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 , 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.
Smith believed that human motivations are influenced by self-interest, as well as respect and empathy for others. 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.
This is precisely what happens with our two experiments where the interaction was similar, but the two experiments had different social comparison main effects.
Indeed, in Experiment 1 the comparison main effect amounted to an assimilation effect, while in Experiment 2, it amounted to a contrast effect. This also explains why different simple effects emerged as significant in the two experiments an assimilation effect in cooperation in Experiment 1 and a contrast effect in competition in Experiment 2 and why they failed to reach significance in the meta-analysis of our two experiments.
We did not have specific predictions regarding the main effect of social comparison and the resulting simple effects. Actually, several factors have been found to moderate the impact of social comparison information see Mussweiler, or Bless and Schwarz, , for reviews.
Hence, it is difficult to predict the direction of the main effect of social comparison by itself. Inspecting the differences between our two experiments, we can only speculate about the factors responsible for the asymmetry of the main effects. One explanation might rely on the specific differences in methods in the two experiments: In Experiment 1 we provided only information about the comparison target, whereas in Experiment 2 we provided information about both the comparison target and the self.
Maybe providing information about the self and the comparison target leads to focus more on the self than providing information about the comparison target only. Another explanation might be that in our two experiments we used measures with different levels of specificity.
Hence, it could be, for instance, that a general measure is more likely to elicit assimilation effects. Because this was not the focus of the current piece, our interest clearly residing in the moderation i. It is noteworthy that Experiment 1 revealed a marginal interaction on similarity ratings.
According to the selective accessibly model, a search for differences between the self and the comparison target would elicit a contrast effect, while a search for similarities would elicit an assimilation effect Mussweiler, A search for similarities could be the underlying process that enables the inclusion of the representation of the comparison target into the self-representation.
Future studies could explore this issue by determining the role of a focus on similarities in this phenomenon. Hence, the experiments reported here suggest that when researchers and practitioners care about the effect that social comparison information can have on self-evaluation, it is crucial to take into account whether the context promotes a competitive or a cooperative mindset. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We would like to thank Joshua Daniel Wondra for proofreading this manuscript and Oulmann Zerhouni for his help with the studies. Ames, C. Competitive versus cooperative reward structures: the influence of individual and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect. Blanton, H. When better-than-others compare upward: choice of comparison and comparative evaluation as independent predictors of academic performance.
Bless, H. Borenstein, M. Cooper, L. Hedges, and J. Google Scholar. Brandt, M. The replication recipe: what makes for a convincing replication? Braver, S. Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Brewer, M. Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Brown, J. When Gulliver travels: social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Buckingham, J. The influence of individual versus aggregate social comparison and the presence of others on self-evaluations.
Carnevale, P. Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Cumming, G. Understanding the New Statistics.
Deutsch, M. A theory of cooperation and competition. Fayant, M. Moving forward is not only a metaphor: approach and avoidance lead to self-evaluative assimilation and contrast. Fischer, P. Social comparison and information transmission in the work context.
Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Social comparison and performance: experimental evidence on the fair wage-effort hypothesis. Harkins, S. Social loafing and group evaluation. Huguet, P. Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation.
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Corresponding author. Received Dec 14; Accepted Sep This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background Cooperation and competition were compared in the present study.
Results An increased left prefrontal cortical PFC responsiveness was found for subjects who had higher BAS rating in case of both cooperation and competition conditions. 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. Background Cooperation and competition are part of our daily life.
Procedure Participants were accommodated in a moderately lit room in front of a monitor screen positioned at around 60 cm from their eyes. Open in a separate window. Results 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.
Frequency band analysis About delta and beta no main or interaction effect was significant at the analysis. Procedure The same procedure of Experiment 1 was adopted, with a specific variation in term of the nature of the task. Frequency band analysis As for delta and beta bands no main or interaction effect was significant at the analysis. 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.
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. Discussion 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.
Conclusions 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. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Consent for publication Participants gave informed written consent to participate in the study.
Ethics approval and consent to participate Participants gave informed written consent to participate in the study. Funding No specific academic Funding.
References 1. Does measurement instrument moderate the association between the serotonin transporter gene and anxiety-related personality traits? A meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry. J Biomed Opt. Balconi M, Vanutelli ME. Competition in the brain. Front Psychol. Brains in competition.
Hyperscanning and cognitive performance in joint-actions. Front Behav Neurosci. Intergroup and intragroup competition and cooperation. J Exp Soc Psychol. Balconi M, Pagani S. Social hierarchies and emotions: cortical prefrontal activity, facial feedback EMG , and cognitive performance in a dynamic interaction.
Soc Neurosci. NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals increased interpersonal coherence in superior frontal cortex during cooperation. Decoding covert motivations of free riding and cooperation from multi-feature pattern analysis of EEG signals. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. The neural bases of cooperation and competition: an fMRI investigation. Role of the right inferior frontal gyrus in turn-based cooperation and competition: a near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain Cogn. Decety J, Sommerville JA.
Shared representations between self and other: a social cognitive neuroscience view. Trends Cogn Sci. De Cremer D, Stouten J. When do people find cooperation most justified? The effect of trust and self-other merging in social dilemmas. Soc Justice Res. Leslie A. Nigg JT. Is ADHD a disinhibitory disorder? Psychol Bull. Humphrey NK. The social function of intellect.
Machiavellian intelligence: social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, humans. Oxford: Clarendon; Knoblich G, Jordan JS.
Action coordination in groups and individuals: learning anticipatory control. Major depression and the involuntary defeat strategy: biological correlates.
In: Gilbert P, Sloman L, editors. Subordination and defeat: an evolutionary approach to mood disorders and their therapy. Manhaw: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Group Process Intergr Relat. Personality correlates BAS-BIS , self-perception of social ranking, and cortical alpha frequency band modulation in peer-group comparison. Physiol Behav. Dominance and submission: the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and responses to status cues.
J Cogn Neurosci. Gray JA. Framework for a taxonomy of psychiatric disorder. Emotions: essays on emotion theory. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Demaree HA.
Pers Individ Differ. Brain Res Bull. BIS and BAS correlates with psychophysiological and cortical response systems during aversive and appetitive emotional stimuli processing. Motiv Emot. Balconi M, Mazza G. Int J Psychophysiol. Lateralisation effect in comprehension of emotional facial expression: a comparison between EEG alpha band power and behavioural inhibition BIS and activation BAS systems.
Approach-withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: emotional expression and brain physiology. J Pers Soc Psychol. Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life.
The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Psychometric properties of resting anterior EEG asymmetry: temporal stability and internal consistency.
J Res Pers. Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. J Neurosci. Bechara A, Martin EM. Impaired decision making related to working memory deficits in individuals with substance addictions. Prefrontal brain asymmetry: a biological substrate of the behavioral approach and inhibition systems.
Psychol Sci. Brain Imaging Behav. Appetitive vs. Autonomic measures and brain oscillation modulation. Brain Res. By working together, family and friends develop a network of stress release that better prepares everyone for stresses endured outside the home. When it comes to love, cooperation can take various forms.
For example, two partners may divvy up the house chores equally and finish them together — instead of refusing to complete any housework or struggling to complete more to gain superiority, as might happen in a competitive relationship. Cooperative lovers also eschew compromise, which usually leaves one or both parties unhappy despite an agreement. Additionally, couples should strive to cooperate emotionally to build a stronger bond.
By working to understand sentiments and reacting sincerely, partners can feel more emotionally connected to one another. Learn how to set yourself effective personal goals and find the motivation you need to achieve them. This is the essence of personal development, a set of skills designed to help you reach your full potential, at work, in study and in your personal life. The second edition of or bestselling eBook is ideal for anyone who wants to improve their skills and learning potential, and it is full of easy-to-follow, practical information.
Anyone can — and everyone should — strive to cooperate in every facet of their life. The joy that comes from competitive victory can be cruel and unproductive, especially when it works against the goals of others. While friendly competition can be enjoyable every now and again, we can build a stronger, more contented, wealthier, and all-around happier society by cooperating with one another at school, at work, and at home.
0コメント