Effects of cooperation and competition on the cohesiveness of small face-to-face groups.

Abstract

This is a study of the effects of cooperation and competition on group cohesiveness. The hypothesis was: "The cohesiveness of a small face-to-face group will increase under cooperative conditions and decrease under competitive conditions."The groups used were fourth grade children. The study revealed that the groups working under cooperative conditions in the experiment increased in cohesiveness, but that the groups that worked under conipetitive conditions did not necessarily decrease in cohesiveness. Of the four groups working competitively, one increased, one decreased, and the other two did not change. Examination of the data for the competitive groups revealed that the rewards (for the tasks performed in the experiment) were evenly distributed in the competitive groups that either gained or did not lose cohesiveness. "This suggested the hypothesis that the effect of competition on group cohesiveness is dependent on the effect that competition has on the distribution of the groups rewards. If competition results in more or less uniform distribution of the group's rewards the effect of competition on the group's cohesiveness may be similar to the effect that cooperation would have on the group's cohesiveness. But on the other hand, if one or two members receive most of the group's rewards the effect of competition may be to decrease the group's cohesiveness." John Starkweather, "Content-Free Speech as a Source of Information About the Speaker," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (May This is a study of jud-ments of verbal and vocal aspects of speech. The verbal component being the pattern of sounds which makes up words and phrases, the content of speech. The vocal components are those characteristics that may be called voice quality.Judgments were made of normal speech, content-free speech (produced by filtering out certain frequencies and thus making the speech unintelligible, but preserving vocal characteristics), and content only samples (typescripts). Three groups of subjects were used, one group with high blood pressure and high HPS (hypertensive personality syndrome) scores, another with high blood pressure and low HPS scores, and another with low blood pressure and low HPS scores. I t was hypothesized that these groups could be distinguished by personality differences revealed in speech."When the combined judgment of 2 5 judges was used as a measure, significant differences were found between groups for 'aggressive' judgments of both content-free and normal information speech samples . . . Judgments of content-free information were related to both the blood-pressure measure and the personality measure associated with high blood pressure. Judgments of normal information were related only to the personality measure."The finding of greater relative usefulness of content-free speech is evidence for the importance of the vocal aspect of speech regarding the personality of the speaker."

Classroom Reward Structure: An Analytical and Practical Review

“…These studies have employed different group sizes, tasks, ages, and durations, yet the finding of greater interpersonal attraction in cooperative than in com petitive structures has persisted. Similar findings with respect to cohesiveness and attraction to group have been reported by Crombag (1966), Mizuhara and Tamai (1952), Phillips and DΆmico (1956), and Raven and Eachus (1963). Deutsch (1949a) showed groups in team competition to be more friendly and helpful than those in intragroup competition.…”

Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior

“…Because competition has been shown to decrease intrinsic motivation (Deci, BeHey, Kahle, Abrams, & Porac, 1981) and dampen creativity (Amabile, 1982a), competitive learning settings are interpreted as less intrinsically motivating and cooperative learning settings as more intrinsically motivating. A review of research by Johnson and Johnson (1974) corroborated that the cooperative setting promotes intrinsic motivation in trat it leads to less anxiety, greater task involvement, and a more positive emotional tone (all characteristics of intrinsically motivated behavior) than does competition (e.g., Haines & McKeachie, 1967;Phillips & D'Amico, 1956). Several studies have shown that problem solving tends to be more effective and achievement tends to be greater under cooperative than under competitive conditions (e.g., Laughlin & McGlynn, 1967;O'Connell, 1965;Wodarski, Hamblin, Buckholdt, & Ferritor, 1973).…”

Task‐Oriented Versus Other‐Referenced Competition: Differential Implications for Children's Peer Relations1

“…The results of the few studies available on the connections between competition and children's peer relations are indeed inconclusive. Phillips and D'Amico (1956) found that competition increased cohesiveness in some small groups of children, had the opposite effect in others, and had no effect in yet others. There is some suggestion that the degree of competition between friends depends on the situation, with more competitiveness found between friends in areas more relevant to the sense of personal identity (Tesser, Campbell, & Smith, 1984).…”