Prior dyadic experience and monetary reward as determinants of cooperative and competitive game behavior.

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of no prior dyadic experience, hostile, and friendly experience, combined factorially with high and low monetary reward on competitive-cooperative behavior in a 2-choice non-zero-sum game. The game matrix is constructed so that a competitive choice unambiguously reflects the operation of a motive to maximize the difference between own and other's score, as opposed to motives to maximize own or joint gain. 15 dyads of Flemish males were assigned randomly to each of the 6 experimental groups within a 3 X 2 repeated-measures design (100 trials). The results indicate that both prior dyadic experience and reward factors, as well as the number of times the game is actually played, are important determinants of competitivecooperative behavior.

Instructional Goal Structure: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic

“…Class cohesion is based upon positive interpersonal relationship among students. The research strongly supports the proposition that cooperative goal structures encourage positive interpersonal relationships characterized by mutual liking, positive attitudes toward each other, mutual concern, friendliness, attentiveness, feelings of obligation to other students, and desire to win the respect of other students (Anderson, 1939;Blau, 1954;Crombag, 1966;Deutsch, 1949a;DeVries & Edwards, 1972a;French, 1951;Gottheil, 1955;Haines & McKeachie, 1967;Julian & Perry, 1967;Krauss, 1966;McClintock & McNeel, 1967;Myers, 1962b;Phillips & D'Amico, 1956;Ryan & Wheeler, 1973;Stendler, Damrin, & Haines, 1951;Swingle & Coady, 1967;Uejio & Wrightsman, 1967;Wheeler, 1972). The majority of these same studies demonstrate that competitive goal structures have a negative effect on interpersonal relations among students!…”

Social Value Orientation

“…The explicit assumption that people enter situations of interdependence with individual goals that may lead to different behavior in the same interdependent situation was stated and studied by Deutsch (1960) who proposed three motivational orientations: cooperative, individualistic, and competitive. This terminology was later adopted by Messick and McClintock (1968) in their motivational theory of choice behavior that was stimulated by a series of studies showing that people do not strictly endeavor to maximize their own payoffs when making choices in interdependent contexts but rather tend to take into account the other player’s payoff as well (McClintock & McNeel, 1966a, 1966b, 1966c, 1967; Messick & Thorngate, 1967). In this theory, the three motivations identified by Deutsch were operationally defined as the goals to maximize joint gains (cooperative), maximize own gain (individualistic), and maximize relative gain (competitive).…”

Societal Membership, Score Status, and Game Behavior: A Phenomenological Analysis

“…The present study is one in a series of investigations conducted by the authors to determine the motivational bases of cooperative and competitive choice behavior in situations of social interdependence (see McClintock and McNeel, 1966a, 1966b, 1966c, and 1967. This series of studies, utilizing game theory as a conceptual orientation, has employed a variant of a two-person two-choice non-zero sum game which permits one to differentiate competitive from cooperative behavior, and to isolate one of the motives underlying competitive social behavior, namely, that of maximizing the difference between own and other's score.…”