Cooperate? Or Go It Alone?

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — When a group of neighbors don reflective vests and slap on sunscreen, they think they are just going out to pick up trash by the roadside. In this mundane project, a University of Arkansas professor and his colleagues see something much more complex, and they want to know what leads these individuals to cooperate as a group.

Psychologists have a name for such activity, “prosocial behavior,” and have only begun to identify the factors that lead individuals to take part in cooperative relationships. In the recent book, The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, UA psychologist David Schroeder and co-authors John F. Dovidio, Jane Allyn Piliavin and Louis A. Penner explore “the variety of ways that prosocial actions are performed and the many reasons why people benefit each other.”

The researchers describe three types of prosocial behavior: helping, altruism and cooperation. Helping and altruism generally apply to one-on-one relationships, with one person giving and the other receiving. Cooperation is the prosocial behavior related to groups. In cooperation, people come together as more-or-less equals to work toward a common goal that benefits everyone.

“Collectivist societies are certainly more likely to be more prosocial, more cooperative, more communal in their orientation and their workings than more individualistic cultures,” Schroeder said. “By the nature of the capitalist economy it’s every person for him- or herself so we’re more likely to find the cost-benefit analysis tilted towards 'I want to maximize my benefits and I want to minimize my costs.’ Those in collectivist societies may see the benefit others receive to be part of the benefit they receive.”

Back to the neighbors picking up trash by the side of the road: As the researchers define cooperative behavior, the neighbors are involved in an interdependent relationship, coordinating actions to pursue common goals and to promote a mutually beneficial outcome. Their project represents one example of resolving what is known as the social dilemma, an area of study of particular interest to Schroeder.

Just as an individual contemplating helping another individual experiences a struggle between selfish, egoistic desires and selfless, altruistic motives, individuals within groups face a choice between their personal self-interest and the well-being of the group. “It is exactly this 'mixed-motive’ conflict between individual versus collective payoffs that defines social dilemmas,” the researchers write.

The neighbors who would like a clean roadside face a type of social dilemma known as a public goods dilemma, in which group members make personal contributions to a project that will be enjoyed by all, contributors and non-contributors alike. While there are powerful motivations not to cooperate, such as greed or the fear of being 'played for a sucker’ should others exploit the situation, research has identified numerous factors that promote cooperation.

When people are able to sit down and talk about a common strategy, they are more likely to cooperate with the group. Through discussion, individuals coordinate actions and make public commitments. A shared social identity also promotes cooperation. For those involved in a public goods dilemma, it is particularly important that members have a strong attachment to the group and feel respect from other members.

Groups also have the option of imposing structural solutions as the situation develops to eliminate some of the sources of conflict between the individual and group. For instance, a group may decide to institute some sort of punishment for those who don’t live up to group commitments, a move that both reduces defections from the group effort and reduces the fear that others will defect. Another method is to elect or appoint a leader to manage resources or to plan how to progress toward group goals.

The 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a New York street while more than 30 of her neighbors listened or watched led to a national discussion of public indifference in the popular media. Social psychologists used experimental methods to answer questions about bystander response to the Genovese murder, which in turn opened up the study of prosocial behavior.

Schroeder and colleagues have collaborated for more than 25 years. Their long working relationship has supported both individual work and produced many collective articles, including a contribution to the Annual Review of Psychology in 2005. Their first book, The Psychology of Helping and Altruism, was published in 1995 by McGraw Hill to be the definitive explanation of research and theory of all facets of helping behavior.

In the introduction to their recent book, the four scholars note that despite their different backgrounds and perspectives, they have a common motivation: “We all saw studying helping and other prosocial actions as a way to incorporate our social interests and concerns into the research that we conducted.”

They describe their book as a prime example of how cooperation leads to a better outcome.  The chapters of Prosocial Behavior were circulated among the authors and changes made that produced “one smoothed-out flow.”

“One of the compliments we got from our peers was that they couldn’t figure out who had written which chapters,” Schroeder said. “That was great. We took that as a great compliment.” 

After more than two decades of working together, the colleagues have a history of successful joint projects and have developed mutual respect and trust. An example: they readily acknowledge the importance of each other’s contributions and rotate the name of the lead author from publication to publication.

Schroeder is professor of psychology in the J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Arkansas. His long-time colleagues are John F. Dovidio of the University of Connecticut, Jane Allyn Piliavin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Louis A. Penner of the Karmanos Cancer Institute/Family Medicine at Wayne State University and Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan.