Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 301–315 | Cite as

The survival of a cooperative tradition in the intergroup discontinuity context

  • John Schopler
  • Chester A. Insko
  • David Currey
  • Shannon Smith
  • Donna Brazil
  • Toija Riggins
  • Lowell Gaertner
  • Shelley Kilpatrick
Article

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Axelrod, R. (1984).The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Brewer, M. B., Ho, H., Lee, J., & Miller, N. (1987). Social identity and social distance among Hong Kong school children.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Hoyle, R. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Insko, C. A. (1989). Perceptions of behavior: Evidence of differing expectations for interpersonal and intergroup interactions.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Insko, C. A., Gilmore, R., Drenan, S., Lipsitz, A., Moehle, D., & Thibaut, J. (1983). Trade versus expropriation in open groups: A comparison of two types of social power.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 977–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Insko, C. A., Gilmore, R., Moehle, D., Lipsitz, A., Drenan, S., & Thibaut, J. W. (1982). Seniority in the generational transition of laboratory groups: The effects of social familiarity and task experience.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Insko, C. A., Hoyle, R. H., Pinkley, R. L., Hong, G., Slim, R., Dalton, G., Lin, Y., Ruffin, P. P., Dardis, G. J., Bernthal, P. R., & Schopler, J. (1988). Individual-group discontinuity: The role of a consensus rule.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Insko, C. A., Pinkley, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Dalton, B., Hong, G., Slim, R., Landry, P., Holton, B., Ruffin, P. F., & Thibaut, J. (1987). Individual-group discontinuity: The role of intergroup contact.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Drigotas, S. M., Graetz, K., Kennedy, J., Cox, C., & Bornstein, G. (1993). The role of communication in interindividual-intergroup discontinuity.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 108–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz, K. A. (1990). Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Insko, C. A., Thibaut, J. W., Moehle, D., Wilson, M., Diamond, W. D., Gilmore, R., Solomon, M. R., & Lipsitz, A. (1980). Social evolution and the emergency of leadership.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of laboratory microculture.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit for tat in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game.Nature, 364, 56–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Osgood, C. E. (1962).An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S. M., Smith, V. A. & Dahl, K. (1993). Individual-group discontinuity: Further evidence for mediation by fear and greed.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Thompson, L. L. (1990a). An examination of naive and experienced negotiators.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thompson, L. L. (1990b). The influence of experience on negotiation performance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 528–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thompson, L. L. (1992). A method for examining learning in negotiation.Group Decision and Negotiation, 1, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Schopler
    • 1
  • Chester A. Insko
    • 1
  • David Currey
    • 1
  • Shannon Smith
    • 1
  • Donna Brazil
    • 1
  • Toija Riggins
    • 1
  • Lowell Gaertner
    • 1
  • Shelley Kilpatrick
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations