essay on competition and cooperation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Neurosci

Why to cooperate is better than to compete: brain and personality components

Michela balconi.

1 Research Unit in Affective and Social Neuroscience, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

2 Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123 Milan, Italy

Davide Crivelli

Maria elide vanutelli, associated data.

The data are stored in publicly available repositories, Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan, and to the following website link http://www.psychoneuronet.com/research_Research.php . To require the access details to [email protected].

Cooperation and competition were compared in the present study. Brain correlates (electroencephalography, EEG frequency band, delta, theta, alpha, and beta) and hemodynamic measure of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS, O2Hb) were acquired during a joined cooperative (Experiment 1) or competitive (Experiment 2) task. Subjects were required to match each other’s cognitive performance (cooperation) or to make better than others (competition) in terms of accuracy (error rate, ER) and response time (RT). In addition, a personality trait measure (behavioral activation system, BAS) was used to distinguish subjects based on their rewarding attitude. Self-perception of social ranking and real performance were considered in response to subjects’ performance (that was artificially manipulated to show an increasing or decreasing profile during the task).

An increased left prefrontal cortical (PFC) responsiveness was found for subjects who had higher BAS rating in case of both cooperation and competition conditions. Moreover, subjects with higher BAS ratings showed greater frontal left activity during the cooperative task. These subjects also concomitantly perceived an increasing in social ranking and improved their performance.

Conclusions

Present results demonstrated that some trait components (BAS) and cooperative condition induce a positive self-representation in term of ranking and a best way to perform the task, as underlined by self-perception and cognitive outcomes. Indeed the higher BAS trait proved to be related with the representation of higher social ranking and with the perception of improved cognitive outcomes, with also a significant increased left PFC activity in cooperative contexts.

Cooperation and competition are part of our daily life. When a cooperative or competitive interpersonal task is performed, it may induce different effects that are influenced by the “social” meaning of cooperation or competition and by self-perception in that interpersonal context. When considering social hierarchy, the occurrence of a cognitive task performed together can be accompanied by a modification in our self-representations according to the outcomes. In detail, the perception we built about ourselves is the result of a social analysis on our ranking within a specific situation in which we receive a feedback for our performance. Indeed firstly comparing my own and others’ performance on a specific interpersonal task may (or may not) enhance my rank perception in term of efficacy, taking into account the pre-existing condition. In second instance, the performance related to our cognitive efforts is able to influence self-perception and has an important role in creating a pertinent awareness of our own skills. This process is fundamental for the development of self-improvement in the future [ 1 ]. Finally, when we consider social hierarchy perception as a comparison between out performance and others’ skills, it has to be considered that also the behavioral outcomes could be strongly affected, both per se and jointly [ 1 ].

But how does this process take place in different interpersonal situations such as cooperation and competition?

Cooperative or competitive performance gained in an interpersonal task substantially implies a process of social comparison together with the explicit assessment of individual performances. Previous work already investigated the relation between self-perception, perceived efficacy, and social hierarchy within a competitive scenario. Findings demonstrated that competition is able to improve individual performances and, contemporarily, to contribute to higher perceptions of the social ranking position based on the behavioral performance [ 2 – 4 ]. However it may implicate a lower sense of in-group partnership and it may make the perception of social membership weaker [ 5 ]. In contrast, studies that explored cooperative conditions showed that they are associated with a stronger perceived membership and self-efficacy, a general well-being within the social context, and a reinforced perception of having a high position in the social hierarchy [ 2 , 5 – 8 ]. It was also shown that the adoption of a cooperative approach can strengthen interpersonal connection. On the other hand, however, cooperative attitudes could be associated with worse performance than competitive ones [ 2 ].

Therefore it is relevant and urgent to distinguish the self-perception of our social efficacy and our position within a social ranking in different interpersonal conditions—namely in competitive or cooperative situations, which produce qualitatively distinct social and psychological dynamics. For example, in our previous study social ranking, as perceived by the individual, was already investigated within a competitive paradigm taking into account also other personality variables [ 3 ]. The analyses have been conducted by comparing different experimental conditions with mild or strong social reinforce about subjects’ performance. Nevertheless, no specific studies directly compared the influence of those two contexts (cooperation and competition) in respect to perceivable interpersonal feedbacks. Indeed, it should be noted that cooperation and competition are two basic modes of interpersonal interaction [ 9 , 10 ]. It has been shown that both cooperative and competitive scenarios imply the adoption of others’ point of view, empathy, and the capacity to adjust our own behaviors according to that of others [ 11 ]. However, these subjective capacities are expressed even more during competition which involves the presence of divergent goals [ 9 , 12 ].

Cooperation and competition also call on different social and cognitive processes. Specifically, it was suggested that empathic and mentalizing attitudes differ somehow between cooperation and competition. Gallagher and Frith [ 13 ] suggested that it is important to consider and handle both others’ mental state and reality [ 14 ]. This mechanism rely on executive functions and, specifically, on executive inhibition, that is the deliberate suppression of a salient knowledge or response to achieve a personal aim which also comes from inside [ 15 , 16 ]. Indeed, depending on the interaction modalities (cooperation vs. competition), individuals may either facilitate or hinder others’ goal achievement. When considering competition, the rival’s behavior is much more unpredictable than the cooperative partner. In fact, in this last condition, there are planned and shared expectations about the partner’s behavior, since the goal is common.

Thus, the strong increase in the prefrontal cortex activity—mainly the medial prefrontal cortex—observed during competition may in part mirror higher executive processing demands [ 9 ]. Specifically, it was demonstrated that the processing load related to competitive social dynamics are associated with increased brain activation, as indicated by alpha EEG power, across all examined brain regions. As such, competition imposed higher cognitive load. In addition, even the increase in cortico-cortical communication and interconnections was consistent, likely mirroring heightened communication between all strategy planning regions (i.e., prefrontal areas). In contrast, other research demonstrated that one’s own actions are facilitated when actions of the others are more predictable [ 17 , 18 ]. This is the case in response to cooperation, but the opposite in response to competitive conditions.

Moreover, recent research on the structure and function of neural circuits associated with social perception, social efficacy and social ranking offers preliminary evidence for an anterior neural circuit for those processes related to social cognition. Indeed, it was observed that neural circuits linking limbic, PFC, and striatal structures may be involved in such circuits and related to social responses in their affective, cognitive and behavioral components [ 19 ]. Both dorsolateral (DLPFC) and ventrolateral (VLPFC) cortices have proven to be involved during ranking considerations [ 6 , 20 , 21 ]. The activity of these brain areas during social interactions that implicate perception of social performance are likely to be associated with higher-level top down processes over, for example, affective responses when considering social ranking. Such mechanisms are meant to manage appropriate behavioral responses when considering social status. As already suggested by previous evidence, these neural circuits could be recruited to trigger socio-emotional responses and behavioral inhibition [ 22 ].

Finally, a main important role is related to motivational aspects and “rewarding” conditions activated by cooperation or competition. In fact, specific brain areas are involved according to task type and rewarding condition. Previously it was found that cooperation furnishes a social motivation and is related to right orbitofrontal activation. Competition, instead, is less socially rewarding, but requires supplementary mentalizing resources. It is associated with higher activity in medial prefrontal areas. Moreover recent research found that motivations and emotions can influence the perception of social position by creating a (more) positive versus negative predisposition in social relationships. Therefore, we supposed that the way people evaluate their position in the social hierarchy partially relies upon some motivational and emotional components, such as the degree to which their actions are well balanced between “approach” attitudes in relation to rewards and absence of punishment, as well as “withdraw” from punishments and absence of reward.

Specifically, it was previously shown that high-BAS individuals (the behavioral activation system, BAS; [ 23 ]) show more frequently a dominant attitude within social contexts. This fact is thought to positively influence the subject and his/her representations within the social hierarchy).

On the contrary, high-BIS individuals (behavioral inhibition system, BIS) are often associated with submissive attitudes, with negative consequences on social representations [ 24 ]. Generally speaking, the BAS is described as a motivational system which is triggered by rewarding signals and non-punishment, and responsible for approaching and active behavioral patterns.

In addition BAS is generally connected with feelings of dominance and high-BAS people are more sensitive to approach-related emotional contexts, with a favorable and dominant behavior toward the context [ 25 – 33 ]. In previous research, a significant BAS effect was found in distinguishing social hierarchy and social performance [ 6 , 21 , 34 ]. As for the cortical correlates of BIS/BAS, they are deemed as mutually inhibitory and they are lateralized: it has been demonstrated that the left PFC is the cortical location of approach-related motivations and emotions, while the right PFC of withdrawal-related processes [ 27 , 29 , 35 , 36 ].

However, as for cortical correlates of cooperation/competition, it remains to be explored if and how the neural activity is differently modulated by competition- or cooperation-induced social evaluations when the cognitive outcome is experimentally manipulated. Indeed no previous studies have manipulated the performance and the ranking position to explore that comparison. Available evidences indicate that during social exchange many brain areas are involved, but it is still to be explored which is the specific contribution of each of them to the agents’ different mind-sets when they compete or cooperate to achieve a shared goal.

To explore the cortical impact of cooperation and competition and the main role of motivational components such as BAS trait, in the present research we monitored electroencephalographic (EEG) and hemodynamic (functional near-infrared spectroscopy, fNIRS) activity in two different experiments (Experiments 1 and 2).

Indeed, firstly, EEG activity may be considered as a good measure of brain responsiveness, and it has often been used to describe distinct responsiveness by the two hemispheres to different emotional and social conditions [ 27 , 28 , 37 , 38 ]. Specifically, the hemispheric lateralization model of emotions furnished clear evidences about the significance of the left (more positive valenced stimuli) and right (more negative valences stimuli) hemisphere in correspondence with the alpha band modulation [ 37 ]. In addition, EEG modulation was used to demonstrate the lateralized PFC responsiveness related to BAS trait. Indeed, it has been found that a decrease in alpha activity (higher cortical activation) over frontal areas in the left hemisphere typically emerges in response to approach attitude [ 26 , 29 , 39 – 43 ]. Thus, a hemispheric lateralization was found based on brain oscillations and in concomitance with BIS/BAS distinction. In general, also low-frequency bands can be ascribed to the emotional significance of the stimulus condition. Indeed their modulation was revealed for emotional behavior and in concomitance with high BAS (more left activity) and low-BAS (more right activity). Some studies showed that theta activity is sensitive to emotional stimulation [ 44 , 45 ], and it was suggested that some specific neurons in the amygdala are related to theta activity during emotional arousal [ 46 – 48 ]. In contrast, few evidences exist on modulations of beta bands in association to the affective significance of a context [ 49 ]. For what concerns delta, instead, it has been hypothesized its functional role in signaling novelty within emotional contexts. Also, it could be related to updating processes of affective stimuli in memory [ 50 ]. Therefore it seems to respond to attentional salience of the stimulus, more than to its emotional content per se. Focusing on competition, instead, Babiloni et al. [ 51 ], in an ecologically valid task simulating a card game, found a increased activity in PFC and anterior cingulated cortex for different frequency ranges for the player who leaded the game, if compared to other players.

Secondly, even if previous work provided functional imaging data associated with social ranking, the temporal features of such processes still need to be addressed. The classical imaging (i.e., functional magnetic resonance, fMRI) measures do not seem to completely describe the real nature of the social inter-personal processes. Thanks to the sudden development of affective and interactive contexts, they require to be studied by imaging techniques that can also provide a sufficient resolution in both temporal and spatial domains and then allow recording event-related hemodynamic responses, such as NIRS [ 52 ]. In addition, joint EEG/NIRS techniques permit a simultaneous investigation of electrocortical and hemodynamic features of brain activity during social exchange [ 53 , 54 ].

Therefore based on our hypotheses, competition versus cooperation may ingenerate different cortical response in PFC based on the underlying more or less rewarding social outcomes. In addition personality components (BAS) was hypothesized to influence perceived hierarchical position—in terms of higher self-perceived abilities for higher BAS—and cognitive performance—namely, improved cognitive outcomes. In other words, the perceived effectiveness of behavior in term of performance during a competitive or cooperative task may be positively modulated by reward mechanisms and consequently these mechanisms may impact on the real cognitive outcomes (improved performance for higher BAS). That is, the improving performance effect should be prominent for high-BAS subjects as a consequence of perceived dominant position and rewarding context, which are clearly positively judged by high-BAS people. Such processes should result in a left lateralized prefrontal activation, as previously discussed about the neural circuits underlying cognitive and social representation. Thus, the need to better explore the role of PFC and its different hemispheric contribution to self-perceived social ranking in combination with personality components [ 6 , 20 , 21 , 55 ] is compelling. Some differences were expected between cooperation/competition, with greater left PFC responsiveness for higher BAS in cooperation. Higher BAS subjects in cooperation may more directly beneficiate of this increased PFC activity, due to the increased effect of cooperation on the sense of rewarding by the efficacious joint-actions. Based on previous results, it is likely that an hemispheric “competition” between left and right structures would characterize social hierarchy behavior, with a greater approach attitude and dominance in cooperative condition being associated to a left lateralized pattern. Therefore decreased alpha activity (i.e., increased brain responsiveness) and increased theta (more emotionally and motivationally related) EEG component and increased oxygenated hemoglobin (O2Hb as measured by fNIRS) should emerge for higher-BAS participants compared to higher-BIS participants in the frontal left brain area when they cooperate. In addition, we expected a general increased left more than right brain responsiveness in high-BAS when they cooperate.

To summarize, the three compartments of social ranking perception, personality components and cognitive performance should have a common trend, since we expected a correlated increased self-perception of social ranking and a better performance in relation to higher-BAS, with a subsequent higher activation over left frontal areas.

Experiment 1

Twenty-two undergraduate students (M = 22.13, SD = 1.98; male = 12) took part in the experiment. All participants were right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity. Exclusion criteria consisted in the presence of a psychopathological history for the subjects and immediate family. In addition, State-Trait-Anxiety-Inventory (STAI, [ 56 ]) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II, [ 57 ]) were administered after the experimental session. No neurological or psychiatric pathologies were observed. No payment was provided for subjects’ performance. They gave informed written consent to participate in the study. The research was approved by the local ethics committee of the Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan.

Participants were accommodated in a moderately lit room in front of a monitor screen positioned at around 60 cm from their eyes. They were required to complete a simple task on sustained selective attention (modified from the original version: [ 21 ]). Subjects were informed that some measures about their attentive performance would have been used to evaluate personal skills and, to improve their motivation, that these indices are usually adopted to assess potential career success and teamwork capacities. In addition, the cooperative goal of the task was underlined. Participants were also informed that the scorings were calculated according to their ability to produce synchronized responses with their partner, in term of accuracy (% of correct responses) and response times (RTs). They were positioned side-by-side but they could not interact each other since they were divided by a black screen.

The instruction was to choose target stimuli between non-targets. Stimuli consisted in geometric shapes and were arranged according to four shape/color combinations: triangles or circles, blue or green. The target remained on the video to be memorized and then all the experimental stimuli were displayed one after another. The target stimulus changed every 25 trials. Subjects were required to make a two-alternative forced-choice by pressing a left/right button. Stimuli were displayed for 500 ms, and separated by a 300 ms inter-stimulus interval (ISI). After each trial, constituted by three stimuli, a feedback was presented on the screen as two up-arrows (high cooperation score), a dash (mean performance), or two down-arrows (low cooperation score). The feedback was presented for 5000 ms, and it was preceded and followed by 5000 ms blanks. The task was composed by 8 blocks (for a total of 200 trials) (Fig.  1 ). Halfway, subjects were provided with a general evaluation of their cooperative performance. Both feedbacks and the intermediate evaluation were fixed by the experimenter, and couples were told they had a good cooperative (synchronicity) score with 89% about speed synchrony, and 94% about accuracy synchrony. They were also asked to keep their performance level during the second half of the task. Across the experiment, after a preliminary phase with a mean performance, participants were continually reinforced about their proficient cooperation scores by presenting the positive feedbacks (up-arrows) in 70% of cases, and the neutral or negative feedbacks (dash or the down-arrows) in 30% of cases. Moreover, after answering all the stimuli in each block (25 trials), participants were asked to complete a self-evaluation scale about their performance and ranking by using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very low ranking due to performance, to 7 = very high ranking). Subjects reported to be strongly engaged in the hierarchical situation (94% told to be strongly engaged), as assessed by post-session questionnaire data. Participants were also required to state their trust level about the provided feedbacks on the performance (which showed high trust, 94%), the relevance of the game for social status (97%), and the potentially perceived upgrading of ranking position during the experiment (92%).

Experimental procedure which represents setting, task and EEG and O2Hb measure for both cooperation (Experiment 1) and competition (Experiment 2)

BAS scores were calculated for each subject (Italian version [ 58 ] of Carver and White [ 59 ] Questionnaire). The questionnaire included 24 items (20 score-items and 4 fillers, measured on a four-point Likert scale), and two total scores for BIS (range = 7–28; items 7) and BAS (range = 13–52; items 13). BAS includes three different subscales (Reward, 5 items, Drive, 4 items, and Fun Seeking, 4 items). Two total scores (BIS and BAS total) and three BAS subscale scores have been calculated. The mean values and standard deviations for each scale were respectively: BAS: 48.13 (3.89); Reward: 23.70 (2.64); Drive: 13.88 (1.97); Fun Seeking: 13.54 (2.87). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for BAS (.87) and for each BAS subscale (Reward .88; Drive .88, and Fun Seeking .91). Since BIS and BAS were orthogonally distributed and systematically participants higher in BAS were lower in BIS, BIS was not used in this phase of research. One subject was not considered in final analyses since he showed a mixed-profile (both high-BAS and high-BIS score). The questionnaire was given to the subjects after completing the experimental phase.

EEG recording and analysis

EEG recordings were conducted with two 16-channel EEG-systems (V-AMP: Brain Products, München. Truscan: Deymed Diagnostic, Hronov). An ElectroCap with Ag/AgCl electrodes was applied to record EEGs from active sites on the scalp referred to the earlobes (10/5 international system; [ 60 ]). Data were acquired using a sampling rate of 500 Hz, with a frequency band of .01–40 Hz. An off-line common average reference was computed later to attenuate the problems related with the signal-to-noise ratio [ 61 ]. One EOG electrode was positioned on the outer canthi to identify eye movements. The impedance of the recording electrodes was supervised for each subject before beginning data collection and was always below 5 kΩ. The signal was visually inspected, and those portions of data that contained artifacts were removed to increase specificity. Blinks were also visually checked. Ocular artifacts (eye movements and blinks) were corrected by using an eye-movement correction algorithm that applies a regression analysis together with artifact averaging [ 62 ]. After performing EOG correction and visual inspection, only artifact-free trials were included (rejected epochs, 2%).

The digital EEG data were bandpass filtered in the frequency bands: delta (.5–4), theta (4–8), alpha (8–12 Hz), beta (14–20) (band-pass filtering 96 dB/octave rolloff, warm-up filter left and right to 100 ms). To obtain a signal proportion to the power of the EEG frequency band, the filtered signal samples (epoch 1000 ms) were squared [ 63 ]. An average absolute power value for each experimental condition was calculated, as well as of the pre-experimental absolute power (−200 ms), that was used to determine the individual power without experimental stimulation. For the statistical analyses only left and right frontal (FFC3h, FFC4h) power activity for each frequency band was considered [ 64 ] (Fig.  2 ).

The location NIRS channels. NIRS: The emitters were placed on positions FC3–FC4 and F1–F2, while detectors were placed on FC1–FC2 and F3–F4

fNIRS recording and analysis

fNIRS measurements were performed with the NIRScout System (NIRx Medical Technologies, LLC., Los Angeles, California) using an 8-channel arrangement of optodes (4 light sources/emitters and 4 detectors) positioned over the prefrontal area. Optodes were placed on frontal and fronto-central sites (Sources: FC3–FC4 and F1–F2; Detectors: FC1–FC2 and F3–F4) (Fig.  2 ). Emitter–detector distance was kept at 30 mm for contiguous optodes. Also, a near-infrared light of two wavelengths (760 and 850 nm) was used. NIRS optodes were applied to the subject’s head using a NIRS-EEG compatible cap, by considering the international 10/5 system.

For data acquisition, NIRStar Acquisition Software was used to detect changes in the concentration of oxygenated hemoglobin (O2Hb) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (HHb). A starting baseline (120 s) was also recorded. Signals obtained from the eight channels were acquired with a sampling rate of 6.25 Hz, and analyzed and transformed according to their wavelength and location. The result of this procedure consisted in values for the changes in the concentration of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin for each channel. Hemoglobin quantity is scaled in mmol ∗ mm, implying that all concentration changes depend on the path length of the NIR light in the brain.

The raw data of O2Hb and HHb from each channel were digitally band-pass filtered at .01–.3 Hz. Successively, the mean concentration within each subject was calculated by averaging data across the trials from the feedback onset for 5 s. According to the mean concentrations in the time series, we computed the effect size in every condition for each channel within a subject. The effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated as the difference of the means of the baseline and trial divided by the standard deviation (SD) of the baseline: d = (m 1  − m 2 )/s. Accordingly, m 1 and m 2 are the mean concentration values during the baseline and trial, and s means the SD of the baseline. The mean concentration value of 5 s immediately before the trial was used as event-related baseline. Then, the effect sizes obtained from the eight channels were averaged in a way to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. Although NIRS raw data were originally relative values and could not be directly compared across subjects or channels, this procedure that normalized data allowed averaging regardless of the unit [ 65 – 67 ]. In fact, the effect size is not affected by differential pathlength factor (DPF) [ 66 ].

Four different levels of analyses were applied by considering to behavioral (error rates, ERs; response times, RTs; ranking self-perception) and neurophysiological (frequency ranges: delta, theta, alpha and beta; O2Hb modulation) measures. Behavioral measures have been entered into repeated measure ANCOVAs which included the covariate factor BAS (two levels, high- vs. low), while analyses applied to each frequency band and O2Hb measures included both BAS as covariate and Lateralization (Lat, two levels, left vs. right) as independent factor.

RTs have been calculated from the stimulus presentation, and ERs, the number of wrong answers, were computed as a percentage within each experimental condition. Accordingly, higher scores reflect worse responses: longer and inaccurate. For what concerns perceived self-efficacy, ranking score was considered (for this variable see “ Procedure ”). Band modulation and O2Hb and HHb were calculated as the mean values during the performance. For all of the ANCOVA analyses, the degrees of freedom were adjusted by using Greenhouse–Geisser epsilon if needed. For significant interaction effects, paired contrast analyses were also conducted. Bonferroni correction was adopted for multiple comparisons.

As last step, different sets of correlations were run between behavioral performance (ER; RTs), perceived self-efficacy, O2Hb, and the four frequency bands.

Results indicated a significant effect for BAS ( F [1, 21] = 8.23, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .37). Indeed high-BAS rating showed a decreased ER compared to low-BAS rating. In order to display the high-BAS versus low-BAS rating differences, Fig.  3 a and the following ones represent the high-BAS and low-BAS subjects based on two cut-offs, more than 50 (mean + 1 SD, N = 10) for high, and less than 44 (mean − 1 SD, N = 12) for low-BAS subjects.

a ERs, b RTs and c self-perception modulation as a function of BAS

ANOVA indicated significant main effects for BAS ( F [1, 21] = 6.98, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .33), with a general decreased RTs for high-BAS compared to low-BAS rating (Fig.  3 b).

Self-ranking

About the evaluation of the ranking position in term of performance, ANCOVA indicated significant effect for BAS ( F [1, 21] = 8.55, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .38). Indeed high-BAS rating showed higher ranking perception than low-BAS rating (Fig.  3 c).

Frequency band analysis

About delta and beta no main or interaction effect was significant at the analysis. With regard to theta, ANCOVA indicated significant effects for Lat ( F [1, 21] = 7.60, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .36) and Lat × BAS ( F [1, 21] = 8.04, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .39). The significant post hoc effects, that we reported, showed increased left theta activity for high-BAS compared to low-BAS rating ( F [1, 21] = 6.78, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .33), whereas no significant differences were found within the right hemisphere based on high-low-BAS ( F [1, 21] = 2.01, p  = .23, η 2  = .11). A higher left than right responsiveness was also revealed for high-BAS rating ( F [1, 21] = 7.11, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .33). About alpha ANCOVA indicated significant main effects for Lat × BAS ( F [1, 21] = 7.76, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35), with decreased left alpha activity (increased brain response) for high-BAS rating compared to low-BAS rating ( F [1, 21] = 7.90, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .36); whereas no significant differences were found within the right hemisphere ( F [1, 21] = 1.92, p  = .32, η 2  = .22). In addition high-BAS rating showed decreased alpha in the left than in the right side ( F [1, 21] = 8.04, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .36) (Fig.  4 a, b).

Alpha ( a ) and theta ( b ) variation as a function of BAS within the left hemisphere. High-BAS showed increased left response compared to low-BAS

The statistical analyses were applied to d dependent measure for O2Hb and HHb-concentration. The analysis on HHb did not reveal significant effect and, for this reason, we reported only results for O2Hb-values. D dependent measures were fed to Lat factor and BAS covariate repeated measure ANCOVA. For Lat factor the data were averaged over the left (F1–F3, F1–FC1, FC3–FC1, FC3–F3) and the right (F2–F4, F2–FC2, FC4–FC2, FC4–F4) channels.

As shown, Lat ( F [1, 21] = 7.98, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35) and Lat × BAS effects were significant ( F [1, 21] = 9.13, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .39). About the main effect, it was observed a general increased left activity and a specific left increased response for high-BAS scoring ( F [1, 21] = 9.78, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .40). Moreover, about the simple effects, it was observed an increased response for high-BAS scoring within the left more than the right hemisphere ( F [1, 21] = 7.78, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35) (Fig.  5 ).

O2Hb modulation (D values) as a function of BAS. High-BAS showed increased left-lateralized response compared to low-BAS

Correlation analysis

A series of correlation analysis was applied to cognitive performance (ERs; RTs), self-perception, D, and EEG modulation. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between them. BAS revealed significant positive correlation with self-ranking (r 2  = .498, p  ≤ .001) and performance (RTs) (r 2  = .509, p  ≤ .001). In addition BAS was inversely correlated with alpha within the left hemisphere (r 2  = −.399, p  ≤ .001) (increased left brain activity in concomitance with higher BAS), and directly correlated with theta (r 2  = .543, p  ≤ .001) and D modulation (r 2  = .467, p  ≤ .001). In addition self-ranking was inversely correlated with RTs (r 2  = −.464, p  ≤ .001) and directly correlated with theta (r 2  = .578, p  ≤ .001) (increased left activity in concomitance with higher self-ranking) and O2Hb (r 2  = .525, p  ≤ .001). Finally O2Hb and theta band proved to be correlated (r 2  = .515, p  ≤ .001).

Experiment 2

Thirty undergraduate students (M = 22.38, SD = 2.55; male = 13) took part in the experiment. The same selection criteria adopted for Experiment 1 were used in the Experiment 2.

The same procedure of Experiment 1 was adopted, with a specific variation in term of the nature of the task. Indeed in Experiment 2 the competitive task was stressed: participants were told that the scoring was based on the capacity to beat the partner, in term of accuracy and speed. Also in this case a general (fake) evaluation was presented halfway. Subjects were told that their performance was “well above” or “well below” than their rival’s one and were required to maintain their outcomes (for winners) or to improve it (for losers) during the second half of the experiment (“The measures recorded till now reveal that”: for winners: “your performance is very good. Your response profile is well superior to your competitor’s one. If you want to win, keep going like this in the following part”; for losers: “your performance is really poor. Your response profile is well inferior to your competitor’s one. If you want to win, you’ll have to improve your performance in the following part”). During the task, the trial feedbacks constantly reinforced participants about their good performance (in the case of winners) by presenting the up-arrows in 70% of cases, while the dash or the down-arrows only in 30% of cases (mainly at the beginning of the task) to make the task more credible and plausible. The opposite arrangement was proposed in the case of losers.

As shown by post-session questionnaire, participants were strongly engaged in the hierarchical situation (92%), with high trust in the feedback (96%), with a good perception of relevance of the task for social status (94%), and with a perceived improved ranking position during the task (93%).

The total scores for each scale were respectively: BAS: M = 47.90 (SD = 3.91); Reward: M = 23.76 (SD = 2.03); Drive: M = 12.98 (SD = 1.15); Fun Seeking: M = 13.09 (SD = 1.23). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for BAS (.98) and for each BAS subscale (Reward = .88; Drive = .90, and Fun Seeking = .91).

ANOVA indicated significant effect for BAS ( F [1, 29] = 6.78, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .32). High-BAS showed a decreased ER than low-BAS (Fig.  6 a). In order to display the high-BAS versus low-BAS rating differences, the present figure, and the following figures, represents the high-BAS and low-BAS ratings based on two cut-offs, i.e., includes subjects with high BAS scoring more than 49 (mean + 1 SD, N = 13); and low-BAS scoring less than 44 (mean − 1 SD, N = 17).

ANOVA indicated significant main effect for BAS ( F [1, 29] = 8.03, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .38), with decreased RTs for high-BAS than low-BAS scoring (Fig.  6 b).

About ranking position, ANOVA indicated significant effect for BAS ( F [1, 29] = 7.55, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .37). Indeed high-BAS scoring showed higher ranking perception than low-BAS scoring (Fig.  6 c).

As for delta and beta bands no main or interaction effect was significant at the analysis. With regard to theta, ANOVA revealed significant main effect for Lat ( F [1, 29] = 7.65, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35), with increase left than right activity; and significant interaction effect for Lat × BAS ( F [1, 29] = 8.55, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .38), with increased left theta activity for high-BAS scoring compared to low-BAS scoring ( F [1, 29] = 7.32, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .32). A more left than right responsiveness was also revealed for high-BAS scoring ( F [1, 29] = 7.43, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .36). As for alpha activity, the analysis indicated significant interaction effect Lat × BAS ( F [1, 29] = 7.88, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .37), with decreased left alpha activity (increased brain response) for high-BAS scoring compared to low-BAS scoring ( F [1, 29] = 9.77, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .40); whereas no significant differences were found within the right hemisphere ( F [1, 29] = 1.12, p  = .31, η 2  = .21). In addition high-BAS scoring showed decreased alpha more in the left side than in the right side ( F [1, 29] = 9.65, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .40) (Fig.  7 a, b).

As shown by ANOVA, Lat ( F [1, 29] = 7.65, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .37) and Lat × BAS were significant ( F [1, 29] = 7.89, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35), with a general increased left more than right brain activity. Moreover, reporting the significant simple effect, it was observed an increased response for high-BAS scoring within the left more than the right hemisphere ( F [1, 29] = 7.83, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .36). In addition left PFC was more responsive for high-BAS than low-BAS scoring ( F [1, 29] = 9.20, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .40) (Fig.  8 ).

O2Hb modulation as a function of BAS. High-BAS showed increased left-lateralized response compared to low-BAS

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between ERs, RTs, self-perception, O2Hb and EEG. BAS revealed significant positive correlation with self-ranking (r 2  = .455, p  ≤ .001) and inverse correlation with performance (RTs) (r 2  = −.593, p  ≤ .001). In addition BAS was inversely correlated with alpha within the left hemisphere (r 2  = −.496, p  ≤ .001) (increased left brain activity in concomitance with higher BAS), and directly correlated with theta (r 2  = .560, p  ≤ .001) and O2Hb modulation (r 2  = .499, p  ≤ .001). In addition self-ranking was inversely correlated with RTs (r 2  = −.432, p  ≤ .001), alpha modulation (r 2  = −.439, p  ≤ .001), and directly correlated with theta and O2Hb (r 2  = .555, p  ≤ .001). Finally O2Hb and theta band were significantly correlated (r 2  = .570, p  ≤ .001).

Comparison between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2

A direct comparison between the two experiments was conducted for the dependent measures of ERs, RTs, self-ranking, frequency band and O2Hb. The independent factor experiment (Experiments 1 vs. 2) was added to previous statistical design (see Experiments 1 and 2 for the statistical design). We reported only the significant effects where Exp factor was significant, to synthesize the main results.

ANCOVA indicated significant effect for Exp ( F [1, 51] = 7.85, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .36) and BAS × Exp ( F [1, 51] = 6.85, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .33). Firstly, Exp 1 showed decreased ERs than Exp 2 ( F [1, 51] = 7.11, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .34). Secondly in Exp 1 high-BAS scoring revealed reduced ERs than in Exp 2 ( F [1, 51] = 8.79, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .39).

ANCOVA indicated significant no significant effect which included the Experiment factor.

About the evaluation of their ranking position, ANCOVA indicated significant effect for Exp ( F [1, 51] = 6.90, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .34) and BAS × Exp ( F [1, 51] = 7.99, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .36). Indeed in Exp 1 self-perceived ranking was evaluated higher than in Exp 2 ( F [1, 51] = 6.50, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .30). Finally high-BAS scoring showed increased self-ranking perception in Exp 1 than in Exp 2 ( F [1, 51] = 7.41, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .34).

Frequency band

While no main or interaction effects proved to be significant for alpha, delta and beta data, ANCOVA revealed significant effects for theta bands. About theta Lat × BAS × Exp was significant ( F [1, 51] = 7.59, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35): a more left responsiveness was revealed for high-BAS scoring in Exp 1 than in Exp 2 ( F [1, 51] = 7.27, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35). In addition high-BAS compared to low-BAS scoring showed increased theta in Exp 1 ( F [1, 51] = 7.10, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .35).

As shown by ANCOVA, Lat × BAS × Exp ( F [1, 51] = 7.56, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .37) interaction effects were significant. It was observed an increased response for high-BAS scoring within the left more in Exp 1 than Exp 2 ( F [1, 51] = 7.61, p  ≤ .001, η 2  = .38).

The present research intended to explore the brain correlates and the effect of personality components (BAS) in social ranking perception and cognitive performance during a task which included a cooperative (Experiment 1) or a competitive joint-action (Experiment 2). Specifically EEG (brain oscillations) and fNIRS hemodynamic brain activity (O2Hb) were considered in subject showing high- and low-BAS profile, to elucidate how this motivational trait component may affect subjects in formulating self-representation (ranking position) and self-improvement (cognitive performance) in an interpersonal cooperative and competitive context.

A first main effect elucidated by the present research was related to the implication of PFC during the cooperative and competitive task. Indeed in both Experiments 1 and 2 the electrodes positioned over the PFC showed to be significantly modulated in response to cooperation and competition, with a significant increased activity mainly within the left side. In addition, both EEG and fNIRS measures showed a significant and increased lateralization effect in conjunction with BAS score. Such finding replicated previous results which suggested a similar role for some prefrontal areas (such as the VMPFC) in response to status perception [ 68 ]. Recent studies investigating the effect of interpersonal situations and reciprocal strategies, when interacting with cooperative and non-cooperative human partners, highlighted the presence of specific activations in the DLPFC [ 3 , 4 , 69 ] and increased activity in the superior temporal sulcus when cooperating positively with a computer [ 70 ]. Moreover, using the EEG hyper-scanning technique it was reported a specific involvement of this area when interacting during Prisoner’s Dilemma games [ 71 ].

As for the specific contribution of some frequency bands (mainly alpha and theta more than delta and beta) that we found to be relevant to explain the cortical activation, we may suggest that from one hand alpha may function as an index of brain lateralized activation. Specifically, it has been proven that a decrease in alpha power could indicate increased brain activity and a differential responsiveness by the two hemispheres in relation to specific cognitive or affective tasks [ 29 , 72 ]. From the other hand, theta was previously considered as a specific index of motivational and emotional aspect, as well as of salience of the task and of the subjects’ engagement in the task itself.

Indeed, previous work highlighted that event-related theta activity signal sustained visual stimulation with affective content [ 44 , 46 , 53 , 73 ] when coordinated responses are needed to guarantee alertness and readiness. Specifically, it was shown that, when dealing with attentive functions, theta activity is mainly localized over frontal sites. Generators reconstruction analyses also showed how such activation could be produced within cortico-hippocampal and frontolimbic networks [ 47 , 49 ]. Also, it has been shown that theta oscillations are involved in memory and emotional regulation [ 44 ] and, more recently, Kawasaki and Yamaguchi [ 74 ] found that frontal theta activity increased during interval periods while waiting for a monetary reward. In some studies theta power has also been shown to increase when goal conflicts are experienced [ 75 – 77 ]. However in the present context we may suggest that theta may preferentially functions as a marker of the salience of the task [ 46 , 47 , 49 ] and of the positivity of the interpersonal outcomes, as indicated by its sensitivity to positive feedback to the joint-action. In fact, it has been suggested that EEG frequency within theta range could be related to implicit processes within social cognition [ 78 ].

A second interesting finding consists in the recruitment of the PFC that was modulated as a function of both BAS trait and the cooperative/competitive nature of the task. This effect emerged in the modulation of EEG activity recorded over prefrontal sites and was confirmed by optical imaging analyses (fNIRS).

Indeed, in addition to this general enhanced left PFC activity, a specific lateralization pattern was found, with increased left activation with respect to the right one, mainly for higher-BAS and mainly in the case of cooperative task. Firstly, the “left hemisphere effect” in integration with the “approach attitude” was found to be leading to explain our results. This is in line with previous studies, which reported that high-BAS profiles were more likely to relate to the dominant and “proactive” attitudes in situations that were shown to induce a positive and rewarding effect [ 24 ]. Specifically, it was also demonstrated that, considering resting intracortical activity during social emotionally salient task, participants with increased left versus right DLPFC activity also displayed also showed more frequently adaptive, dominant, and approach-related responses [ 79 ].

Secondly, high-BAS scoring showed significantly greater PFC activation in case of cooperation than of competition and this brain response was related to improved performance and increased self-perceived ranking position, as was highlighted by both EEG (alpha decreasing and theta increasing) and fNIRS (O2Hb increased values). As underlined by previous data, we may explain these results taking into account evidences from evolutionary and developmental psychology, which underline that cooperating is more gratifying than competing from a social point of view since cooperation may be represented as a source of positive social feedback on the joint performance towards the common objective, in addition to the intra-subjective positive feedback as in competition [ 80 ]. Previous neuroimaging work [ 81 ] suggested the involvement of the medial orbitofrontal and anterior frontal cortex in after positive feedback and outcomes. In fact, the presence of a performance-related feedback was manipulated in different planning and guessing tasks. Another work with fMRI has revealed that the orbitofrontal cortex seems to process rewarding values after comparison, and not absolute gratifying stimuli [ 82 ]. Considering the neural substrates, it has been previously shown that the PFC is implicated when controlling finalized behaviors [ 83 ]. Moreover, the left orbitofrontal areas seem specifically related to rewarding conditions, as affirmed by the approach-withdrawal theory [ 84 – 86 ]. We propose that results from the current study highlight how the rewarding meaning comes from the psychological gratification to achieve a shared objective by interacting with another mate. This suggestion would also be supported by the idea that social sharing can be rewarding per se [ 87 ] and that this rewarding condition was more related to cooperation than competition, it being probably due to the social relevance of cooperation for the inter-subjective survival and the reciprocal integration during an interactive social exchange.

As for the cognitive performance it was also found a relevant direct relationship between the brain activity within the left PFC, the cognitive behavior and the social representation for both cooperation and competition, as shown by the correlation analyses. The effect related to the cortical “unbalance” over the left hemisphere in response to cooperation and competition was also associated with an increased sense of social efficacy and a concomitant better performance (decreased ERs and RTs) could support a possible connection between left-sided prefrontal activation, social hierarchy representation, and behavioral change.

The cortical lateralization could support the presence of a significant over-activation of left anterior regions and, in parallel, the role of such areas in managing the subjective perception to be upper in ranking. To verify this hypothesis, previous work highlighted that the subjective perception of being powerful within the social context (vs. being low in social power) is related to increased left-sided activity [ 6 , 21 , 88 ]. This effect put together two parts of the same coin: on one side there is the relation between PFC and self-perception, on the other PFC and behavioral performance. In other words, something like a “reinforcing effect” could be hypothesized: from one side the meaning of the joint performance from a social point of view (higher ranking position) seems significant in influencing participants’ outcomes throughout the task (in concomitance with heightened ranking perception and behavioral performance). Here, the modulation of PFC is crucial, thanks to the involvement of social perception processes. On the other side, the improvement in behavioral outcomes could influence self-perceived social position, with subsequent advantages when considering social status. In this case, PFC may be involved to sustain the relation between behavioral outcomes and social representation, thus strenghtening the “social value” of anterior brain networks [ 89 – 91 ].

However, we found also an improved performance in terms of ERs in the case of cooperation compared to competition. That is, we may state that cooperating induces a better perception of self, as well as an increased cognitive performance by the subjects. In other words, it seem probable that the self-perception of well-performing in a cooperative joined-action produces a more consistent and significant cognitive outcome. Based on these results we may suggest that to cooperate is better than to compete also from a cognitive point of view. Previous research showed some contrasting results, since in some cases subjects showed better performances in cognitive tasks during competition than during cooperation [ 2 ]. However in that case the absence of a specific “social” feedback during the task and the lacking of a long lasting performance (which might be able to induce the improving of the reciprocal performance across the time) may have partially hidden the consistent differences among the two social conditions.

It should be specified that this increased cognitive and self-perception effect induced by cooperation was mainly remarked by BAS trait. High-BAS participants were better performers and they perceived themselves as higher in ranking. Such effects are consistent with previous findings that proved a left-cortical asymmetry in the case of approach-related motivations, with increased high-frequency electrocortical oscillations over the left with respect to the right PFC [ 29 ] and improved self-perception [ 6 , 21 ]. Such lateralization effect could be explained by considering that the approaching attitude, related to left-sided neural activation, can influence per se both the perceived self-efficacy and competition as well as subjects’ effective outcomes. Thus we could conclude that approach-attitudes and positive emotions could underlie the left-side hyperactivation that reciprocally influences a higher perceived self-efficacy during cooperation, and support a proficient behavioral performance. More generally, high-BAS participants could be more focused on those situations that generate significant positive rewards and proficient, proactive behaviors. These processes are associated with positive affect and self-efficacy to approach social situations [ 26 ], as emerged in previous work with analogous conditions [ 6 , 21 ]. Such BAS trait effect, more related to cooperation than competition, may be due to the fact that individuals with higher-BAS profiles are more active in obtaining their results when a cooperative aim is pursued [ 92 , 93 ]. By virtue of having relatively a greater proactive attitude, they must rely more on their resources to meet their needs [ 94 ].

To summarize, as reveled by the present results, the contribution of PFC and specifically of left structures is crucial to support the cooperative and competitive joined-action. However, this effect was mainly related with the BAS construct, since the increased left PFC activation for both EEG and fNIRS measures was directly related to the high-BAS trait. Moreover, BAS trait appears to endorse the predisposition to influence self-perceived ranking, as well as actual behavioral performance, since high-BAS participants presented a self-attribution of higher ranking position and general improved cognitive outcomes. Therefore, cooperation proved to be the best condition to perform the task, as underlined by self-perception and cognitive results. In addition, the representation of higher-level in hierarchy related to improved cognitive performance is linked to a clear activity in the DLPFC more for high-BAS people when they operate in a cooperative context.

However, an intrinsic limitation of the present study is related to the low ecological value of the task if compared with the real common situations where cooperation or competition are displayed. Secondly, variations in type of tasks which could not include only a cognitive performance should be provided in future research, to eventually compare the present results with those of more “social” tasks. Thirdly future research should also provide a complete analysis of the inter-personal strategies used by cooperators/competitors by using a more specific hyperscanning methodology in order to consider the joined brain activities of the subjects. Finally the specific cortical side effect and the left/right hemispheric lateralization should be better analyzed also independently from the BAS trait measure.

Authors’ contributions

MB conceived of the study, and participated in its design and coordination and wrote the manuscript. DC participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. MEV participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis, contributed to wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Consent for publication.

Participants gave informed written consent to participate in the study. They consented (informed written consent) that the data reported in the research can be published.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Participants gave informed written consent to participate in the study. The research was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Milan.

No specific academic Funding.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abbreviations

Contributor information.

Michela Balconi, Phone: +39 (0)2 7234 2233, Email: [email protected] .

Davide Crivelli, Email: [email protected] .

Maria Elide Vanutelli, Email: [email protected] .

Competition or Cooperation? Understanding Human Behavior in Economic Analysis

By Dr. Tim Thornton

Anybody familiar with economics, particularly with how economics is taught, will know full well how self-interest constrained by competition is regularly championed as a general recipe for progress.

However, the complexity of the real-world seldom matches the simplicity of this recipe. Indeed, many situations require a concern with the interests of others, and of cooperation rather than competition.

The fact that human behavior is guided by cooperation and concern for others would hardly be a revelation to the average person. So why isn’t such an obvious truth more evident within most economic analysis?

One useful way to address this question is to look at insights from Adam Smith: the 18 th century philosopher and economist considered the father of modern economics.

In his book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , Smith makes the point that self-interest and competition can sometimes produce social benefits. To support this point, economics textbooks often seize upon the following excerpt:

he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it

It is not hard to understand the logic of the argument: the businessperson, seeking only monetary profit, achieves this self-interested end by producing a good or service that is useful to others. This self-interested dynamic is overseen by market competition, which results in any over-priced or poor-quality product achieving few if any sales against the more attractive products sold by competing firms. On this basis, it would seem that the more selfish the business person, and the more intense the market competition, the greater the social benefit in terms of producing good quality products with low prices.

What is Wrong with this Story?

Narrowly considered, nothing: the story simply highlights some dynamics and processes that are often present in market activity. However, a broader examination reveals that it excludes many factors that attenuate and complicate the simple recipe of self-interest plus competition leading to efficient outcomes.

The most obvious objections to the standard story are that the pressure of competition and the motive of self-interest might just as easily prompt the businessperson to cheat their workers, mislead customers about the quality or safety of their product, impose production costs on third-parties and the environment, and collude with other producers to inflate prices. The media is rife with examples of corporations whose profit-motivated behaviors have generated socially and environmentally detrimental outcomes. For example, the oil giant ExxonMobil was found to have understood the s cience of climate change as early as 1977 , more than a decade before it became a public concern, and allegedly spent millions funding climate denial efforts. Labor disputes and workplace exploitation are endemic throughout both developed and developing regions, often involving underpayment, excessive overtime, unsafe or poor working conditions, and debt bondage.

Furthermore, if economies of scale are present, then having more firms competing in the same market will raise production prices rather than lower them, all else being equal. Is increased market competition more or less socially beneficial, subsequently? This dilemma indicates that, beyond competition, more complex economic factors are at play in determining social outcomes.

More fundamentally, assumptions of perfect competition and self-interest often do not hold out  in practice . In the real world, oligopolies, markets with small groups of large sellers, are quite common, as larger firms often take advantage of economies of scale to drive out smaller competitors and maintain their competitive advantage. Additionally, not all firms are driven purely by profit. For example, worker-owned cooperatives that allow employees greater say in their working environments, are likely to prioritize social and environmental issues, along with economic goals.

The story also misrepresents Adam Smith’s original contribution to economics, which presented a much more sophisticated and nuanced view of human behavior. Smith believed that human motivations are influenced by self-interest, as well as respect and empathy for others. In his other book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, he argued that people’s self-interested motives are often held in check by their moral values.

Changing Our Approach to Economic Analysis

Turning from the murky origins of the conventional view of economics, contemporary research provides further reasons to change the way economics is practiced and taught. For example, economists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis argue that some of our most distinctive characteristics as species are our propensity to cooperate , incur personal costs to uphold ethical norms and to go out of our way to help strangers. Of course, all such behavior is sensitive to institutional context, but in general, humans are a cooperative species.

By drawing on insights and experiments from social psychology, behavioral economics brings economic analysis closer to the real world. It demonstrates how psychological tendencies and collective group dynamics influence economic decision-making, thus, posing a critical challenge to the assumptions of rationality and utility maximization that undergird neoclassical economics. The ramifications are important, especially for policy design . For example, it helps policymakers better account for the role of social norms and bias in race-or gender-based economic inequality.

Cooperation is essential not only for survival, but for economic success. Yet, governments consistently fail to develop agencies that promote cooperation. Effective cooperation does not spring magically into being and then sustain itself indefinitely. Designing effective institutions is essential to preventing self-serving persons or entities from exploiting cooperative arrangements. Self-interested incentives, while still relevant, can then be considered in tandem with the formation and maintenance of pro-social preferences, beliefs and institutions. The Prosocial website is one resource among many that offers intellectually solid and practically useful guidance for promoting cooperation in any group.     

Economics teaching, research and policymaking needs to let go of its obsession with self-interest and competition and get to grips with cooperation and other-regarding behavior. It can do this by utilizing more recent theory and evidence to keep the analysis closer to real world applications . Introducing students to the limitations of markets , and the psychological and social complexities of economic decision-making, represent an important start.

We would ask any other academic discipline to be up to date, we should now ask this of economics.

Dr Tim Thornton is a Senior Research Fellow at the Boston University Economics in Context Initiative and Director of the School of Political Economy in Melbourne . Anyone is welcome reproduce and repost this piece under the conditions of Creative Commons License CC BY-ND .

Never miss an update: Sign up to receive ECI’s newsletter .

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13: Competition and Cooperation in Our Social Worlds

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 38946

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

• 13.1: Conflict, Cooperation, Morality, and Fairness
• 13.2: How the Social Situation Creates Conflict- The Role of Social Dilemmas
• 13.3: Strategies for Producing Cooperation
• 13.4: Thinking Like a Social Psychologist About Cooperation and Competition
• 13.5: Chapter Summary

•   Home
• Research Collections
• Dissertations and Theses (Ph.D. and Master's)

Essays on cooperation and competition.

Other Identifiers

Collections, remediation of harmful language.

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form . More information at Remediation of Harmful Language .

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.

Student Essays

Essay on Cooperation – Need & Importance of Cooperation in Life

Cooperation is the human virtue to work together, to cooperate in dealing with the day to day challenges of life. The very concept of human society and the growth of civilizations is based upon the basic tenets of mutual cooperation. As, mankind can never live without the cooperation of fellow beings. This Essay on Cooperation talks about its meaning, concept and importance of cooperation in Life and how cooperation is essential for students to surmount the life challenges

Essay on Cooperation | Need, Value & Importance of Cooperation in Life for Students

Cooperation refers to the process of working jointly with others towards a common goal. It is an essential skill that helps in achieving success both professionally and personally. In this essay, we will discuss the importance of cooperation in life.

Cooperation can be defined as the process of working jointly with others towards a common goal. It is an essential skill that helps in achieving success both professionally and personally. Cooperation involves communication, teamwork, and compromise. It is necessary in order to achieve goals and resolve conflicts.

>>>> Read Also : ” Essay On Relationship & Its Importance in Life “

Cooperation is important in Life because 

• Helps to achieve goals: Cooperation helps people to work together towards a common goal. This can be done by sharing ideas and working as a team.
• Helps to resolve conflicts: Cooperation can help to resolve conflicts between people. By working together, people can understand each other’s point of view and find a solution that is agreeable to all.
• Helps to build relationships: Cooperation helps to build strong relationships between people. When people work together, they develop trust and respect for each other. This can help to strengthen relationships in both personal and professional settings.
• Improves communication: Cooperation helps to improve communication between people. By working together, people are able to share ideas and communicate effectively. This can help to resolve misunderstandings and improve team morale.
• Helps to learn new skills: Cooperation helps people to learn new skills. By working with others, people are able to share their knowledge and learn from each other. This can help them to develop new skills and become more productive members of the team.

Importance of Cooperation for Students

For students, cooperation is essential for academic success. In order to do well in school, students need to work together and cooperate with their classmates. This can be done by sharing ideas, helping each other with homework, and working as a team. Cooperation is also important in the workplace. In order to be successful, employees need to be able to work together and cooperate with their coworkers. This can be done by sharing ideas, working as a team, and resolving conflicts.

Cooperation is also important in personal relationships. In order to have successful relationships, people need to be able to cooperate with each other. This can be done by communicating effectively, compromising, and working together towards a common goal in life.

Therefore, cooperation is an essential skill that helps in achieving success both professionally and personally. It is important because it helps to achieve goals, resolve conflicts, build relationships, improve communication, and learn new skills.

Essay on Cooperation & Competition:

The concepts of cooperation and competition are central to our daily lives, influencing the way we interact with others. From a young age, we are taught both the importance of working together towards a common goal and the drive to succeed over others. These two seemingly opposing forces play critical roles in shaping our society and ultimately determine its success.

Cooperation: Building Stronger Bonds

Cooperation can be defined as the act of individuals working together towards a common goal or purpose. It requires mutual understanding, respect, and trust between parties involved. In today’s world, where diversity is celebrated, cooperation has become essential in creating cohesive communities and promoting social harmony.

One of the primary benefits of cooperation is that it allows individuals to combine their strengths and resources, leading to more significant achievements than if they were working alone. In a cooperative environment, individuals complement each other’s skills and compensate for each other’s weaknesses. This not only increases efficiency but also promotes learning and personal growth.

Additionally, cooperation plays a crucial role in building strong relationships between individuals. When people work together towards a common goal, they develop a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose, which leads to stronger bonds. Whether it is in the workplace or within families and friendships, cooperation fosters trust and understanding, creating a more harmonious society.

Competition: Driving Progress

Competition can be defined as the process of striving for success or superiority over others through one’s performance or abilities. While competition is often viewed in a negative light, it is an essential aspect of human nature that drives progress and innovation.

When individuals compete with each other, they are driven to improve their skills and abilities to surpass their opponents. This leads to continuous growth and development, pushing individuals to reach their full potential. Competition can also be a source of motivation for individuals, encouraging them to work harder and achieve better results.

In the business world, competition drives companies to develop new products and services, leading to economic growth and job creation. Similarly, in sports or academics, healthy competition fosters excellence and pushes individuals to strive for success.

Striking a Balance between Cooperation & Competition

As with any two opposing forces, cooperation and competition must be balanced for society’s overall benefit. While cooperation promotes social harmony and strong relationships, competition drives progress and innovation. A society that solely values one over the other will struggle to thrive.

In today’s world, it is crucial to strike a balance between cooperation and competition. Individuals must learn to work together towards common goals while also striving for personal growth and success. This balance can lead to a harmonious and progressive society where individuals support each other’s achievements while continuously pushing boundaries.

In conclusion, cooperation and competition are two essential concepts that shape our society. While cooperation fosters strong relationships and allows us to achieve more significant feats together, competition drives progress and motivates individuals towards success. Striking a balance between these two forces is crucial for creating a harmonious and thriving community.

Short Essay on Cooperation:

Cooperation is an essential aspect of human society, which involves individuals or groups working together towards a common goal. It plays a significant role in our daily lives and is vital for the overall development of any community.

One of the primary benefits of cooperation is that it promotes unity among people. When individuals come together to work cooperatively, they tend to focus on their similarities rather than differences, creating a sense of togetherness and camaraderie. This leads to the formation of strong social bonds, which are crucial for building a harmonious society.

Moreover, cooperation also leads to increased efficiency and productivity. By collaborating with each other, individuals can share their knowledge and skills, complementing each other’s strengths and weaknesses. This not only makes tasks easier to accomplish but also ensures better results. In a society where people cooperate with each other, there is a higher chance of advancement and progress.

Cooperation also plays a vital role in resolving conflicts and promoting peace. When people work together towards a common goal, they develop mutual understanding and respect for each other. This helps in reducing misunderstandings and disagreements, leading to a more peaceful coexistence.

In addition to its social benefits, cooperation is also essential for economic growth. Businesses that foster a culture of collaboration among employees tend to be more successful as compared to those that promote competition. Cooperation leads to better problem-solving and decision-making skills, which are crucial in the business world.

To conclude, cooperation is an integral part of human society, promoting unity, productivity, peace, and economic growth. It is a valuable asset that should be nurtured and encouraged in all aspects of our lives for the betterment of ourselves and society as a whole. So, cooperation is crucial for the overall development of an individual as well as a community.

Individuals must understand the value of cooperation and work towards fostering it in their personal and professional relationships for a more harmonious and successful society. Let us remember that together we can achieve much more than what we can accomplish alone.

Essay on Cooperation Leads to Success:

Cooperation is often viewed as a key factor in achieving success, whether it be in our personal lives or in society as a whole. It involves individuals working together towards a common goal, pooling their resources and skills to overcome obstacles and achieve great things.

One of the main reasons why cooperation leads to success is because it brings people with different strengths and perspectives together. In today’s world, it is nearly impossible for one person to possess all the knowledge and skills needed to accomplish a task on their own. By collaborating with others who have different backgrounds and expertise, we are able to tap into a wider range of ideas and solutions.

Furthermore, cooperation fosters a sense of trust and camaraderie among individuals. When we work together towards a shared goal, we develop a sense of unity and understanding. This leads to stronger relationships, both personally and professionally. In turn, this creates a positive work environment where people feel supported and motivated to give their best efforts.

In addition, cooperation allows for the division of labor, enabling tasks to be completed more efficiently. By splitting up responsibilities among team members based on their strengths, it reduces the workload and ensures that each person is contributing in a meaningful way. This not only increases productivity but also prevents burnout and promotes better work-life balance.

Cooperation also plays a crucial role in problem-solving and decision-making. When faced with challenges or difficult decisions, working together allows for different perspectives to be considered. This leads to more well-rounded solutions that may not have been possible if each person had tackled the issue alone. Additionally, when decisions are made collectively, it creates a sense of ownership and accountability among team members.

>>>> Read Also : ” Essay On Society, Concept Role & Importance “

In conclusion, cooperation is essential for achieving success in any aspect of life. It allows us to harness the power of teamwork and utilize each individual’s strengths to overcome obstacles and reach our goals. By fostering trust, promoting efficiency, and encouraging diverse perspectives, cooperation paves the way for greater achievements and a more harmonious society overall.

Q: What is a short paragraph on cooperation?

A: Cooperation is the act of individuals or groups working together to achieve common goals. It involves collaboration, communication, and shared efforts, leading to increased efficiency and the ability to overcome challenges collectively.

Q: Why is cooperation important in life?

A: Cooperation is essential in life because it promotes unity, fosters teamwork, and enables people to achieve more collectively than they can individually. It strengthens relationships, resolves conflicts, and contributes to personal and societal well-being.

Q: What is cooperation and why is it important?

A: Cooperation is the act of individuals or groups working harmoniously to achieve shared objectives. It’s important because it enhances efficiency, encourages synergy, and is the foundation for social progress and achieving common aspirations.

Q: What are the 10 benefits of cooperation?

A: 1. Enhanced problem-solving and creativity.

• Strengthened relationships and trust.
• Increased productivity and efficiency.
• Resource sharing and cost reduction.
• Collective learning and knowledge exchange.
• Conflict resolution and reduced tension.
• Improved communication and collaboration.
• Mutual support and emotional well-being.
• Greater societal and economic progress.
• Enhanced global peace and diplomacy.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essays on cooperation and competition in strategic environments

In many economic settings agents behave strategically. Understanding and, sometimes regulating, that behavior is often crucial to enhance the efficiency with which scarce resources are allocated. A peculiar feature of economics is that cooperation among agents sometimes boosts efficiency, and sometimes hinders it. Social dilemmas, highly ubiquitous in economics, are situations in which cooperation boosts efficiency. Highly concentrated markets where a few firms operate, are situations in which cooperation (also known as collusion) among firms hinders efficiency. In such markets competition, rather than cooperation, boosts efficiency. In this dissertation, I study how uncertainty affects cooperation in social dilemmas, and how the presence of cooperative firms affects competition in concentrated markets.

Both of the settings I study in this dissertation (social dilemmas with noisy payoffs and duopsony with endogenous location and pricing strategy) face a similar challenge. Their complexity compromises the tractability of conventional equilibrium concepts. In other words, Nash equilibria do not exist, or there is a multiplicity of equilibria. This, in turn, precludes comparative static analyses characterizing the effect of exogenous market forces (uncertainty and firm ownership structure) on market and welfare outcomes.

I address this key challenge through a combination of genetic algorithms and laboratory experiments. A genetic algorithm consists of a selection process that identifies strategies that perform better than others, on average. Therefore, surviving strategies constitute, in a sense, average best responses. More than one strategy may survive. This happens when none of the surviving strategies is weakly dominated by the other surviving strategies. An equilibrium is a combination of surviving strategies. In this context, a comparative static analysis consists of the change in equilibrium (combination of surviving strategies) due to a change in exogenous forces. These comparative static analyses generate testable hypotheses. In Essays 1 and 2, I implement laboratory experiments to test these hypotheses.

In Essay 1, I compare infinitely repeated social dilemmas with deterministic and noisy payoffs. I test whether noise in payoffs (where noisy payoffs are generated by a random shock and are uncorrelated amongst agents), which introduces imperfect monitoring, affects cooperation. Experimental evidence shows that imperfect monitoring reduces cooperation because it hinders agents’ ability to threaten defectors with a reciprocal defection. Therefore, noise reduces efficiency by unraveling cooperation in social dilemmas. In Essay 2, I study whether correlation among agents’ noisy payoffs strengthens monitoring and restores cooperation. Experimental evidence shows that stronger (though still imperfect) monitoring due to correlation helps cooperation if and only if agents are prone to cooperate in the initial rounds of the repeated game. Therefore, correlation among shocks affecting agents’ payoffs may or may not increase efficiency depending on the type of players participating in the social dilemma.

Finally, in Essay 3, I use a genetic algorithm to generate comparative statics characterizing the effect of a cooperative firm on market equilibrium and efficiency in a spatial duoposony. A Nash equilibrium in this setting does not exist when location, price, and the degree of spatial price discrimination are all endogenous in the seminal Hotelling’s model. I use a genetic algorithm to identify a stable equilibrium in this setting. I find that a cooperative firm increases efficiency. But, counterintuitively, it does so when the cooperative does not directly compete with the privately owned firm. This is because the cooperative maximizes market share when its procurement region does not overlap with the privately owned firm’s procurement region.

Degree Type

• Doctor of Philosophy
• Agricultural Economics

Campus location

• West Lafayette

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

Additional committee member 2, additional committee member 3, additional committee member 4, additional committee member 5, usage metrics.

• Agricultural economics

Task 2 Essay: Cooperation vs Competition - 2 versions! (NEW)

Question: Some people think that a sense of competition in children should be encouraged. Others believe that children who are taught to co-operate rather than compete become more useful adults. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Band 8+ Sample Answer v1 (supporting cooperation)

(Intro) Opinion is divided on whether children should be encouraged to develop a sense of cooperation or a competitive spirit. In this essay, I will look at the rationale behind both camps before giving my support to the former.

(Body 1) On the one hand, some argue that instilling a sense of rivalry in children can motivate them to strive for higher accomplishments. For instance, a competitive spirit could motivate students to work harder in order to achieve the top spot in their class rankings. This might assist them to develop their organisational skills and work ethic in order to win over other students. This also serves as good training for their future working lives, which will be filled with intense competition. For instance, technology behemoths such as Apple, Google, and Facebook encourage a competitive spirit and frequently promote individual bonuses and promotions to their employees in the interest of innovation and profitability.

(Body 2) Despite this, I would argue that learning how to cooperate plays a pivotal role in achieving a groups’ common goals. Team sports are a perfect illustration of this. For example, football strikers know they are more likely to achieve success if they rely on each other during a game, rather than selfishly seeking moments of personal glory. When youngsters are taught how to behave in this manner, they are more likely to apply it in their professional careers when they reach the labor market. Although employees may navigate towards working independently in many situations, a business is much more likely to prosper if team members interact and work towards shared goals. Successful companies never encourage competition at the expense of cooperation, and if anything try to create a synergy of the two.

(Conclusion) In conclusion, while encouraging children to compete against each other can lead to transformative personal success, the achievements of teams of people gained through cooperation are unequivocally more likely. Therefore Children should learn the value of individual success but also the indispensable nature of teamwork when utilised by communities and organisations. (333 words)

Band 8+ Sample Answer v2 (supporting competition)

(Intro) Opinion is divided on whether children should be encouraged to develop a sense of cooperation or a competitive spirit. In this essay, I will look at the rationale behind both camps before giving my support to the latter

(Body 1) On the one hand, some argue that learning how to cooperate plays a pivotal role in achieving a groups’ common goals. Team sports are a perfect illustration of this. For example, football strikers know they are more likely to achieve success if they rely on each other during a game, rather than selfishly seeking moments of personal glory. When youngsters are taught how to behave in this manner, they are more likely to apply it in their professional careers when they reach the labor market. Although employees may navigate towards working independently in many situations, a business is less likely to prosper if team members fail to interact and work towards shared goals.

(Body 2) Despite this, I would contend that instilling a sense of rivalry in children can motivate them to strive for higher accomplishments. For instance, a competitive spirit would likely motivate students to work harder in order to achieve the top spot in their class rankings. This might assist them to develop their organisational skills and work ethic in order to win over other students. This also serves as good training for their future working lives, which will be filled with intense competition. For instance, technology behemoths such as Apple, Google, and Facebook encourage a competitive spirit and frequently promote individual bonuses and promotions to their employees in the interest of innovation and profitability.

(Conclusion) In conclusion, while teaching children how to cooperate with others is unequivocally conducive to a groups’ shared aims, I would suggest that preparing them with a sense of competition can safeguard their individual success better. It is important to realise that successful teams are made up of successful individuals. However children should learn how to compete fairly and be equipped with the soft skills necessary to achieve these victories. (332 words)

Words: Student essay, corrected & upgraded by Nick Kemp, former IELTS examiner.

Image: Anna Samoylova / Unsplash

Recent Posts

Task 2 Essay: Starting School Age (NEW)

Task 2 Essay: Eating Local Food (NEW)

Task 2 Essay: University Education (NEW)

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

Cooperation and Competition

By morton deutsch, this article summary written by: conflict research consortium staff.

Citation : Morton Deutsch. "Cooperation and Competition." Morton Deutsch and Peter T. Coleman, eds.,  The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice  San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 21-40.

Most conflicts involve a mix of cooperative and competitive motives, and so Deutsch develops a theory of cooperation and competition in order to better understand conflict processes and resolutions.

A key element in understanding cooperation/competition is the type of goal interdependence found between the involved parties. Parties goals' may be negatively interdependent--one party's success correlating with the other's failure. Such situations tend to yield competitive relationships with a win-lose orientation. Parties' goals may be positively interdependent--success correlating with success, or failure with failure. These situations tend to yield cooperative relationships where the parties have a win-win orientation.

Cooperative relationships display a number of positive characteristics, including more effective communication and coordination, open and friendly attitudes, a sense of mutuality and a willingness to increase the other's power. Competitive processes tend to yield the inverse, negative effects: obstructed communication, inability to coordinate activities, suspicion and a lack of self-confidence, desire to reduce the other's power and to dominate them.

Deutsch's research "suggests that constructive processes of conflict resolution are similar to cooperative processes of problem solving, and destructive processes of conflict resolution are similar to competitive processes."(p. 27) A key question then is how to foster cooperative relationships. In response Deutsch offers his eponymous Crude Law of Social Relations: "The characteristic processes and effects elicited by a given type of social relationship also tend to elicit that type of social relationship."(p. 29) Friendly, empowering gestures tend to evoke cooperative responses. Suspicious, domineering attitudes tend to provoke competitive responses.

Deutsch identifies some of the implications that this theory of cooperation and competition has for our understanding of conflict, for our practice of conflict management, and for training in conflict resolution. A cooperative orientation on the part of the parties will facilitate constructive resolution of a conflict. Social support is key to creating and maintaining such a cooperative orientation. Constructive resolution is also more likely when the parties can reframe their understanding of their goals and conflict, coming to see their respective goals as positively interdependent and the conflict as a joint problem. This initial reframing, and so constructive resolutions, will be facilitated by the parties' adherence to the norms of cooperation. These norms include honesty, respect, responsiveness, acknowledging responsibility and extending forgiveness, emphasizing the positive and seeking common ground. Constructive conflict resolution rests on the very basic values of reciprocity, human equality, human fallibility, shared community, and nonviolence. These values are widely shared, and can provide common ground between otherwise starkly opposed parties.

In addition to these attitudes and values, effective conflict management requires skills and knowledge. First are the skills required to establish and maintain effective working relationships between the various parties and third parties to a conflict. Second are the skills needed to sustain a cooperative conflict resolution process over the course of the conflict. Third are the skills for developing effective group problem-solving and decision-making processes.

These theoretical insights also have implications for practitioner training. The teaching methods and the learning context itself should embody the cooperative, constructive problem-solving orientation. Practitioners will also need access to a supportive environment, if they are to maintain their own cooperative attitudes in the face of unfavorable or even hostile conflict situations. Finally, Deutsch emphasizes the need for practitioners to reflect upon their own practice and their own frameworks for conflict resolution, so that they may both learn from and contribute to the growing understanding of conflict and its resolution.

The Intractable Conflict Challenge

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of May 19, 2024 -- Another in our weekly set of links from readers, our colleagues, and others with important ideas for our field.
• Crisis, Contradiction, Certainty, and Contempt -- Columbia Professor Peter Coleman, an expert on intractable conflict, reflects on the intractable conflict occurring on his own campus, suggesting "ways out" that would be better for everyone.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of April 28, 2024 -- New suggested readings from colleagues and the Burgesses.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

• < Previous

Home > ETD > OPEN_ACCESS_DISSERTATIONS > 701

Open Access Dissertations

Three essays on competition and cooperation in r and d alliances.

Wonsang Ryu , Purdue University

Date of Award

Degree type.

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

First Advisor

Thomas H. Brush

Second Advisor

Jeffrey J. Reuer

Committee Chair

Committee co-chair, committee member 1.

Javier Gimeno

Committee Member 2

Fabrice Lumineau

In this dissertation, I investigate the interplay between competition and cooperation in R&D alliances. The alliance literature on this issue has emphasized that product market rivalry (i.e., market overlap) between partnering firms aggravates cooperation hazards by increasing the private benefits from opportunism. However, drawing on the multimarket competition literature, I maintain that market overlap between alliance partners can rather curb opportunism by partners because the multimarket contact between them might increase the expected costs of opportunistic behaviors by enabling broad retaliation against such behaviors across the shared markets. Based on this argument, I theorize and corroborate that the mutual forbearance from opportunism that multimarket contact generates not only promotes the formation of R&D collaborations in Essay 1, but also substitutes for hierarchical governance structures in R&D alliances in Essay 2. In Essay 3, I also extend the prior literature on competitive aspects of R&D collaborations that has been mainly interested in knowledge protection concerns in alliances between direct rivals. I join the alliance literature with the agglomeration literature to argue and show that geographic co-location between an allying firm’s partner and the major rivals of the allying firm introduces potential indirect paths of knowledge leakage to rivals, making the allying firm more likely to employ defense mechanisms such as using equity structures and reducing task interdependence.

Recommended Citation

Ryu, Wonsang, "Three Essays on Competition and Cooperation in R and D Alliances" (2016). Open Access Dissertations . 701. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/701

Since October 23, 2017

Included in

Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Purdue Libraries
• Purdue University Press Open Access Collections

Links for Authors

• Policies and Help Documentation
• Collections
• Disciplines

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

CrystEngComm

Hydrogen and chalcogen bonds in crystals of chalcogenadiazolecarboxylic acids – competition or cooperation †.

* Corresponding authors

a Department of Organic Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Gdańsk University of Technology, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland E-mail: [email protected]

b Department of Organic Stereochemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poznań 61-614, Poland

c Laboratory of Luminescence Research, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Gdańsk, 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland

This article presents crystal structures of chalcogenadiazolecarboxylic acids bearing both a hydrogen and a chalcogen bond donor. The selected molecules varied in the size of the aromatic unit, the chalcogen atom and/or the position of the carboxyl group in the core structure. The most common synthons in their lattice are R 2 2 (8) self-complementary acid dimers or four-membered [Ch⋯N] 2 rings. Supramolecular synthons where chalcogenadiazole moieties interact with the carboxyl group were also identified. Both ESP calculations and experimental data showed that all the studied molecules adopted flat conformations, but only in the case of three crystal structures were flat sheets observed. To assess the contribution of hydrogen and chalcogen bonds to the stabilization of the crystal structure, crystal lattice energy calculations were performed.

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (776K)
• Crystal structure data CIF (161K)

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

Hydrogen and chalcogen bonds in crystals of chalcogenadiazolecarboxylic acids – competition or cooperation?

J. Alfuth, A. Czapik, B. Zadykowicz and T. Olszewska, CrystEngComm , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4CE00273C

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

Ontario Middle School FCCLA Parliamentary Procedure Team advances to national competition

The Ontario Middle School Family Career and Community Leaders of America Parliamentary Procedure team is the first in school history to advance to the national competition in Seattle.

The team competed at the state level in April and took home the silver medal. Hours of practicing parliamentary procedure, performing the opening and closing ceremonies and studying for the written test paid off as they now have an opportunity to represent Ohio at the National Leadership Conference June 29-July 3.

Seven Ontario Middle School girls to represent Ohio

The girls will compete in the Level One category against teams from other states, according to Robin Owen, OMS FCCLA adviser.

The OMS FCCLA team is comprised of seven students from eighth and seventh grades: Aadi Kigthtlinger, Haylee Breitinger, Olivia Sandwall, Alex McAleer, Leah Bonen, Kennedy Sapp and Gia Gfrer.

In another significant first, this is the first team in OMS history to advance beyond districts. It's quite an achievement for a first-year team to qualify for nationals, Owen said.

In Seattle, the students will perform the opening ceremony, conducting a meeting based on parliamentary procedure rules and doing the closing ceremony, which includes the FCCLA creed. This will be performed in a closed room in front of three judges, and the team will be evaluated based on knowledge, their ability to follow Robert's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure and how well they perform the opening and closing ceremonies. They must also complete a test before the convention based on questions relating to Parliamentary Procedure, Owen said.

"This is a rigorous event and very few advisors take on this task. Fortunately, I participated in Parliamentary Procedure competitions when I was in high school and FFA," she said.  

More Ontario: Temporary branch site of Mansfield Richland County Public Library opens at mall

FCCLA members say they have learned leadership, cooperation, public speaking

Kennedy Sapp, 14, an eighth-grader, said through FCCLA she has learned so much and it has ultimately led her toward new and better opportunities.

"With taking the president role these past two years, I have learned leadership, cooperation and I have learned to take on a whole new level of responsibility. By competing I have learned teamwork and been able to better build friendships with members in my chapter. Additionally, I have learned better public speaking even in front of complete strangers to a point where I am no longer nervous about speaking publicly," Sapp said.

"FCCLA has taught me so many amazing things that I am so grateful for. Not only with FCCLA have I grown so much but I know I have much more to learn. The opportunities I have already had from FCCLA makes me so excited to see where else FCCLA can take me," she added.

Gia Gfrer, 13, vice president and in seventh grade, said she has learned teamwork, leadership and responsibility.

"I’ve learned you need work hard to achieve important things. I’m excited to continue learning new things and go to the national leadership conference," she said.

The national event brings together more than 8,000 individuals, including more than 6,500 middle and high school students and some 1,500 educators.

“We are so proud of these girls and the effort they have put in to make it this far in the competition. This is a rare opportunity for middle school students to travel across the country to not only represent their school, but also the state of Ohio,” Owen said.

More: Ontario High School student's new mural unveiled at Richland Academy of the Arts

FCCLA members seek donations for expenses of trip to Seattle

Attending an event like this comes with many expenses including registration fees, travel costs and accommodations. The team is working hard to organize a bake sale, a car wash and other activities to raise money to offset the $28,800 cost.

A donation page has been set up at grouprev.com/OMSFCCLA2NLC2024 .

“On top of getting good grades, these girls participate in multiple other school activities and sports," said Chris Miller, Ontario Middle School principal. "Despite their busy schedules, they chose to be a part of FCCLA, and they take it seriously. They put in the time and effort to learn parliamentary procedure, no easy task. We have no doubt this team and these girls will make OMS and the state of Ohio immensely proud."

For information, email Owen at [email protected].

[email protected]

419-521-7223

X (formerly Twitter): @lwhitmir