A THEORY OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION

The theory being presented here was initially developed by Morton Deutsch (1949a, 1949b, 1973, 1985) and much elaborated by David W. Johnson (Johnson and Johnson, 1989). The Johnsons have provided the most extensive summary of the theory and the research bearing on it; their 1989 book and 2003 paper should be consulted for greater detail.

The theory has two basic ideas. One relates to the type of interdependence among goals of the people involved in a given situation. The other pertains to the type of action taken by the people involved.

I identify two basic types of goal interdependence: positive (where the goals are linked in such a way that the amount or probability of a person’s goal attain­ment is positively correlated with the amount or probability of another obtain­ing his goal) and negative (where the goals are linked in such a way that the amount or probability of goal attainment is negatively correlated with the amount or probability of the other’s goal attainment). To put it colloquially, if you’re pos­itively linked with another, then you sink or swim together; with negative link­age, if the other sinks, you swim, and if the other swims, you sink.

It is well to realize that few situations are “purely” positive or negative. In most situations, people have a mixture of goals so that it is common for some of their goals initially to be positive and some negatively interdependent. In this section, for analytical purposes, I discuss pure situations. In mixed situations, the relative strengths of the two types of goal interdependency, as well as their general orientation to one another, largely determine the nature of the conflict process.

I also characterize two basic types of action by an individual: “effective actions,” which improve the actor’s chances of obtaining a goal, and “bungling actions,” which worsen the actor’s chances of obtaining the goal.

People’s goals may be linked for various reasons. Thus, positive interdepen­dence can result from people liking one another, being rewarded in terms of their joint achievement, needing to share a resource or overcome an obstacle together, holding common membership or identification with a group whose fate is impor­tant to them, being unable to achieve their task goals unless they divide up the work, being influenced by personality and cultural orientation, being bound together because they are treated this way by a common enemy or an authority, and so on. Similarly, with regard to negative interdependence, it can result from people disliking one another or from their being rewarded in such a way that the more the other gets of the reward, the less one gets, and so on.

In addition to positive and negative interdependence, it is well to recognize that there can be lack of interdependence, or independence, such that the activ­ities and fate of the people involved do not affect one another, directly or indi­rectly. If they are completely independent of one another, no conflict arises; the existence of a conflict implies some form of interdependence.

One further point: asymmetries may exist with regard to the degree of inter­dependence in a relationship; suppose that what you do or what happens to you may have a considerable effect on me, but what I do or what happens to me may have little impact on you. I am more dependent on you than you are on me. In the extreme case, you may be completely independent of me and I may be highly dependent on you.

The three concepts mentioned previously—substitutability, attitudes, and inducibility—are vital to understanding the social and psychological processes involved in creating the major effects of cooperation and competition. Substi­tutability (how a person’s actions can satisfy another person’s intentions) is central to the functioning of all social institutions (the family, industry, schools), to the division of labor, and to role specialization. Unless the activities of other people can substitute for yours, you are like a person stranded on a desert island alone: you have to build your own house, find or produce your own food, pro­tect yourself from harmful animals, treat your ailments and illnesses, educate yourself about the nature of your new environment and about how to do all these tasks, and so on, without the help of others. Being alone, you can neither create children nor have a family. Substitutability permits you to accept the activities of others in fulfilling your needs. Negative substitutability involves active rejection and effort to counteract the effects of another’s activities.

Attitudes refer to the predisposition to respond evaluatively, favorably or unfavorably to aspects of one’s environment or self. Through natural selection, evolution has ensured that all living creatures have the capacity to respond pos­itively to stimuli that are beneficial to them and negatively to those that are harmful. They are attracted to, approach, receive, ingest, like, enhance, and oth­erwise act positively toward beneficial objects, events, or other creatures; in contrast, they are repelled by harmful objects and circumstances and avoid, eject, attack, dislike, negate, and otherwise act negatively toward them.

Inducibility refers to the readiness to accept another’s influence to do what he or she wants; negative inducibility refers to the readiness to reject or obstruct fulfillment of what the other wants. The complement of substitutability is inducibility. You are willing to be helpful to another whose actions are helpful to you, but not to someone whose actions are harmful. In fact, you reject any request to help the other engage in harmful actions and, if possible, obstruct or interfere with these actions if they occur.