The survival of a cooperative tradition in the intergroup discontinuity context
- 67 Downloads
Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity is the tendency, in mixed-motive situations, for groups to interact more competitively, or less cooperatively, than individuals, even though mutual competition yields worse results that mutual cooperation. The present laboratory experiment attempted to assess whether the discontinuity effect could be reduced by the establishment of an intergroup cooperative tradition. Cooperation between intact pairs of groups was induced by placing in each group confederates who successfully convinced their fellow group members of the long-term advantage of trust and cooperation. On subsequent blocks of trails, the confederate was replaced by an actual subject, and then each of the original subjects was replaced so as to simulate generational turnover. By the time all initial members were replaced, their level of cooperation had eroded to the level of groups never experiencing mutual cooperation. The results are discussed in the context of other means of reducing discontinuity.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Axelrod, R. (1984).The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). Chichester, England: John Wiley & sons Ltd.Google Scholar
- Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Kennedy, J. F., Dahl, K. R., Graetz, K. A., & Drigotas, S. M. (1992). Individual-group discontinuity from the differing perspectives of Campbell’s realistic group conflict theory and Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory.Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 272–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.),Annual review of psychology (pp. 45–81). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.Google Scholar
- Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1986). Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: Comparing expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 38, 305–317.Google Scholar
- Osgood, C. E. (1962).An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The discontinuity effect: Generality and mediation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),European review of social psychology (pp. 121–151). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S. M., & Smith, V. A. (1991). The generality of the individual-group discontinuity effect: Variations in positivity-negativity of outcomes, players’ relative power, and magnitude of outcomes.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 612–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. (1961).Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.Google Scholar