Dean Tjosvold

Controversy within a cooperative or competitive context and cognitive perspective-taking

Abstract Forty-five undergraduates discussed a moral issue with a confederate who had the same opinion (no controversy) or opposite opinion (controversy). Subjects in the controversy conditions discussed within either a cooperative or a competitive context. Subjects in the controversy conditions indicated more conceptual conflict or uncertainty, engaged in more information seeking behavior, and were more accurate in taking the cognitive perspective of the confederate than were subjects in the no-controversy condition. These results support Piagets and Kohlbergs views of the role of controversy in perspective-taking and cognitive development and Berlynes theory of conceptual conflict and epistemic curiosity. Subjects in the competitive-context conditions experienced more uncertainty, engaged in more information-seeking behavior, and were more accurate in cognitive perspective-taking than were subjects in the cooperative-context condition. Subjects in the competitive-context condition also experienced more cognitive dissonance, derogated the confederate and the confederates position and arguments to a greater extent, and indicated greater closed-mindedness in responding to the confederate and the confederates arguments than did subjects in the cooperative-context or the no-controversy conditions.

Effects of Affirmation and Acceptance on Incorporation of Opposing Information in Problem-Solving

Summary In an experiment on the way effective problem-solvers discuss opposing opinions to understand and incorporate their ideas, 33 college men and women discussed a dilemma with confederates (Cs) who took an opposing view. In the affirmation condition, Cs positively evaluated Ss competence. In the acceptance condition, Cs minimized evaluative comments but indicated the other was arguing in a reasonable manner. In the disconfirmation condition, Ss were informed they were ineffective. Compared to the affirmation and acceptance conditions, disconfirmation resulted in uncertainty about the correctness of ones views, closed-mindedness toward opposing information, lack of interest in learning the others position, misunderstanding the others reasoning, unwillingness to incorporate the others arguments, and dislike for the other.

Social Face and Resistance to Compromise in Bargaining

Summary Sixty-four male and female college students induced to be high-status bargainers negotiated with low-status bargainers. At the midpoint in the negotiating session, the low-status bargainers either validated or invalidated the high-status persons bargaining position and either affirmed or provided no feedback concerning the high-status bargainers personal effectiveness in putting forth his position. Ss whose position was validated rather than invalidated reached a compromise sooner. Moreover, they felt more accepted and less affronted by the low-status bargainer and perceived the low-status bargainer as less likely to frustrate their bargaining efforts. Ss whose position was invalidated and who received no information from the low-status bargainer concerning their personal effectiveness resisted longer in reaching a compromise agreement than those in the other three conditions. In addition, these Ss more than the others indicated that they felt affronted and unaccepted by the low-status bargainer...

Effects of Social Context and Other's Competence on Engaging in Controversy

Summary Eighty undergraduates at a large eastern United States university indicated their position on a moral issue, were placed in cooperation or competition, and led to believe the other discussant was more or less competent than themselves. Ss in the cooperative context, compared to competitive context, chose a discussant with an opposing opinion. Ss in competition were more likely to choose controversy when the other discussant was less competent. Results suggest that persons in cooperation may test the validity of their ideas through controversy; persons in competition may attempt to strengthen their opinion either by choosing a more competent discussant with the same opinion or a less competent discussant with an opposing view.

The effects of the constituent's affirmation and the opposing negotiator's self-presentation in bargaining between unequal status groups

Abstract Many of the conflicts that organizations must resolve are between groups of unequal status. Sixty college students were induced to be representatives of a high-status (manager) group in order to study how the interaction patterns between unequal-status groups affect their resolution of conflict. During the bargaining, the subjects group member either strongly or mildly affirmed their personal effectiveness. Confederates representing the low-status (worker) group either presented themselves as effective or as ineffective bargainers. The subjects whose effectiveness was strongly affirmed as compared to mildly affirmed described themselves in more positive terms and more often rejected the low-status bargainers request for improved outcomes, regardless whether the low-status representatives presented themselves as effective or ineffective. Subjects perceived the ineffective in comparison to the effective low-status bargainers as both more dissimilar and undesirable, though they did indicate greater trust of them. Results were interpreted as suggesting that representatives who receive a strong affirmation of personal effectiveness from their group member resist compromising toward the other bargainers position as a way of maintaining their image of competence. The data do not support the notion that low-status bargainers who present themselves as ineffective in conflict induce the representative from the high-status group to accept their requests.

Effects of Unequal Power on Cooperation in Conflict

Participants were randomly assigned to be high or low power and interacted with another who consistently cooperated, or consistently competed, or alternatively cooperated and competed. Results indicate that low power participants acted more cooperatively, were more attracted to, and wanted to facilitate the others outcomes to the extent the other had cooperated; the cooperativeness of the high power participants was unaffected by the low power persons actions.

The effects of unequal competence and sex on achievement and self-presentation

Female and male college students were divided into high ability and low ability groups on the basis of scores on a problem-solving task. In a second problem-solving session, they worked with a same- or opposite-sex partner whose performance they were accurately informed had been much more or much less competent than their own at the first session. The achievement of highly competent females was higher when their partner was a less competent female than a less competent male. The performance of less competent males and females was lower when their partner was a highly competent female rather than a highly competent male. Results suggested that self-presentation concerns aroused by sex of partner and relative ability can inhibit achievement.

Deutsch’s Theory of Cooperation and Competition

Based on social interdependence theorizing and the ideas of Lewin’s Center for the Study of Group Dynamics, Morton Deutsch proposed in 1949 that how group members believe their goals are related very much impacts their dynamics and success. Hundreds of studies summarized in meta-analyses document that cooperative goals promote communication and exchange and, more recently, the open-minded discussion of opposing views, dynamics in turn that result in group productivity, individual learning, psychological health, and relationships. Recent research has used the theory to understand such organizational issues as power and to test the theory’s universalistic aspirations. Validated procedures are being used around the world to promote educational goals. Leaders and members can use cooperation knowledge to make their increasingly diverse and dispersed teams work.