Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Cooperation motivation

Cooperation motivation:
What motivates cooperation?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Figure 1. A rowing team cooperating in sync to ensure the most consistent rhythm

What motivates humans to get along with each other? Is it part of our nature or do humans tend to only cooperate when they believe it will be to their benefit? Cooperation is a behaviour that all individuals experience at least once within their life. Cooperation can be observed from a diverse range of tasks, such as survival for military operations, as one wrong move outside of given orders can lead to fatal results, but also in team sports, and work. Depending on the task being undertaken, cooperation needs to be fine-tuned down to the second and humans need to stay focused and aware of the task. From life or death situations to a communal goal, what is it that motivates individuals to cooperate with each other? Throughout this chapter, different theories and practical examples of cooperation motivation will provide an explanation of a phenomenon that all individuals encounter.

Through this look into cooperation motivation, the primary questions to be answered are What are the major psychological theories on cooperation? What variables can influence an individual's capability to cooperate? Is there a way to improve cooperation? These questions will be revisited at the end of the chapter, with a summary of the answers and areas for further research.

Theories on cooperation

Through looking at multiple theories, different approaches to motivation can begin to look at to why humans would cooperate with one another, from an inner belief of good will, to an outside rewards that can motivate humans to help each other.

Social value

Social value orientation

Social value orientation (SVO) surrounds the different motivations that influence decision making behavior in interpersonal settings. By observing and reviewing how much individuals care about the outcome of others, SVO can provide a base of why individuals make the decisions they do (Murphy et al., 2011). The primary model of SVO involves certain aspects of trust, willingness to cooperate and expectations of the others behavior, all of which can predict different levels of cooperation (Bogart et al., 2008). The studies from Balliet et al. (2009) represent that SVO does have a strong influence on cooperation with others. Before decisions are made in a social setting the individual first considers the benefits or implications involved for the different individuals involved Template:Awkard and this can change our decision making and therefore cooperation. Although a shorter theory, social value orientation explains that individuals who score higher in the scale are shown to consider the outcomes of others before making a decision which can be a strong motivator for cooperation.

Altruism

To have an internal sense of altruism means to be selfless and to think of other individuals before yourself. For most individuals, the internal attribute of altruism is a highly respected trait, and even the presence of a highly altruistic individual can influence others to also act in the same manner. Most people can do things others that are selfless and kind, but a true mark of altruistic behaviour is when these acts are not in the direct favour of the individual and are out of a pure act of good will, as opposed to ‘reciprocal altruism’ which suggests that kind acts and cooperation with people is present with the intention of receiving the acts of kindness back (Caporael et al., 2010). In its most pure form, altruistic behaviour is the act of kindness and assisting others even if there is no personal gain.

Altruism can increase the level of cooperation among people while also eliminating other variables that, when explained in other theories could have an impact, such as a dislike for each other and not having any incentives to cooperate, such as money. Those individuals who are ranked higher in altruism are shown to produce higher effort in cooperating with one another, while narcissistic individuals show little to no effort in wanting to cooperate (Bosworth et al., 2016). In the study from Caporael et al. (2010), results showed that removing egotistical incentives resulted in enhanced cooperation among the group, meaning that individuals acted less selflessly with the knowledge of receiving no reward. Cooperation can be motivated out of the good will of humans, when their level of personal altruism is high. This theory of altruism provides one explanation of what motivates the cooperation among individuals for a communal objective.

Extrinsic motivation vs intrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation

Example - "If you do this, you will receive that" Grace is refusing to finish her homework because it isn’t fun and she is bored. Her mum insists that Grace should finish doing her homework as learning is fun and is good for her brain. Grace is stubborn and continues to argue that she does not want to do it. Mum proposes to Grace that if she finishes her homework, she can have ice cream for dessert. Grace’s incentives for completing her homework have changed and she completes her homework quickly and without much thought to enjoy her ice cream.

Extrinsic motivation is arguably the most rational explanation for cooperation that can be discussed. Extrinsic motivation is set on the basis of completing a behavior with the belief of receiving something in return for your action. Any item can be used to exploit extrinsic motivation, including food, money, shelter, and trophies. Extrinsic motivation can be seen being used for the cooperation of children, “if you eat your vegetables, you can watch television”. It revolves around the simple base of completing an action for a reward. Extrinsic motivation can also be seen in the workforce, with the majority of the population that salaries or any money for work is applicable as extrinsic motivation. By being offered rewards, individuals are given an incentive to complete a task they previously would have no intention of completing. This is also the same for cooperation with others; if there is no incentive to cooperate with individuals who you would previously not have interaction with, the quality of cooperation is in jeopardy. There are thousands of individuals who claim they do not enjoy their work environment, but money is the only reason they continue to cooperate.

Figure 2. Two children playing soccer with different reasons of motivation

The complications from excessive intrinsic motivation are quite severe for the long-term motivation of an individual. Having someone whose only motivation to complete a task is to receive something in return has no motivation to do it for intrinsic reasons if the reward is not offered. Lepper & Greene (1975) state that individuals who believe they are entitled to receive an award performed worse than individuals who performed the task with no reward offered at all (completing the task through intrinsic motivation). In short, excessive rewards delivered through extrinsic motivation can result in a decreased drive to complete a task. If the majority of the workforce were to be asked if they would work the same number of hours and have the same workload if money was not involved, most individuals would say no. The catch to this example is that most individuals have bills and dependents to support, but in a theoretical sense, if there is no incentive to work with one another, the cooperation among individuals can deteriorate.

Intrinsic motivation

Humans have psychological needs that need to be satisfied to give the individual a sense of ambition and mental stimulation. Completing challenging tasks and expanding our skills and abilities give us internal purpose and drive. As opposed to extrinsic motivation which is completing a task with the belief of receiving something in return, intrinsic motivation is the inherent need to complete the task for enjoyment, interest, and psychological satisfaction. Deci et al. (1981) believe that intrinsic motivation provides the best chance for long-term interest in an activity. As seen in Figure 2, two individuals can complete the same task but for different reasons. One child is seen playing soccer for internal enjoyment while the other is playing for success. In theory, intrinsic motivation appears to have the greatest long-term benefits for completing goals or the long-term participation in practically any activity; but are that the same principles for cooperation? Cooperation from intrinsic sources can come into fruition if you genuinely like a person, or if the task completed is intrinsically driven.

Social dilemmas

Social dilemmas are psychological games that are used predominately in economic theory for the purpose of measuring behaviour between two individuals, they provide a simple and measurable result of how individuals cooperate, trust, and reason their actions (Boone et al., 1999). With social dilemmas giving a base of performance in the games, psychologists can begin to measure different variables that motivate cooperation, including personality traits, intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, and emotions such as guilt and remorse.

The chicken dilemma

Chicken is a social dilemma in which two players encounter conflict and work on cooperation to achieve a positive result. The game’s most common model involves two drivers heading towards a single-lane bridge from opposite sides. If both drivers continue straight onto the bridge they cause a halt on the single bridge or even worse, fatally crash. The best result for one of the drivers is for the other driver to swerve, allowing you to cross the bridge without stopping. If both drivers believe the other will swerve and they both continue on the road, the worst result will occur. The game involves no strategy as it is more reflective on what you believe the other driver will do, that is, it is predominately instinctual for what you believe another individual to do in a ‘life or death’ situation. Chicken teases the idea that being non-cooperative delivers the best result (crossing the bridge) but this involves trust in the other driver to cooperate (Lange et al., 2013).

The prisoner's dilemma

Figure 3. Diagram of the prisoner's dilemma which shows the potential sentence periods for confessing versus remaining silent

In the prisoner’s dilemma, two criminals are both assumed to be guilty. They are taken into a police station for questioning and are placed in separate rooms with no chance of communication. The detectives working on the case only have enough evidence to give both offenders weaker sentences unless there is a confession. In their separate rooms, both individuals are given a chance to confess, being offered immunity for their confession knowing that their partner in crime will be charged and given a higher sentence.  If both offenders confess against each other, then both will receive a moderate sentence. Regarding both individuals’ total amount of years in jail, the best result for the criminals is for both not to confess as they will both receive a weaker sentence. The best result for an individual's personal gain is to confess against the other individual, receive immunity, and serve 0 years in prison, but what is to stop both individuals from confessing against each other? In figure 3, the sentences in years are shown in each box depending on what both individuals choose to do. The figure shows that the smallest total sentence is for both individuals to cooperate, but trust and the appeal of individual freedom is overwhelming. Although the personal gain is appealing to confess instantly, the values around social value orientation, such as trust and altruism can conflict with this decision, as you are under the impression that your partner would not confess either.

Factors that impact cooperation

Personality

All humans have individual personalities, it’s part of what makes us all unique in our own way. Personality has been shown to have a strong influence on an individual’s capability to cooperate with others. Depending on an individual's different traits on a measured scale, they may project different behaviour to other individuals placed in the same situation.

Sensation seeking

Different people can have different needs when it is associated with experiencing new things and staying in a routine. High sensation-seeking is the internal need to constantly experience new and different stimuli as opposed to low sensation seekers who prefer stability, safe and predictable scenarios (Boone et al., 1999). High sensation seeking has a relationship with cooperation but in a more abstract sense. In a situation where two individuals are in conflict, both may be too stubborn to be the first to reach out to repair the relationship and ‘cooperate’. High sensation-seeking is seen to be correlated with the individual who breaks the tension and reaches out to cooperate first (Boone et al., 1999).

Locus of control

Internal locus of control is the generalised belief of internal control versus external control of situations that they may encounter in everyday life. Although it is a relatively new relationship to be considered alongside cooperation; locus of control has shown that individuals who are more internalised in their control make more cooperative decisions than those individuals who perceive more external control. The locus of control is also shown to correlate with the Interpersonal trust scale, showing that internally ranked individuals are more likely than externally ranked individuals to trust verbal and written statements (Boone et al., 1999).

Self-monitoring

Another personality trait is self-monitoring, which can be defined as an individual’s regulation of their self-presentation, and how they are perceived by others (Snyder, 1974). Those individuals who are higher in self-monitoring are shown to be highly responsive to social cues and are more inclined to show cooperative behaviour. In contrast, individuals who are lower in self-monitoring are shown to be less responsive to other individual reactions, or simply just care less about others’ reactions. Baron (1989) found that individuals regarded high to moderate in social monitoring report themselves to be more likely to defuse conflict in a cooperative manner; such as comprising and collaboration. Those individuals who were recorded as having low self-monitoring are less inclined to comprise and collaborate and led to behaviours not associated with cooperation, such as avoidance and competition.

Guilt

Guilt is a common emotion that can change our actions, even if our initial thought process is different. In relative literature, guilt is known as essential for the strengthening of interpersonal relationships and is identified as the degree to which an individual suffers from letting down another (Peeters & Forstaz, 2021). Feeling empathetic and guilty about our actions can lead to cooperative behaviour due to the idea that individuals treat others how they are expected to be treated. When these moral lines are conflicted, the individual feels guilt. Peeters and Forstaz (2021) found that guilt is another measure of why individuals may choose to cooperate, especially in the prisoner’s dilemma.

Practical applications and examples

Military

From what is seen in Hollywood movies to what is taught in school, most people can agree that the military has a reputation for being rule-driven and heavily disciplined. In every aspect of the military, they are drilled and constantly reminded about the importance of teamwork and cooperation. Observing these military operations including everything from marches to close range procedures, you can observe high levels of cooperation in progress. In some extreme conditions, the cooperation between military teams is the difference between life or death. What is it that motivates individuals in such situations to cooperate?

Figure 4. Military soldiers have a reputation for strong sense of discipline and cooperation among each other.

Godé-Sanchez (2010) places trust as one of the major factors for cooperation among the military, stating that a mutual trust that the squad will complete their tasks forces a sense of responsibility to reciprocate the trust received. A sense of responsibility for your actions possibly affecting those around you can motivate individuals to think for the best interest of the team and not for personal gain. In extreme conditions such as warfare, it’s this feeling of responsibility that can motivate cooperation among teammates. This is not for the purpose of pleasure that intrinsic motivational theory would suggest, but more so as a fight or flight response where the primary goal is to ensure that yourself and those that you are responsible for survive.

This belief of responsibility for another individual and the theory of altruism can provide insight into what motivates military cooperation. As explained by Bosworth et al. (2016), individuals with high altruistic traits have a strong disposition for benefiting other people even if this results in negative outcomes for the individual. This strong belief in helping teammates and trusting them to do the same is what motivates military operations to maintain the strong cohesion and cooperation that is observed, even in the most extreme conditions.

Sports

For all team sports, cooperation is essential for long-term success. Having chemistry and trust among each other is what can make a good team a great team. Individuals who have long-term success in team-oriented sports must have intrinsic motivation to enjoy what they do and spend their lives working for, but for the competitive edge, research suggests that its extrinsic motivation pushes individuals further. What this means is that during a competitive game the motivation moves from intrinsically playing the game for pleasure to being extrinsically motivated to succeed and beat the other team. Outside of particularly significant games, Deci et al., (1981) claim that extrinsic motivational cues can undermine the intrinsic value of an event due to competition, but for particular individuals, it’s the competition that can encourage motivation when there is previously no incentive to participate (Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004).

Along with team sports, the performance of athletes in individual sports is enhanced by cooperation. The relationship between a sporting superior, such as a coach is pivotal towards the direction of motivation the athlete takes. For coach and athlete relationships where there is an autonomy type dynamic, which allows the athlete to have a say in their strategy, the motivation to complete the activity is enhanced. (Gillet et al., 2009). Arguably, the feedback and positive relationship with the superior is the extrinsic incentive that the individuals are working towards receiving.

Sports offer a unique view to cooperation since the requirement to be motivated and driven is what makes an athlete successful. Intrinsic motivation is present, as there is an internal requirement of pleasure to train and continue to play when there is no vital requirement to play, such as a salary to support their family. To be more competitive than others in a sport is where extrinsic motivation is essential, as the extrinsic incentive of winning and either receiving feedback from coaches or hoisting up a trophy is what gives individuals the drive to continue to play. Both intrinsic and extrinsic can motive cooperation, and depending on the specific circumstance of the athlete would you see one more dominant.

Conclusion

Cooperation is a behaviour between multiple individuals who work to achieve a common goal. Every human will face cooperation at least once in their life and this encourages the importance of understanding why individuals cooperate.

The Social dilemmas give a practical view of cooperation in action, showing how trust between two people can provide the best outcome, or how individuals can either favour themselves at the expense of the other. Outside of research settings, cooperation can be seen in sports as well as in military operations, with both offering different environments as to why individuals cooperate. Personality factors can change individuals’ levels to cooperate with each other, and with the endless variations of different personalities, the possibilities are endless for different responses to a single event. With empirically researched scales in place, research professionals can measure cooperation and with further research predict cooperation.

Throughout this chapter, the following primary questions that were sought to answer were; What are the major psychological theories on cooperation? What variables can influence an individual's capability to cooperate? Is there a way to improve cooperation?

Through the major psychological theories including social value and extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, a broad base of research is present for what is known about cooperation. These theories in line with different personality factors give a measurable approach to cooperation, with different variables within the individual all producing different results and explanations for cooperation. With further research, cooperation and become a behaviour that can be predicted on a measurable scale, allowing social psychologists to have the best understanding of our interpersonal relationships and how to improve them.

See also

• Beneficence as a psychological need (Book chapter, 2021)
• Rewards, punishments, and social cooperation (Book chapter, 2019)

References

Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 533-547. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040

Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the type a behavior pattern and self-monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 281-296. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90028-9

Bogart, S., Boone, C., & Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 453-480. doi:10.1348/014466607X244970

Boone, C., Brabander, B. D., & Wittleloostuijn, A. v. (1999). The impact of personality on behavior in Prisoner's Dilemma games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 343-377. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00012-4

Bosworth, S. J., Singer, T., & Snower, D. J. (2016). Cooperation, motivation and social balance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72-94. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.12.005

Caporael, L. R., Dawes, R. M., & Orbell, J. M. (2010). Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 683-699. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00025292

Deci, E. L., Betley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L., & Porac, J. (1981). When Trying to Win: Competition and Intrinsic Motivation. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 79-83. doi: 10.1177/014616728171012

Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., Amoura, S., & Baldes, B. (2009). Influence of coaches' autonomy support on athletes' motivation and sport performance: A test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.10.004

Godé-Sanchez, C. (2010). Leveraging Coordination in Project Based Activities: What Can We Learn From Military Teamwork? Project Management Journal, 69-78. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20178

Lange, P. A., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125-141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning Play into Work: Effects of Adult Surveillance and Extrinsic Rewards on Children's Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 479-486. doi: 10.1037/h0076484

Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. j. (2011). Measuring Social Value Orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 771-781. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1804189

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54-67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 849-861. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.849

Van Lange, P. A., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125-141. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003

External links

• From competition to cooperation (Ted talk, 2015)
• Game theory (Scishow, 2016)
• The prisoner's dilemma (This place, 2017)