THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION

Thus, the theory predicts that if you are in a positively interdependent relation­ship with someone who bungles, the bungling is not a substitute for effective actions you intended; thus, the bungling is viewed negatively.

The theory of cooperation and competition, then, goes on to make further predictions about different aspects of intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup processes from the predictions about substitutability, atti­tudes, and inducibility. Thus, assuming that the individual actions in a group are more frequently effective than bungling, among the predictions that follow from the theory are that cooperative relations (those in which the goals of the parties involved are predominantly positively interdependent), as compared with competitive ones, show more of these positive characteristics:

1. Effective communication is exhibited. Ideas are verbalized, and group members are attentive to one another, accepting of the ideas of other members, and influenced by them.

2. Friendliness, helpfulness, and lessened obstructiveness are expressed in the discussions. Members also are more satisfied with the group and its solutions and favorably impressed by the contributions of the other group members. In addition, members of the cooperative groups rate themselves high in desire to win the respect of their colleagues and in obligation to the other members.

3. Coordination of effort, division of labor, orientation to task achieve­ment, orderliness in discussion, and high productivity are manifested in the cooperative groups (if the group task requires effective communica­tion, coordination of effort, division of labor, or sharing of resources).

4. Feeling of agreement with the ideas of others and a sense of basic simi­larity in beliefs and values, as well as confidence in one’s own ideas and in the value that other members attach to those ideas, are obtained in the cooperative groups.

5. Recognizing and respecting the other by being responsive to the other’s needs.

6. Willingness to enhance the other’s power (for example, the knowledge, skills, resources, and so on) to accomplish the other’s goals increases. As the other’s capabilities are strengthened, you are strengthened; they are of value to you as well as to the other. Similarly, the other is enhanced from your enhancement and benefits from your growing capabilities and power.

7. Defining conflicting interests as a mutual problem to be solved by col­laborative effort facilitates recognizing the legitimacy of each other’s interests and the necessity to search for a solution responsive to the needs of all. It tends to limit rather than expand the scope of conflict­ing interests. Attempts to influence the other tend to be confined to processes of persuasion.

In contrast, a competitive process has the opposite effects:

1. Communication is impaired as the conflicting parties seek to gain advantage by misleading the other through use of false promises, ingratiation tactics, and disinformation.

2. Obstructiveness and lack of helpfulness lead to mutual negative atti­tudes and suspicion of one another’s intentions. One’s perceptions of the other tend to focus on the person’s negative qualities and ignore the positive.

3. The parties to the process are unable to divide their work, duplicating one another’s efforts such that they become mirror images; if they do divide the work, they feel the need to check what the other is doing continuously.

4. The repeated experience of disagreement and critical rejection of ideas reduces confidence in oneself as well as the other.

5. The conflicting parties seek to enhance their own power and to reduce the power of the other. Any increase in the power of the other is seen as threatening to oneself.

6. The competitive process stimulates the view that the solution of a con­flict can be imposed only by one side on the other, which in turn leads to using coercive tactics such as psychological as well as physical threats and violence. It tends to expand the scope of the issues in con­flict as each side seeks superiority in power and legitimacy. The conflict becomes a power struggle or a matter of moral principle and is no longer confined to a specific issue at a given time and place. Esca­lating the conflict increases its motivational significance to the partici­pants and may make a limited defeat less acceptable and more humiliating than a mutual disaster.

As the conflict escalates, it perpetuates itself by such processes as autistic hostility, self-fulfilling prophecies, and unwitting commitments. Autistic hostility involves breaking off contact and communication with the other; the result is that the hostility is perpetuated because one has no opportunity to learn that it may be based on misunderstandings or misjudgments or to learn if the other has changed for the better.

Self-fulfilling prophecies are those wherein you engage in hostile behavior toward another because of a false assumption that the other has done or is preparing to do something harmful to you; your false assumption comes true when it leads you to engage in hostile behavior that then provokes the other to react in a hostile manner to you. The dynamics of an escalating, destructive conflict have the inherent quality of a folie a deux in which the self-fulfilling prophecies of each side mutually reinforce one another. As a result, both sides are right to think that the other is provocative, untrustworthy, and malevolent. Each side, however, tends to be blind to how it and the other have contributed to this malignant process.

In the case of unwitting commitments, during the course of escalating con­flict the parties not only overcommit to rigid positions but also may unwittingly commit to negative attitudes and perceptions, beliefs, defenses against the other’s expected attacks, and investments involved in carrying out their con- flictual activities. Thus, during an escalated conflict, a person (a group, a nation) may commit to the view that the other is an evil enemy, the belief that the other is out to take advantage of oneself (one’s group, nation), the conviction that one has to be constantly vigilant and ready to defend against the danger the other poses to one’s vital interests, and also invest in the means of defend­ing oneself as well as attacking the other. After a protracted conflict, it is hard to give up a grudge, to disarm without feeling vulnerable, as well as to give up the emotional charge associated with being mobilized and vigilant in rela­tion to the conflict.

As Johnson and Johnson (1989) have detailed, these ideas have given rise to a large number of research studies indicating that a cooperative process (as compared to a competitive one) leads to greater group productivity, more favor­able interpersonal relations, better psychological health, and higher self-esteem.

For understanding the nature of the processes involved in conflict, this last research finding is of central theoretical and practical significance. It suggests that constructive processes of conflict resolution are similar to cooperative processes of problem solving, and destructive processes of conflict resolution are similar to competitive processes. Because our prior theoretical and research work gave us considerable knowledge about the nature of the processes involved in cooperation and competition, it is evident that this knowledge pro­vides detailed insight into the nature of the processes entailed in constructive and destructive conflict resolution. This kind of knowledge contributes to under­standing what processes are involved in producing good or bad outcomes of conflict. There are many ways of characterizing the outcomes of a conflict: satisfaction-dissatisfaction of the parties, material benefits and costs, improve­ment or worsening of their relationship, effects on self-esteem and reputation, precedents set, kinds of lessons learned, effects on third parties (such as chil­dren of divorcing parents), and so on. Thus, there is reason to believe that a cooperative-constructive process of conflict resolution leads to such good out­comes as mutual benefits and satisfaction, strengthening relationships, positive psychological effects, and so on, while a competitive-destructive process leads to material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relationships, and negative psychological effects in at least one party (the loser if it is a win-lose outcome) or both parties (if it is a lose-lose outcome).