Full citation:: Coen, C. A. (2006). Seeking the comparative advantage: The dynamics of individual cooperation in single vs. multiple-team environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 145-159.
Found From/Recommended By:: Mentioned as a paper to read on whether it's the MTS goals that create an identity, or also some aspect of identity together
Information about how other teams are doing, influencing own team's performance.
Competition between teams âž” improves within-team cooperation
Competition within team âž” hurts within-team cooperation
Both together âž” intergroup competition sometimes dominated, basically when there was more money involved. (So unclear if it's just cause of personal financial incentive.)
Multi-Method approach:
Give info to compare performance of self to other groups, see influence on cooperation within group. (Use to eliminate one decision rule.)
Computer simulation. (Use to eliminate second decision rule.)
Propose alternative decision rule.
We know that people make comparisons to selves in past and future, and to others, all at the same time. Don't know much about multiple comparisons with individuals and groups, doing so for both present and other points in time - so hard to predict how individuals will react when they compare their performance both with others on their team and of their team compared with others.
To answer this, considers two theories of how people act when there are multiple comparisons: reinforcement theory, and equity theory:
Within a team, do better when rank higher than others. So:
H1: Cooperate less when within-team comparison is favorable
But if there are other teams, your team wants to do better. Since by cooperating within-team you outperform the other team, you cooperate. This is more true when the comparison to the other team is "favorable"
(I think they mean that if you're outperforming them, you'll continue to cooperate within your team. But if you're not, you're not reinforced to cooperate. Even though you should realize that if you would cooperate, you'd do better??)
H2: Cooperate more when between-team comparison is favorable.
Equity Theory Feel tension as see ratio of outcomes over inputs as moving away from target other. Respond to tension by changing input, or looking for different outcome.
If outcomes (like pay) can't be changed, then adjust inputs
So if can't get more money for job and someone else is not working as hard, will respond by working less hard - adjusting the input.
Expect that this is affected by the number of people on the team that are cooperating.
H2: The more people on the team cooperate, the more any one individual will cooperate.
And that this is less true if there are other teams present, who have different ratios.
(This contrasts with the prediction of reinforcement theory.)
H2b: Cooperate more, as other teams cooperate less.
Results I noted quickly:
Cooperation highest when two-team cooperative condition, where were outperforming other teams.
Cooperation lowest when two-team uncooperative, where were underperforming another team