This theory was developed by Morton Deutsch (1973, 1985) and also described by David W. Johnson (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Cooperative-Competitive is one theory in social psychology proposed by Morton Deutch. Scientists social evolution says that human altruism and cooperation are the result of a history of unique species "between-group conflicts and war" (Alexander, 1987; Buss, 1999; Campbell, 1975; Tooby & Cosmides, 1988), can be interpreted that the conflict between groups has been forming psychology and human behavior, especially (Vugt, MV, Gremer, DD & Janssen, SP 2007). Social psychology research is consistent with this idea. In this case, humans spontaneously make the comparison "us vs. them" categorization and quickly develop emotional aspects in a group even when the membership is based on criteria that are simple, such as flip a coin (Brewer, 1979; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Humans are also easily discriminate against members from outside the group (Fiske, 2002) and is involved in the altruistic action to defend their group (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999; Sherif, 1966).
Competition and cooperation are two patterns of relationships that occur in human life. Competition from considered as a component in the challenge that encourages a person behaves. While cooperation is one form of incentive that may be reinforcing the behavior of individuals (Riyono , 2012) .
Although it originated in the West, the theory of cooperation and competition proved to be useful to analyze and strengthen teamwork both within and between teams within the organization. For example, the research that has been conducted in China (Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D., 2002). The results of these studies support the notion that the purpose of co-operative and constructive controversy is the basis for understanding and developing the productive teamwork in the organization. Members of the team with the goal of a strong cooperative will have a positive purpose, able to discuss the diverse opinions with an open mind and use these discussions for mutual benefit. This openness, in turn, was found to predict the potential groups to develop creative ways of working that is innovative and productive work (Fang Lu-Jia, Shi K., & Tjosvold, D. 2010). These results are consistent with the results of a meta-analysis that cooperation among groups most supportive of productivity in the group compared to the competition between groups (Johnson et al., 1981). Although there is competition between groups are often considered to stimulate cohesiveness in the group, inter-group cooperation generally provides a more productive basis for the team, especially in organizations where teams are interdependent.
To explain the psychological processes that lead to competitive behavior and collaboration, Deutsch (1985) combines the two (2) basic idea underlying competitive behavior and cooperation in the form of the type of relationship of interdependence between individual goals or groups involved and the type of actions taken by those involved in the situation. Where both the basic idea will affect three (3) a psychological process that will occur in it, namely: substitutability, Cathexis and Inducibility. Third psychological processes that are involved in creating competitive behavior or collaboration.
1. Substitutability, defined as how a person's actions can give satisfaction to the objectives of others . It is very important for the whole social institution (family, industry and schools) for the division of labor and specialization role in social life . Logically humans as social beings would not be able to work alone or meet their own psychological needs if an individual is able to meet its own needs will still be other needs that cannot be fulfilled to the maximum. For example, being able to work alone, taking care of yourself, clean the house, but because of his work so cannot afford to educate children to the fullest. So Substitutatbility, divided into two (2) that the substitutability positive if you are willing to accept assistance/actions of others to meet your needs. Negative substitutability if you refuse to actively intervene others in your activities.
2. Cathexis, related trends positive or negative response to the stimulus . Humans evolved in its development so that it will automatically have a positive response (approaching, accept, love and act positively) to the stimuli (events situations, objects) are favorable so will shape the behavior can cooperate with others. But humans are also able to respond negatively (avoid, resist, attack, do not like and act negatively) on the stimulus unwelcome and make itself threatened, will shape the behavior of competing with others. For example, while on the road in the offer by sales to try new products, we can respond positively by accepting the invitation to try its product sales or respond negatively to evade the sales offer.
3. Inducibility, referring to the readiness to accept (positive inducibility) influence others to meet the desires/influence others (doing what others want). While refusing inducibility negative influence of others to meet the desires/influence others (doing what others want). For example, in friendship, a little a lot of friends will affect us in making decisions.
The relationship between these three components can be described as follows :
Based on these images can be explained three relationships psychological component in cooperation and competition that Inducibility, Sustitability and Cathexis the psychological elements that shape the behavior of competing and cooperating. Where such conduct will be formed by the force of elements Inducibility and Sustitability are trying to encourage one another and to be offset by a positive response or a negative cathexis so can result in behavior, cooperative or competitive in the relationship between individual/groups that are based on interdependence destination among individuals involved in creating a condition and the type of actions taken by the individuals involved.
Reference:
Alexander, R.D. (1987). The Biology of Moral Systems. London: Aldine.
Brewer, M.B. (1979). Ingroup Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A cognitive-Motivational Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
Buss, D.M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology. London: Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, D.T. (1975). On the Conflicts Between Biological And Social Evolution And Between Psychology And Oral Tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103–1126.
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002). Cooperative goals and constructive controversy for promoting innovation in student groups in China. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 46–50.
De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social Identification Effects in Social Dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1985) Distributive Justice, A Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fang Lu – Jia, Shi Kan & Tjosvold Dean. (2010). Team Traning In China: Testing And Applying the Theory of Cooperation And Competition. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. pp, 101-134.
Fiske, S.T. (2002). What We Now Know About Bias and Intergroup Conflict, The Problem Of The Century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123–128.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R. T., Nelson, D., & Skon, S. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
Ostrom, T.M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). The Outgroup Homogeneity Effect in Natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 536–552.
Riyono, B. (2014). Motivasi Dengan Perspektif Psikologi Islam. Quality Publishing.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1988). The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations (Institute for Evolutionary Studies Technical Report 88-1). Retrieved December 6, 2006, from http://www.psych.ucsb. edu/research/cep/papers/Evolofwar.pdf
Vugt, M.V., Gremer, D.D., Janssen, S.P. (2007). Gender Differences In Cooperation and Competition. Research Report, Association For Psychological Science. Volume 18-1, pp. 19-23.
