Social Interdependence Theory

Question 1

Johnson & Johnson (2005)

Question 2

Types of (goal) interdependence:

Answer 2

• Culture (shared norms, institutions)
• Means (division of labor) (e.g. creating groups)
• Boundaries (creating groups)
• Outcomes (wanting the same thing)

Question 3

Helplessness

Answer 3

others can’t help you, and you can’t help yourself: you’re on your own.

Question 4

Behavior is affected by a:

Answer 4

a. A person
b. His/her environment

Question 5

Positive social interdependence:

Answer 5

when person’s A and person’s B actions assist in achieving outcomes for both person A and B. Person A will attain the goal if person B also attains his/her goal (work/move together).

Question 6

Promotively interdependent interaction

Answer 6

when a person A acts in ways that increase the probability of success of both person A and B (cooperative, teamwork situation).
Examples of how to act in a promotively interdependent way: knowledge sharing, mutual help, exchange resources.

Question 7

The combination of positive social interdependence and promotively interdependent interactions lead to:

Answer 7

• More/better communication
• Higher productivity and achievement (especially goal interdependence)
• Eliminates free riding
• It makes learning and making new discoveries easier and more likely
• Seeing the group/team/department/organization in a positive light, and as being unified
  (entitativity)

Question 8

Downsides of combining ositive social interdependence and promotively interdependent interactions

Answer 8

• Tribalism (everything we do as a group is good, everything that others do is wrong)
• Nepotism (only benefit when somebody belongs to your group)
• It can be hard for newcomers

Question 9

Negative social interdependence:

Answer 9

when person A’s actions make achieving person B’s goals more difficult. Person A only attains his/her goals if person B doesn’t achieve his/her goals.

Question 10

Contriently interdependent interaction

Answer 10

when a person A acts in ways that decrease the probability of the success of person B (hold back, competitive situation).

Question 11

What are the signs when there is no interdependence

Answer 11

• Individuals would ignore other individuals
• Rely on yourself (no interaction with environment)
• Increasing individual performance and productivity

Question 12

Advantages internal competition:

Answer 12

• Increased flexibility
  Have different departments do different things, can result in different responses to threats in the
  environment
• Challenging status quo
  ‘Shake things up’: let people come up with creative ideas
• Motivating greater effort
  Competing with others is an incentive to do better (as seen in GST)

Question 13

Disadvantages internal competition:

Answer 13

• Internal fighting
  Struggles for power (who is dominant) within departments/teams
• Cost of duplication
  Could be that departments come up with same solutions/technologies without knowing it of each other: this is a waste of resources
• Strategic incoherence
  It wouldn’t help portraying to the environment that your organization stands for something

Question 14

Conclusion Johnson and Johnson

Answer 14

Too much competition is bad, but also too much cooperation is bad. A balance has to be found. In order to achieve a balance, keep in mind the following aspects:
- Competitive actions that undermine cooperation and/or competition
- Too much substitutability creates sub groups (danger)
- Too much positive cathexis leads to nepotism, there is too much focus on the group
- Too much inducibility leads to too much group think
- Cooperation is costly

Question 15

Assumptions Johnson & Johnson

Answer 15

Applicable when talking about the same goal
Historical setting (time is not really taken into account)
Situations in small groups (of individuals or organizations)

Question 16

Deutsch (1949)

Answer 16

This article will draw a theory of the effect of co-operation and competition on group functioning.

Question 17

Co-operation:

Answer 17

a process where groups of people work together for mutual benefits (all of the individuals benefit)

Question 18

Competition

Answer 18

a process of striving to benefit on something by establishing superiority over others (only some but not all of the individuals benefit)

Question 19

Co-operative social situation

Answer 19

The co-operative social situation is a place for promotively interdependent goals, where individuals or departments have their goals interrelated in a positive manner

Question 20

Competitive social situation

Answer 20

The competitive social situation is a place where if a goal is (almost) reached by an individual or department, the other individuals or departments will be unable to reach their goals. This leads to contriently interdependent goals.

Question 21

Locomotion(s)

Answer 21

the direction of the goal (in an objective social space, not life space) (e.g. a
student takes an exam, thinks he fails, and is afraid he will not graduate. The instructor corrects the exam, passes the student, the student is approved for graduation)

Question 22

Facilitating locomotion:

Answer 22

the direction of the goal makes it more likely that the goal will be
actually achieved

Question 23

Hindering locomotion

Answer 23

the direction of the goals makes it less likely that the goal will be actually achieved

Question 24

In competitive:

Answer 24

if an individual locomotes, it has no necessary effect on the locomotions of others
People are focused on the Rivalry Ratio (RR).
RR decreases when: others move towards achieving their goal and you don’t, others move faster than you do, you help others in achieving their goal, and others obstruct you from moving closer to your goal.

Question 25

In co-operative

Answer 25

people are focused on task completion, move in unison

Question 26

act effectively

Answer 26

improving chances of achieving the goal

Question 27

act bungling

Answer 27

decrease changes of achieving the goal

Question 28

3 psychological processes (or mechanisms) to how actions are observed:

Answer 28

• Cathexis: investment of energy or resources in a person, object, idea, or innovation (in other
  words: about the attention you give to someone/something)
• Substitutability: the extent to which the actions of an individual substitute for the actions of
  another individual
• Inducibility: an individual’s openness of being influenced, but also to influence other individuals
  (it influences the psychological state)

Question 29

Positive cathexis

Answer 29

The idea of investing positive energy Something that you like

Question 30

Negative cathexis

Answer 30

You shy away from a person /idea: something you don’t like

Question 31

Substitutability

Answer 31

Actions of somebody else substitute for
your actions
Complimentary

Question 32

Non-substitutability

Answer 32

When you actions affect the project negatively

Question 33

Inducibility

Answer 33

Provide feedback
Open to receive feedback

Question 34

Resistance

Answer 34

Trying to mislead competition Playing mindgames

Question 35

Indiv co-op

Answer 35

individuals who are exposed to the co-operative social situation

Question 36

Indiv comp

Answer 36

individuals who are exposed to the competitive social situation

Question 37

Assumptions Deutsch (1949)

Answer 37

• Deal with “pure” co-operative and competitive situations, not mixed
• All situations in the research were for small groups (important because if the group is too large, you
  might feel your efforts go unnoticed)
• Single goal and the goal structure makes the context
• Equal power amongst group members
• Actors are self-interested (not egoistic of selfish per se)