1. Social Psychology Pp 296-303 Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson
6th edition
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University

2. Cooperation
A form of pro-social behavior where people work together with commonly agreed-upon goals instead of working separately in competition.

3. Cooperative Group Traits
Effective communication- members of the group feel free to voice their opinions and know they are being heard by others
Group members help other members
There is a division of labor and a clear setting of group goals
There is a basic similarity in beliefs and values
Everyone’s needs are valid and worth addressing

4. Factors Affecting Cooperation
Social Norms (Bicchieri, 2006)- requires a belief that others conform to the norm (ie, littering) and that a sufficient number of others expect the person to conform
Group Size- cooperation decreases in larger groups
Culture- collectivistic cultures increase one’s willingness to cooperate (Gabrenya et al, 1985)

5. Inter-Group Conflict
People often have incompatible goals, placing them in conflict with each other
This can be true of individuals, groups, companies, nations
Conflict occurs when what one groups wants, another group perceives as harmful to its interests

6. Social Dilemmas Social Dilemma
A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone.
What is best for an individual is not always best for the group as a whole. Consider a recent publishing venture by the novelist Stephen King. He wrote two installments of a novel called The Plant and posted them on the Internet, asking readers to pay $1 per installment. The deal he offered was simple: If at least 75 percent of the people who downloaded the installments paid the fee, he would keep writing and posting new installments. If fewer than 75 percent of the people paid, he would stop writing, and people would never get the rest of the novel.
King had devised a classic social dilemma, a conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, be harmful to everyone (Weber, Kopelman, & Messick, 2004). It was to any individual’s financial advantage to download King’s novel free of charge and let other people pay. However, if too many people took this approach, everyone would lose, because King said he would stop writing the novel.
At first, people acted for the good of all; more than 75 percent paid for the first installment. As with many social dilemmas, however, people eventually acted in their own self-interest, to the detriment of all. The number of people who paid for their later installments dropped below 75 percent, and King stopped posting new ones, saying on his Web site that the novel is “on hiatus.”

7. Social Dilemmas
Prisoner’s dilemma: In this game, two people have to choose one of two options without knowing what the other person will choose.
Your payoff (the amount of money you win or lose) depends on the choices of both you and your friend.
For instance, if both you and your friend choose option X, you both win $3. If, however, you choose option Y and your friend chooses option X, you win $6 and your friend loses $6.
Many people begin by choosing option Y. At worst, you will lose $1, and at best, you will win the highest possible amount, $6. Choosing option X raises the possibility that both sides will win some money, but this is also a risky choice. If your partner chooses Y while you choose X, you stand to lose a great deal. Because people often do not know how much they can trust their partners, option Y frequently seems like the safest choice (Rapoport & Chammah, 1965). The rub is that both players will probably think this way, ensuring that both sides lose (see the lower right-hand corner of the figure in the exercise).

8. Increasing Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma
People are more likely to adopt a cooperative strategy that maximizes both their profits and their partner’s if:
Playing the game with a friend, or
They expect to interact with their partner in the future.
(Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977)

9. Increasing Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma
Growing up in some societies, such as Asian cultures, seems to foster a more cooperative orientation.
Changing the name of the game from the “Wall Street Game” to the “Community Game” increased the percentage of people who cooperated from 33% to 71% in one study.
(Bonta, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
Subtly changing the norms about what kind of behavior is expected can have large effects on how cooperative people are (Liberman, Samuels, & Ross, 2004).

10. Increasing Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma
Tit-for-Tat Strategy
A means of encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (cooperatively or competitively) on the previous trial.
This strategy communicates a willingness to cooperate and an unwillingness to sit back and be exploited if the partner does not cooperate. The tit-for-tat strategy is usually successful in getting the other person to respond with the cooperative, trusting response (Axelrod, 1984; Messick & Liebrand, 1995; Parks & Rumble, 2001; Sheldon, 1999; Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Tazelaar, 2002). The analogy to the arms race would be to match not only any military buildup made by an unfriendly nation but also any conciliatory gesture, such as a ban on nuclear testing.

11. Other Kinds of Social Dilemmas
Public Goods Dilemma
A social dilemma in which individuals must contribute to a common pool in order to maintain the public good.
Commons Dilemma
A social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will disappear if overused.
The commons dilemma got its name from an example in which there is a common grassy area in the middle of a town on which all residents are permitted to let their sheep graze. This is a classic social dilemma because it is to each individual farmer’s benefit to let his or her sheep graze as much as possible, but if all farmers do this, the commons will be overgrazed and the grass will disappear (Hardin, 1968).

12. Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Campbell’s (1965) realistic group conflict theory (RGCT), also known as realistic conflict theory (RCT), states that inter-group conflict can arise when groups have opposing goals and are competing for limited resources.
RGCT also states that when groups are pursuing a mutual goal and success requires cooperation, prejudice and conflict is reduced

13. The Robber’s Cave Studies
Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues conducted three famous field experiments known as the Robber’s Cave or Summer Camp studies (1954, 1958, 1961) in order to demonstrate RGCT, the role of competition in conflict and how to resolve conflict
See study summary

14. Conflict Resolution

15. The Contact Hypothesis
The most well-known and simplest theory to reduce conflict was provided by Allport (1954) which states: The best way to reduce conflict between groups is to bring them into contact with each other

16. The Contact Hypothesis
This is easier said than done and there are many examples where placing rival groups into contact with each other has produced even more hostility. Allport claimed a number of conditions needs to be satisfied if contact was to reduce conflict…

17. The Contact Hypothesis (See Oxford, Pp 402-403)
Social and institutional support
High acquaintance potential
Equal status between groups
Cooperation

18. Using Threats to Resolve Conflict
A classic series of studies by Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss (1960, 1962) indicates that threats are not an effective means of reducing conflict.
They had two participants at a time imagine they each controlled a truck company (Acme and Bolt) and needed to transport merchandise using the most direct (shortest) route to maximize profit; however, each route was slowed down by the other’s use of the same one-lane road.
These researchers developed a game in which two participants imagined they were in charge of trucking companies named Acme and Bolt. The goal of each company was to transport merchandise as quickly as possible to a destination. The participants were paid 60 cents for each “trip” but had 1 cent subtracted for every second it took them to make the trip. The most direct route for each company was over a one-lane road on which only one truck could travel at a time. If Acme and Bolt both tried to take the one-lane road, neither truck could pass, and both would lose money. Each company could take an alternate route, but this was much longer, guaranteeing they would lose at least 10 cents on each trial. The game lasted until each side had made twenty trips.

19. After a while, most of them worked out a solution that allowed both trucks to make a modest amount of money. They took turns crossing the one-lane road.

20. Negotiation and Bargaining
A form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which offers and counteroffers are made and a solution occurs only when both parties agree.
Integrative Solution
A solution to conflict whereby parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different interests; each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side.
People often find it difficult to identify integrative solutions (Hoffman et al., 1999; Thompson, 1997).
They will tend to distrust proposals made by the other side and to overlook interests they have in common (O’Connor & Carnevale, 1997; Ross & Ward, 1995, 1996).

21. The bottom line?
When negotiating with someone, keep in mind that integrative solutions are often available.
Try to gain the other side’s trust, and communicate your own interests in an open manner.
Remember that the way you construe the situation is not necessarily the same as the way the other party construes the situation.
You may well discover the other side communicates its interests more freely as a result, increasing the likelihood that you will find a solution beneficial to both parties.

22. The Jigsaw Classroom
To reduce conflict in a classroom, Aronson (1978) developed a technique modeled after the Cave Robbers studies:
Students were placed in diverse 6-person learning groups
Each student was responsible for learning and teaching 1/6 of the material to each person in the group
Only until the parts were put together (like a jigsaw puzzle) could the students fully understand the material

23. The Jigsaw Classroom
Rates of bullying in school were reduced as well as a decrease in prejudice and stereotyping
Positive interactions between groups increased as did students’ liking for their groupmates both within and across ethnic boundaries
Cooperative learning has emerged as an effective way to improve race relations and improve instruction

24. The End