarian submission.

Catherine explicitly addressed mortality salience in her communications with healthcare workers. She did not deny death or pretend the threat was not real -- that would have been dishonest and ineffective. Instead, she helped people construct meaning around their work. She framed healthcare workers as heroes serving a cause larger than individual survival, creating narratives where risking death in service to others provided the symbolic immortality that TMT suggests people crave. She drew on established cultural worldviews rather than trying to create new ones -- medical culture already contained powerful narratives about service, sacrifice, and meaning through caring for the sick, which she amplified and connected to the pandemic crisis.

She also recognised that different cultural worldviews required different meaning-making approaches. Religious staff found meaning through spiritual frameworks. Secular staff found meaning through scientific contribution and human solidarity. Rather than imposing a single narrative, she created space for multiple meaning-making frameworks that all supported the same cooperative behaviour. The interventions were not perfectly successful -- some staff experienced overwhelming death anxiety that no meaning-making could fully address -- but the explicit attention to terror management helped many navigate death awareness in ways that preserved their functioning and prevented the worst authoritarian impulses from taking over.

Critically, Catherine resisted the temptation to exploit mortality salience for her own authority. The pressure was enormous -- staff were literally begging her to be more authoritarian, to issue clear directives, to claim absolute knowledge. She could have consolidated tremendous power by positioning herself as the strong leader who would protect everyone. But she recognised that authoritarian responses to mortality salience, while psychologically satisfying in the moment, produce terrible outcomes over time: they suppress the distributed intelligence organisations need for complex problems, create dependency on the leader's judgment even when that judgment is flawed, establish precedents for authority that persist after the crisis ends, and exploit vulnerable people's terror for leadership aggrandisement in ways that are ethically repugnant.

Temporal Discounting and the Tyranny of the Present

Alongside multilevel selection tensions and terror management effects, Catherine confronted a third fundamental challenge rooted in evolutionary psychology: the tension between immediate demands and long-term welfare. Frederick, Loewenstein, and O'Donoghue (2002) documented that humans show strong present bias -- we weight immediate outcomes far more heavily than delayed outcomes, even when delayed outcomes are objectively more important. The argument here is that this is not mere impatience but plausibly reflects how our motivational systems evolved; that evolutionary explanation is the chapter's own and is not a finding of the cited review. In ancestral environments, the future was plausibly genuinely uncertain -- predators, disease, injury, or conflict could kill you before tomorrow. Present bias may therefore have been adaptive when the future was genuinely uncertain. Modern environments differ profoundly, but our psychology may retain strong present bias because evolution operates slowly.

For organisations, present bias creates systematic short-termism: quarterly earnings matter more than decade-long value creation; immediate performance metrics matter more than long-term capability development; visible short-term successes matter more than invisible long-term infrastructure. During the pandemic, every decision Catherine faced involved temporal trade-offs: cancelling elective procedures would devastate immediate revenue but was necessary for long-term pandemic response; converting hospital beds to ICU capacity required immediate capital investment with uncertain long-term value; burning out staff today would create workforce problems lasting years. The pressure toward short-termism was overwhelming, with every stakeholder's most salient concerns operating on immediate timescales while long-term consequences remained abstract and distant.

Several factors plausibly strengthen future orientation, with the first two supported most directly by research on the future self (Hershfield et al., 2011): personal connection to future consequences, vivid representation of future states, institutional structures creating accountability for long-term outcomes, cultural worldviews extending temporal horizons, and leadership explicitly legitimising consideration of distant futures. Catherine created vivid representations of future consequences by having clinicians and administrators describe specific scenarios of what Meridian would look like in five years if present-bias decisions continued accumulating. She established metrics tracking long-term organisational health alongside immediate crisis response. She explicitly legitimised attention to future welfare in meetings that would otherwise focus purely on immediate firefighting.

She also recognised that some present bias was warranted during the crisis -- the future genuinely was uncertain in ways it normally is not. The solution was not eliminating present bias but modulating it: accepting that immediate demands deserved substantial weight while ensuring that long-term considerations were not completely ignored. She established a decision-making framework requiring explicit consideration of both immediate and long-term consequences, with neither automatically dominating. She also established a protected rebuild fund for post-pandemic capability restoration -- and when immediate budget pressures threatened this fund, she defended it explicitly as necessary for long-term survival despite admitting it meant more short-term pain. The fund represented institutionalised commitment to future welfare that could not be sacrificed for immediate relief.

The temporal discounting challenge extends beyond organisations to global problems requiring unprecedented long-term cooperation. Climate change, biodiversity loss, antibiotic resistance, and AI safety all involve temporal structures profoundly mismatched with evolved psychology. The costs of action are immediate and concrete; the benefits are delayed and abstract. Present bias makes acting rationally nearly impossible. Griskevicius, Cantu, and Van Vugt (2012) examined this mismatch systematically, finding that people struggle to respond appropriately to climate change partly because the threat structure does not trigger evolved threat-response systems -- climate change is gradual, distant, and probabilistic, exactly the opposite of threats our psychology evolved to respond to, which were immediate, local, and certain.

Leading in the Anthropocene: Evolutionarily Novel Challenges at Unprecedented Scale

The pandemic was severe but temporary. Humanity faces other challenges that are permanent features of the Anthropocene -- the geological epoch defined by human influence on planetary systems. These challenges are evolutionarily novel in scale, complexity, and temporal dynamics, creating mismatches between evolved psychology and actual problems that dwarf anything discussed previously.

Climate change represents the paradigmatic Anthropocene challenge: global in scale requiring cooperation across all of humanity; operating on multi-decadal to century timescales far exceeding evolved temporal horizons; probabilistic and uncertain making precise predictions impossible; gradual and mostly invisible in daily experience failing to trigger threat-response systems; creating diffuse collective action problems where individual actions have negligible impact but collective action is essential. Artificial intelligence poses different but equally novel challenges. Pandemic preparedness, antibiotic resistance, nuclear proliferation, biodiversity loss -- each represents an evolutionarily novel challenge structure. Our psychology evolved for immediate, local, concrete threats with clear causation. Modern challenges are delayed, global, abstract, with diffuse causation.

Van Vugt, Griskevicius, and Schultz (2014) analysed this mismatch systematically, identifying specific ways that evolved psychology creates barriers to addressing Anthropocene challenges: present bias causes underinvestment in prevention; parochial altruism limits cooperation to in-groups while global challenges require universal cooperation; intuitive threat detection fails for gradual probabilistic dangers; coalitional psychology makes us compete when we need to cooperate. But recognising the mismatch is the first step toward managing it. Just as Catherine designed interventions working with evolved psychology rather than against it, leaders addressing Anthropocene challenges can design institutions, norms, and incentives that channel evolved tendencies toward collectively beneficial outcomes.

Several strategies emerge from evolutionary analysis; they are the chapter's own proposals, offered without citation, and are best read as hypotheses to test. First, make abstract distant threats more psychologically concrete and immediate through vivid representation, personal connection, and emotional engagement -- climate change communicators who focus on immediate local impacts rather than abstract global statistics leverage evolved attention to proximate threats. Second, exploit parochial altruism rather than fighting it by expanding in-group boundaries to encompass larger collectives: humans can identify with nations, ideologies, or even humanity as a whole when appropriate narratives and symbols create those identities. Third, create institutional structures that extend temporal horizons through representation of future generations and long-term accountability mechanisms -- some indigenous cultures are described as maintaining practices explicitly considering impacts seven generations hence (an illustrative example offered without citation), far beyond evolved temporal horizons but achievable through cultural evolution.

Fourth, distribute challenges across scales that match evolved capacities: humans cooperate naturally in groups of dozens to hundreds, so global challenges can be structured as nested coordination across these natural scales rather than requiring direct global cooperation that exceeds cognitive capacity. Fifth, use cultural evolution's speed advantage -- while genetic evolution operates across millennia, cultural practices can spread across years or decades, and creating cultures that value long-term thinking and global cooperation can operate much faster than waiting for genetic evolution. Sixth, leverage technology to overcome evolved limitations: just as we use written records to overcome memory constraints and mathematics to overcome numerical intuition limits, we can use institutional technology --governance structures, monitoring systems, incentive designs -- to overcome cooperation and temporal discounting limitations.

The Anthropocene demands leadership that understands evolutionary psychology deeply enough to work with human nature while transcending its limitations. This requires humility about how difficult the challenges are, creativity about institutional and cultural solutions, and determination to persist despite evolved psychological tendencies pulling toward short-term local competition rather than long-term global cooperation.

Critical Examination: When Fear Becomes Manipulation

Terror management theory reveals enormous power and corresponding danger. Leaders who understand how mortality salience affects psychology can help people manage death anxiety constructively. But they can also exploit death awareness for manipulation, consolidating power through fear in ways that are psychologically compelling but ethically repugnant and practically disastrous.

The line between constructive meaning-making and manipulative fear-mongering is not always clear. Several warning signs distinguish constructive from manipulative terror management leadership. Manipulative leaders amplify mortality salience unnecessarily, constantly reminding people of threats and dangers to maintain anxiety at elevated levels; constructive leaders acknowledge real threats honestly but do not gratuitously emphasise death to create fear. Manipulative leaders promise certainty and absolute protection, claiming they alone can save people from existential threats; constructive leaders acknowledge uncertainty and limitations while providing structure and meaning that help people function despite legitimate dangers. Manipulative leaders suppress dissent and alternative perspectives, framing disagreement as threat to the cultural worldview protecting against death anxiety; constructive leaders maintain space for diverse perspectives and democratic processes even during crises. Manipulative leaders exploit in-group psychology by identifying enemies to blame and strengthening tribal boundaries; constructive leaders manage in-group cohesion without amplifying out-group hostility. Manipulative leaders consolidate personal power using crisis to eliminate constraints; constructive leaders maintain distributed authority and accountability even when crisis creates pressure toward centralisation.

The cultural variation in terror management responses also deserves attention, though the following are broad generalisations that are the chapter's own and are offered without citation. Western cultures may tend to manage death anxiety through individual achievement and legacy. Many Eastern cultures may manage it through collective continuity and interdependence. Indigenous cultures may often manage it through connection to land and ancestral traditions. What constitutes constructive meaning-making varies across cultural contexts, and imposing one cultural framework can be counterproductive or harmful.

Catherine navigated these complexities imperfectly. She used mortality salience awareness to anticipate psychological responses, which risked treating people as objects to be managed rather than autonomous agents. She created meaning narratives that helped many people but did not work for everyone and may have felt imposed on some. She maintained democratic processes more than many leaders did during the pandemic but also centralised some authority in ways that concentrated power. The appropriate response is not avoiding terror management awareness but using it carefully with full recognition of ethical implications -- using knowledge to distinguish between helping people manage anxiety and exploiting anxiety for manipulation, and maintaining institutional and cultural safeguards that prevent authoritarian drift even when people psychologically crave authoritarian direction.

Key takeaways

• Selection operates simultaneously at multiple levels with individual and group optima often conflicting -- what benefits individuals can harm groups and vice versa, creating tensions that leaders must navigate rather than resolve through simple alignment, since conflicts reflect genuine evolutionary dynamics rather than coordination failures.
• Cultural group selection operates powerfully in humans because successful cooperative norms spread rapidly through social learning -- groups with stronger cooperation outcompete others, but this often depends on intergroup competition creating parochial altruism combining in-group cooperation with out-group hostility.
• Terror management theory reveals that mortality salience increases worldview defence, in-group loyalty, and self-esteem striving, and, on the chapter's reading, preference for charismatic or authoritarian leaders -- crises involving death awareness create psychological conditions where people crave confident authoritative direction over collaborative acknowledgment of uncertainty, favouring leaders who promise security regardless of actual capability.
• Present bias plausibly reflects evolved temporal discounting favouring immediate over delayed outcomes, because ancestral futures were plausibly uncertain -- modern long-term challenges require working against this bias through institutional structures extending temporal horizons, vivid future representation, and explicit frameworks preventing present concerns from completely dominating.
• Leaders can exploit mortality salience manipulatively through amplifying death anxiety, promising absolute protection, suppressing dissent, strengthening tribal boundaries, and consolidating power, or can help constructively through meaning-making providing psychological coherence while maintaining democratic processes and distributed authority.
• Anthropocene challenges involve evolutionarily novel scale, complexity, and temporal dynamics profoundly mismatched with psychology designed for immediate local concrete threats -- addressing climate change, AI risks, pandemics, and other global long-term challenges is argued to require institutional and cultural innovations working with human nature while transcending its limitations.
• Aligning individual and collective interests requires transparency activating reputation concerns, restructuring payoffs creating positive interdependence, enabling cooperating coalitions to demonstrate success, expanding in-group boundaries, and establishing coordination procedures -- these interventions channel evolved psychology toward collective welfare rather than fighting it through pure appeals to altruism or rationality.

Reflection questions

• Identify multilevel selection tensions in your organisation where individual unit interests conflict with collective welfare. What specific incentive structures create these conflicts? How might you redesign payoffs, increase transparency, or expand in-group boundaries to better align individual and collective success?
• Reflect on how you responded psychologically to COVID-19 or other mortality salience events. Did you notice increased worldview defence, in-group loyalty, or preference for authoritative leadership? How did death awareness affect your decision-making, risk tolerance, or social attitudes? What helped you manage death anxiety constructively?
• Consider your organisation's temporal orientation. Does present bias cause systematic underinvestment in long-term capability while overemphasising immediate metrics? What institutional structures might extend temporal horizons -- long-term accountability mechanisms, representation of future stakeholders, explicit temporal trade-off frameworks?
• Examine a global or long-term challenge you care about -- climate change, AI safety, pandemic preparedness. How does evolved psychology create barriers to effective response? What interventions might work with human nature to enable better collective action?
• Think about crisis leadership you have witnessed or provided. Can you identify instances of constructive versus manipulative terror management? What distinguished leaders who helped people manage death anxiety from those who exploited fear for power? How did you personally navigate the tension between providing direction during crisis and maintaining democratic processes?
• Assess how you personally balance immediate demands against long-term welfare. Do you fall into present bias patterns sacrificing future health, relationships, or capabilities for immediate relief or rewards? What specific practices -- vivid future visualisation, precommitment mechanisms, accountability structures -- might help you weight long-term consequences appropriately despite natural present bias?

References

1. Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. Free Press.
2. Bowles, S. (2009). Did warfare among ancestral hunter-gatherers affect the evolution of human social behaviors? Science, 324(5932), 1293–1298.
3. Burke, B. L., Martens, A., & Faucher, E. H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 155–195.
4. De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., … & Feith, S. W. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408–1411.
5. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401.
6. Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Fankhänel, T. (2008). The role of control motivation in mortality salience effects on ingroup support and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 524–541.
7. Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin Press.
8. Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S. M., & van Vugt, M. (2012). The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 115–128.
9. Henrich, J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(1), 3–35.
10. Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., … & Ziker, J. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770.
11. Hershfield, H. E., Goldstein, D. G., Sharpe, W. F., Fox, J., Yeykelis, L., Carstensen, L. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2011). Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), S23–S37.
12. Kakkar, H., & Sivanathan, N. (2017). When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(26), 6734–6739.
13. Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., … & Cook, A. (2004). Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1136–1150.
14. Pyszczynski, T., Abdollahi, A., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., & Weise, D. (2006). Mortality salience, martyrdom, and military might: The Great Satan versus the Axis of Evil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 525–537.
15. Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Thirty years of terror management theory: From genesis to revelation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 1–70.
16. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.
17. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press.
18. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 93–159.
19. Van Vugt, M., Griskevicius, V., & Schultz, P. W. (2014). Naturally green: Harnessing Stone Age psychological biases to foster environmental behavior. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 1–32.
20. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196.
21. van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196.
22. Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(4), 327–348.