**Original Citation:** Halevy, Nir, Gary Bornstein, and Lilach Sagiv. "“In-Group Love” and “Out-Group Hate” as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict A New Game Paradigm." Psychological Science 19.4 (2008): 405-411. **Target of replication:** We focus on their finding that "the contribution rate to pool B [between group] in the IPD-MD game was significantly lower than the contribution rate to pool B (the only pool) in the IPD game, F(1, 76) = 109.74, p = .000." (Halevy et al., p. 408) The replication was carried out with 120 undergraduate participants from the University of Winchester, United Kingdom. Initial power analyses revealed that 15 groups (45 participants) would be sufficient to achieve the statistical power necessary to replicate the original findings. Following consultation, the replication team however decided to collect data from a minimum of 40 groups (120 participants). As in the original study, participants arrived in the lab in groups of six and were randomly allocated to experimental groups and experimental conditions. In contrast to the original research, the replication allowed ingroup members to privately make their token allocation in the same lab. In the original study, participants had also made their allocation privately but in separate experimental cubicles. This research successfully replicated Halevy et al.'s (2008) finding that participants were more likely to contribute tokens for financial rewards to the cooperative Pool W (a monetary pool which benefited the ingroup without harming the outgroup; this pool was only available in the IPD-MD experimental conditions) rather than to the competitive Pool B (a monetary pool which benefited the ingroup while simultaneously harming the outgroup; this pool was available in all experimental conditions). In the original study, this finding was reported in footnote 3 (p. 408) and was identified by Dr Halevy as the main finding. Supplementary analyses did not demonstrate any effect of ingroup communication on token allocations made to the cooperative Pool W by participants in the IPD-MD with communication and IPD-MD without communication conditions. The replication authors speculate that this failure to replicate the original effect may be due to various reasons, including differences in the laboratory set up (allocations in the same lab versus in individual cubicles), differences in the sample (a largely female sample in the replication versus an exclusively male sample in the original research) and/or cultural differences between the contexts in which the studies were conducted (replication: UK versus original: Israel).