Two Key Studies of Cooperation & Competition (DP IB Psychology)

Key study one: Sherif et al. (1961)

Aim:  

• To investigate intergroup relations in the presence of:

  • competition for scarce resources (realistic conflict)

  • cooperation achieved via the implementation of a superordinate goal

Participants:

• An opportunity sample of 22 boys aged around 12 years old who happened to be attending the Robber’s Cave camp in Oklahoma, USA during the period of the research

• The boys were from white, middle-class, Protestant, two-parent families

• The boys did not know each other beforehand

Procedure:

• The boys were randomly assigned to one of two groups but they were not initially told of the existence of the other group

• The camp was run by the researchers rather than the regular summer camp staff, (although the boys were not aware of this)

• The two groups of boys were initially kept apart from each other and were encouraged to from strong in-group bonds and a clear group identity

• Once each group had formed a strong group identity the researchers introduced the idea of competition between them:

  • The boys were made aware that another group existed at the camp

  • The boys had already been asking for competitions to be put in place even before the experimenters introduced the 4-6 day competition phase

  • A series of competitive games and tasks followed, with the winning team receiving a trophy and individual prizes and the losers getting nothing

Results:

• The boys very quickly formed strong group identities:

  • They created group names: the Eagles and the Rattlers 

  • Each group created a flag to denote their identity and showed strong out-group prejudice, treating the other group with disrespect, hostility and negativity

• The researchers then attempted to unite the groups by getting them involved in activities such as watching a film or engaging in ‘getting to know you’ games but this was unsuccessful (the boys still held strong to their ‘Eagles’ or ‘Rattlers’ identities) 

• At this point the experimenters created some ‘problems’:

  • a water tank that needed fixing

  • money for a movie that night

  • a truck that was stuck

• The above problems were an inconvenience for the whole camp and they presented an issue that went beyond in-group-out-group concerns. 

• Sherif predicted that these tasks represented superordinate goals which were put in place to create a common motive and to trigger intergroup cooperation

• Sherif predicted correctly:

  • The boys came together to solve the problems 

  • Intergroup relations improved to the point that the two separate groups forged a new group identity

  • The boys cast aside intergroup rivalries and prejudice

  • In short, where there was once conflict and competition there now existed co-operation between the groups

Conclusion:

• Intergroup conflict may be resolved by the introduction of a superordinate goal that is shared by both groups

• Both competition and co-operation can be manipulated, given the right conditions

Evaluation of Sherif et al. (1961)

Strengths

• The issue of demand characteristics would not have arisen:

  • The boys were unaware that they were taking part in a study 

  • This lack of awareness means that the boys’ behaviour was unforced and natural

  • Thus the study is high in ecological validity 

• The findings have good application:

  • They could be used to resolve conflicts across a range of situations e.g. at school, at work, in business, policing etc. 

Limitations

• Researcher bias may have affected the findings:

  • The researchers were actively involved in the process and may have guided the boys’ actions to align with their hypothesis

  • They may have ignored behaviours which did not support their hypothesis

• There are ethical issues with the study:

  • The boys (and their parents) did not give informed consent

  • The boys might have been coerced into being more competitive than they were comfortable with

  • The boys were deceived as to the true nature of their time at camp and the identity of the researchers

Key study two: Tauer & Harackiewicz (2004)

Aim: To investigate the effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance in sport

Participants:

• 36 boys from grades 7-9 (mean age 12 years) 

• The boys were attending a basketball day camp in the USA.

Procedure:

• The researchers used a matched pairs design according to their ability in basketball

• Each participant had been pre-tested on their ability at throwing and scoring baskets.

• There were three conditions of the independent variable:

  • The pure cooperation condition: the paired participants’ pre-test scores were combined and they were told that that they had to beat this score by one point by working together

  • The pure competition condition: this was a straightforward case where one boy was pitted against the other to see who could score the most baskets

  • The intergroup competition condition: one pair of boys was put in competition against another pair of boys so that the pairs had to work together to win against another pair

• The dependent variable was:

  • the number of free throws each participant made

  • their responses to a questionnaire about how much they had enjoyed the activity (from 1 – 10 with 10 indicating most enjoyment).

Results:

• The intergroup competition condition resulted in the highest levels of task performance and self-reported task enjoyment

• There was no real difference in performance and enjoyment found between pure cooperation and pure competition

Conclusion: Cooperation and competition combined appears to result in optimum performance and intrinsic motivation for the task

Evaluation of Tauer & Harackiewicz (2004)

Strengths

• Using a matched pairs design helps to factor out individual differences:

  • If one condition of the IV had included all of the best players then this would skew the results

• The use of two measures (number of free throws and questionnaire responses) means that the study has good internal validity:

  • One measure ‘checks’ the other

  • By cross-checking one finding against the other it can be ascertained that the researchers are testing what they set out to test

Limitations

• The sample consisted of American males in grades 7-9 which limits the generalisability of the findings

• There could have been an array of extraneous variables that interfered with the findings, for example:

  • Some of the boys may have felt self-conscious when competing against others

  • Some of the boys may have been naturally more competitive than the others

  • Some of the boys may have felt unwell or tired that day