BULETINUL

Universităţii Petrol – Gaze din Ploieşti Vol. LX

No. 1B/2008 1 - 7

Seria

Ştiinţele Educaţiei

Determinative factors of interpersonal cooperative

behaviour

Cristina – Corina Benţea

Universitatea „Dunărea de Jos” Galaţi

E-mail: corina.stir@yahoo.com

Abstract

This paper is a part of an experimental approach of interpersonal cooperative behaviour in resolutive-cognitive activity. 247 subjects participated to the experiment. In the first stage they were trained to work efficiently in cooperative activities. In the second stage they worked to a cognitive task by in-group cooperation. The research hypothesis has aimed at evincing the specificity of this type of behaviour, by identifying psychological internal variables which can influence cooperative behaviours of the subjects in resolutive activities. These certain internal factors are able to adequately explain the manifest aspects of interpersonal cooperation.

Keywords: in-group cooperation, interpersonal behaviour, cognitive task, internal variable, factor.

Experimental hypothesis

People have a specific behavioral pattern in dependence on they react to the social influences in

different situations. The persons which are characterized by an interpersonal interaction style

adopt a typical actional strategy which depend and can be influence by individual and in-group

values induse them by socialization and adapted it to the nature of activity to where they work

(Kagan, 1984, in Chelcea, 1990). Interpersonal relational style is such of behavioral pattern.

Cooperativity, as central dimension of cooperative interpersonal style is a personality trait, a

personal construct, an individual over-situational characteristic which influences the atitudes

and interpersonal behaviour in different situations and activities (Cohen, 1982, in Chelcea,

1990). A cooperative person is characterized by orientation to interpersonal relationships,

flexible behaviour, empathy, care for others interests.

The subjects’ options for cooperation or competition depend on the following variables: internal

motivation, the cultural specific character of ingroup, personal and social system of values,

personality traits, personal goals and type of interdependence (positive or negative) of means

and goals (Raven, 1963; Cosier & Dalton, 1988 in Chelcea, 1990). In a meta-analyse study,

Johnson and colab. (1981) found that citizenship behaviour has a positive effect to cooperation

and citizenship behaviour is strongly related to the values of cooperation (Smith, Organ&Near,

1983, pp. 653). The citizenship behaviour, which is similar helping orientation, is characterized

the participants to cooperative learning situations (Deutsch, 1985; Johnson&Johnson, 1983).

This dispositional trait explain why individuals work better in cooperative than competitional

situations. R. Cosier and D. Dalton (1988) demonstrated that the subjects who have strongly

citizenship values obtain better performances and have more satisfaction in cooperative than

2 Cristina – Corina Benţea

competitive conditions. The helping orientation interacts with cooperation-competition variable,

cooperation influences and is induced by helping orientation (Deutsch, 1985).

In this study we only refer to some of motivational variables which are related to the behaviour

of cooperation, like personal values specific to (professional) activities and interdependence-

independence dimension. Values are directional orientations, motivational variables of

personality which represent needs, atitudes and individual preferences, induced by socialization.

Values have a central position in self/Ego structure (Rocheach, 1973, in Chelcea, 1994). Values

have explanatory role for subjects behaviours in cooperation or competition group conditions, in

interaction with social and personality variables (Johnson& Johnson, 1989, 1983). Predominant

individual orientations to collaborative or competitive activities can be explained by the fact that

subjects organize values in hierarchical system and assign them different significations. In this

study, were examined that values which refer to the ways in which participants related to the

different specific aspects of activities. These values were measured with Super Professional

Values Inventory (IVP), adapted by S. Chelcea on Work Inventory Values (D. E. Super, 1970).

It was measured 13 professional values; were excluded two values who don’t relate to

cooperation and competition (esthetic value, physical environment). We consider that, in

generally, these values are available and representative for other human activities too than

professional activities.

Like values, interdependence and independence are self dimensions, motivational traits of

personality. Independence indicates the aspects of individuality of the person, the predominant

orientation to her goals unlike interdependence which indicates the need for interaction with

others, to establish social and interpersonal relationships. Persons with strong interdependent

self structure are easily involve in social activities, establish optimal interpersonal relationships

and flexible adapt to the diversity of social situations (Leung, 1985, apud L. Iacob, A. Raţă, 2002, pp. 64). Independence and interdependence of self concept influence the subjects’

behaviour in cooperative group activities (Oetzel, 2001). Interdependence and independence

were measured with Self-Construals Inventory, elaborated by Singelis (1994).

Starting by the results of these studies we propose to demonstrate the existence of internal

variables which can sistematicaly influence the subjects’ behaviours in situations of

interpersonal cooperation. Identification the psychological nature of these latent variables can

facilitate the understanding of the different ways of interpersonal interaction of the subjects

when they work ingroup activities by cooperation or by competition These internal variables

(factors) can explain why some subjects work better in a cooperative situation than in a

competitional situation and conversly. These internal factors in interaction with situationale

variables can be responsable by the behaviour and the performance of the subjects in resolutive

in-group activities by cooperation or competition. So, we predict that the values provocate by

this type of situation (interpersonal cooperation) toghether with motivational self dimensions

can be cristalized like dispositions, propensities or personality factors.

Method

Subjects

The experiment has been conducted on 102 students subjects between the ages of 19 to 30

years, with a mean age of 20,9 years and a standard deviation of 3,65 years.

Determinative factors of interpersonal cooperative behaviour 3

Procedure

In the preexperimental stage, the subjetcs have been worked in cooperative groups. A basic

element for optimal functioning of cooperative groups is teaching participants the required

interpersonal and small group skills (Johnson and Johnson, 1995). Cooperative work is

inherently more complex than competitive or individualistic activity because subjects have to

engage simultaneously in task work and teamwork (functioning effectively as a group). Because

social skills for effective cooperative work do not momentary appear, we focused on the

acquisition and developing of interpersonal relation and group work abilities, which are

absolutely necessary for the participants, such as: abilities of leadership, decision-making,

organizing and leading activities, taking specific roles in task solving process, offering mutual

support in solving task, individual and group accountability for achieving its goals and for

contributing each participant to the work, trust-building, direct and efficient communication and

conflict-management skills empower students to manage both teamwork and taskwork

successfully. Since cooperation and conflict are inherently related, the procedures and skills for

managing conflicts constructively are especially important for the long-term success of working

groups. In the preexperimental stage, for 12 weeks, the members of cooperative groups have

been trained in activities based on group colaboration focused on acquiring and developing a

minimum level of cooperation competence necessary to perform in different in-group activities. We used a set of procedures and strategies for teaching students interpersonal and small group

skills (Johnson, 1991, 1993; Johnson and Johnson, 1994). All along the preparation stage the

functioning of the groups involved in cooperative situation were constantly monitorized and

provided to the participants the feed-back for the efficiently achievement of the tasks.

In the experimental stage, subjects from cooperative groups have been randomly divided in

subgroups of 3 members. In establishing the size of the groups, we take into consideration the

results of the studies on cooperative learning which indicated that the optimal size of groups for

perform in collective activities is 2-5 members. The cooperative character of the situation in

experimental conditions was induced both through subjects instructing and the reward and

penalization system used in assessment their activity. In the cooperative groups, the members

must solve the same task with a joint effort of interindividual colaboration in group. In

instructing it was specified that in the end, each member of the subgroup will obtain the same

result of the whole group. It was induced the idea that every participant must contribute to

obtaining the best result for his group, himself being evaluated through the grade awarded to the

subgroup. For facilitate assess the individual contributions of each member to the common

group activity, the working sheets been signed. To exclud possibility of intervention an effect of intergroup competiton, told subjects that the subgroups do not compete one against the other,

two or more subgroups being able to get the same grade. It created the positive interdependence

of purposes and rewards of the members of the groups which are the basic condition for

cooperation activity.

The task

The in-group cooperation activity is advised in complex problems solving with multiple

alternatives which involve superior comprehension and analitical thinking strategies. This kind

of common group task which is base on divergent thinking or creativity is more favorable for

interpersonal cooperation than the task with only one alternative of solving. In this experiment,

the task was composed by cognitive problems with verbal, numerical and figurative items. The

task have 40 items and the request for subjects was to correctly solving the task by cooperation

or competiton with their group parteners. The performance in problem solving task measured by

the total score of correctly solved items. For each correct item the subjets got a point. In

cooperative groups, after the discussions concerning the ways of solving the task, the subjects

wrote the answers in their individual working sheets. There was no limit of time in solving task

process, this aspect otherwise imposed by the cooperation activity, which compared with other

4 Cristina – Corina Benţea

form of activities require more time for activity in groups, time for discuss the possible

alternatives, analysing logical criteria, comparing and confronting the different points of view,

discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships.

In post experimental stage has been applied to subjects the Singelis Inventory and IVP Super.

Results

The factors were extracted by exploratory factor analysis of principal components. First we

verified if factor analysis is adecquate for the sample by KMO method (t=0.751) and Barlett test

of sphericity (Chi-square (91) = 700.68.19, p< .001). The intercorelation matrix indicate that

„independence” variable do not significant corelate with no other variables. Independence has a

lower communality (c=0.30), so it was excluded from factor analysis. In table 1 is presented

degrees of variables’ communality after excluding „independence” variable.

Table 1. The communality of variables

Variable Iniţial Comunality

Alt 1.000 0.740

Si 1.000 0.676

Rp 1.000 0.460

Ip 1.000 0.366

Pr 1.000 0.695

Co 1.000 0.621

Sp 1.000 0.643

Rs 1.000 0.626

Rc 1.000 0.667

Mv 1.000 0.970

Va 1.000 0.651

Cr 1.000 0.691

Ae 1.000 0.969

Int 1.000 0.738

For extraction of the factors it was used the Kaiser criterion. Were extracted five eigenvalues

which explain together 68 % from total variance (table 2). Unrotated factor matrix is presented

in table 3. Table 2. Total variance explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Var.

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 3.256 23.254 23.254 3.256 23.254 23.254 2.220 15.855 15.855

2 2.284 16.315 39.568 2.284 16.315 39.568 2.151 15.361 31.216

3 1.494 10.673 50.241 1.494 10.673 50.241 1.850 13.215 44.431

4 1.318 9.417 59.658 1.318 9.417 59.658 1.833 13.096 57.527

5 1.160 8.285 67.943 1.160 8.285 67.943 1.458 10.416 67.943

6 .927 6.623 74.566

7 .839 5.991 80.557

8 .677 4.836 85.393

9 .626 4.472 89.864

10 .439 3.132 92.997

11 .419 2.994 95.991

12 .341 2.433 98.424

13 .212 1.513 99.937

14 8.762E-

03

6.259E-02 100.000

Determinative factors of interpersonal cooperative behaviour 5

Table 3. Unrotated factor matrix

Component (factor) Variable

1 2 3 4 5

Alt .185 .531 .588 -1.469E-02 .280

Si .505 .453 -.109 .442 -9.287E-02

Rp .574 .196 -8.546E-02 9.858E-02 .272

Ip .346 -.319 7.976E-02 -.295 -.225

Pr .652 -.158 -.425 -.183 .177

Co .606 .198 .220 -.406 -4.662E-02

Sp .497 .105 -.542 -.255 .160

Rs .644 -.201 9.288E-02 -.367 .164

Rc .262 .591 .432 -6.256E-02 .240

Mv .560 -.645 .288 .394 4.891E-02

Va .318 .475 4.779E-02 .266 -.501

Cr .528 .299 -.331 .214 -.409

Ae .529 -.660 .295 .406 3.738E-02

Int -.145 .156 -.350 .433 .618

Than, for simplify the factorial structure, the factors were rotated. Rotation Method was

Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotated factor matrix is presented in table 4.

Table 4. Rotated factor matrix

Component

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

Alt -8.976E-02 -1.476E-02 5.726E-02 .853 -2.677E-02

Si .196 .123 .718 .246 -.217

Rp .491 .196 .248 .309 -.147

Ip .219 .220 -3.527E-02 -9.209E-02 -.509

Pr .798 .186 9.476E-02 -.105 6.637E-02

Co .416 3.217E-02 .144 .447 .476

Sp .772 -.131 .154 -7.552E-02 -1.392E-02

Rs .579 .299 -.108 .224 .373

Rc 4.629E-02 -9.981E-02 .149 .795 -1.777E-02

Mv .107 .972 3.017E-02 -4.288E-02 .107

Va -9.928E-02 -5.696E-02 .767 .170 .144

Cr .299 4.440E-03 .767 -8.268E-02 8.427E-02

Ae 7.508E-02 .974 2.078E-02 -6.073E-02 .105

Int .157 -5.866E-03 -6.452E-02 1.369E-02 .842

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

Rotation converged in 7 iterations

Function by the variables which saturate every factor and the significance of variables, we

entitled factors. The first factor is orientation to professional spiritual (nonmaterial) benefits (prestige, safety/security, success, acceptance by chiefs/leaders). The second factor was self-direction and hedonistical orientation. The third extracted factor is active orientation in task.

The following factor was positive attitude for others. The last factor, which is a tendency-factor

because explain less than 10% from total variance, is propensity to social relationship.

Conclusions

All these factors are internal psychological variables can explain the subjects’ behaviours in

situations of interpersonal cooperation. Thus, cooperative behaviours of the subjects who were

trained their cooperative groupwork skills are influence by latent factors too. In cooperative

6 Cristina – Corina Benţea

conditions, participants are strongly involve in task solving activity toghether with other group

members. They related through positive atitudes to activity and parteners in achievement of the

common goals. They self-regulation their behaviours in common activities and self-orietation

through satisfy their needs and goals. The cooperative behaviour is influence by social

relationship propensity in the context of work activity in group.

Identification the pattern of internal factors wich can sistematically influence the subjects’

behaviours in cooperative activity is only the first stage of an explanatory study, which can be

complete by including in factor analysis other variable of personality relevant for understanding

of cooperative behaviours. The diversity of personality traits which can influence or determine

the subjects’ behaviuors offers the possibility to including the different personality variables in

multifactorial explanatory structure, with different degrees of significance and situational

adecquating. Than, after the exploratory factor analysis the last stage is the confirmatory factor

analysis.

References

1. C h e l c e a , S ., Psihosociologia cooperării şi întrajutorării umane, Editura Militară, Bucureşti,

1990.

2. C h e l c e a , S ., Personalitate şi societate în tranziţie, Ştiinţă şi Tehnică, Bucureşti, 1994.

3. C o h e n , J . , Cooperative and Competitive Styles-the Construct and Its Relevance, in Human Relations, Vol. 35, No. 8/1982, pp. 621-633.

4. J o h n s o n , D . W . , M a r u y a m a , G . , J o h n s o n , R . , N e l s o n , D . , S k o n , L . ,

Effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis, in Psychological Bulletin, 1981, pp. 47-62.

5. J o h n s o n , D . W . , J o h n s o n , R . T . , M a r u y a m a , G . , Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research, in Review of Educational Research, No. 55, 1983,

pp. 5-54.

6. J o h n s o n , D . W . , J o h n s o n , R . T . , Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition and individualization, 3rd edition, Englewood Cliffs, NUJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.

7. J o h n s o n , D . W . , J o h n s o n , R . T . , H o l u b e c , E . J . , Cooperation in the classroom, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, 1993.

8. J o h n s o n , D . W . , J o h n s o n , R . T . , Leading the cooperative school, Edina, MN: Interaction

Book Company, 1994.

9. O e t z e l , J . G . , Self-Construals, Communication Processes, and Group Outcomes in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups, in Small Group Research, Vol. 32, No. 1/2001, pp. 19-54.

10. R a ţ ă , A . , I a c o b , L . , Independenţă şi interdependenţă în reprezentarea emoţiilor, in

Psihologia socială, Buletinul Laboratorului „Psihologia câmpului social”, nr. 9/ 2002, Editura

Polirom, Iaşi.

Determinative factors of interpersonal cooperative behaviour 7

Factori determinativi pentru comportamentul de cooperare

interpersonală

Rezumat

Lucrarea reprezintă o secvenţă dintr-un studiu experimental mai amplu referitor la comportamentul de cooperare interpersonală. La experiment au participat 247 de subiecţi. În prima etapă, aceştia au fost sistematic antrenaţi pentru a lucra eficient în activităţi de cooperare în grup. În cea de-a doua etapă subiecţilor li s-a cerut să lucreze la soluţionarea unei sarcini cognitive prin cooperare intragrupală. Ipoteza cercetării a vizat demonstrarea specificităţii acestui tip de comportament prin identificarea unor variabile psihologice interne care pot influenţa manifestările comportamentale ale subiecţilor în realizarea de activităţi prin cooperare interpersonală. Aceşti factori interni ar putea explica în mod adecvat conduita de cooperare interpersonală.