Growing up in the United States, I’ve been exposed to a culture that emphasizes competition. Whether it was in sports, video games, academics, or even band, we are often pressured in some way to be better than everyone else. In my first years of college, I became fascinated with cooperative video and board games. I loved the idea of having everyone work together and, if all goes well, share the feeling of victory. As I learned to play more cooperative games, I began to wonder whether we could use more cooperation in American society. After all, is having a culture so focused on competition good for the relationships between people and groups? The Robber’s Cave experiment by Sherif (1988) seems to suggest otherwise, showing that intergroup relationships suffer in competition but build up in cooperation.
The Robber’s Cave experiment, as summarized by Gaertner et al. (2000), investigated the effects of cooperation and competition on two groups of boys. When the randomly assigned groups engaged in competitive activities against each other, the relationship between their groups became very adversarial. This outcome led to the realistic group conflict theory, which stated that the hostility between the groups resulted from real competition and conflicting goals (Gruman et al., 1988, pg. 407). When groups view each other as obstacles or even enemies in accomplishing a goal, intergroup tensions may increase dramatically and lead to intergroup conflict. It is not difficult to think of social groups in the United States, such as those of political beliefs, that constantly compete and conflict with one another on a national level. Could a national culture of competition be facilitating and possibly even worsening these kinds of intergroup conflicts?
At the same time, the Robber’s Cave experiment also shed light on how to reduce intergroup conflicts: cooperation. When the two groups were instructed to complete tasks that could only be completed through cooperation, intergroup relations improved and both groups had more positive views of one another. One possible reason for this outcome, as discussed by Gaertner et al. (2000), is that the two groups began to view themselves less as two separate groups and more as one larger one. Cooperation helped take down the barriers that previously separated the groups. Members of both groups could now see each other as equals sharing in a common struggle, resulting in positive intergroup bonds. Cooperation between groups of people can create opportunities for them to set aside their differences and build strong intergroup bonds with one another.
There is a lot of emphasis on competition in the United States, with the idea that you should do whatever it takes to get ahead of the others. However, based on previous research on how competition and cooperation affect intergroup relationships, I would argue that society needs less competition and more cooperation. By looking for ways to cooperate rather than compete, we may be able to reduce the hostilities that exist between many groups here today. We may also foster harmonious relationships with one another, opening ourselves to new perspectives and accomplishing greater goals together.
References
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98-114. http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Sherif, M. (1988). The Robbers Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.