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

Revision Note

Claire Neeson

Last updated

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

Worked Example

ERQ (EXTENDED RESPONSE QUESTION) 22 MARKS

The question is, ‘Discuss research into cooperation and competition.’ [22]

This question is asking you to offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments and issues related to research into cooperation and competition. Here are two paragraphs for guidance:

Tauer & Harackiewicz (2004) was conducted using naïve participants (they did not know that they were taking part in the study) who happened to be enrolled on a basketball day camp. As the boys’ behaviour was not manipulated in artificial conditions (even though the researchers imposed an independent variable) then the study could be said to be high in ecological validity. There was no chance that demand characteristics could have influenced the boys’ behaviour which means that the data gathered by the researchers is likely to have been unforced and natural.

The researchers point out that this is a quasi-experiment rather than a true experiment as participants could not be completely randomly allocated to pairs as differing ability in basketball might have produced a confounding variable. This would affect the reliability of the results as it means that the researchers were not able to control all variables in the study. However, the study was well designed with distinct levels of the independent variable which meant that they were able to exert a degree of control over the procedure.

You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week

Sign up now. It’s free!

Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Did this page help you?

Claire Neeson

Author: Claire Neeson

Expertise: Psychology Content Creator

Claire has been teaching for 34 years, in the UK and overseas. She has taught GCSE, A-level and IB Psychology which has been a lot of fun and extremely exhausting! Claire is now a freelance Psychology teacher and content creator, producing textbooks, revision notes and (hopefully) exciting and interactive teaching materials for use in the classroom and for exam prep. Her passion (apart from Psychology of course) is roller skating and when she is not working (or watching 'Coronation Street') she can be found busting some impressive moves on her local roller rink.