Cooperative Behavior Analysis

Furthermore, the hypotheses (more in depth next section), were tested on college students attending a Midwestern university of 492 participants around the age of 20 years old. The data illustrated, 303 to be men and 189 women. The identification of race indicated, 429 identified as whites, 39 as Blacks and 24 in the other category. Most of the students were college juniors followed by a few seniors. The experiment to test the hypotheses were conducted by pairing these students into different groups of 2-8 members with the purpose of preparing a presentation by allowing them to work collaborate for 18-20 hrs. Wagner and Moch used peer assessments and self- reports distinguishing the role of cooperation, identifiability, shared responsibility …show more content…
Wagner presented hypotheses influencing the cooperative behavior referenced through a variety of research studies. All of which came out be effective in the manifestation of high cooperation in an educational setting. For instance, the first hypotheses stated, “individual- collective behavior will influence cooperation in groups in such a way that collectivist will cooperate more than individuals” (1986). The studies analyst Gaybrenya focused on the performances of Chinese (a collaborative nation) and United States students, (individualistic nation). The transfer students from China to the United States were able to work collaboratively and achieve more work whereas students from their homeland China were also producing the same amount of work independently. Earley findings also resembled likeliness to Gaybrenya studies therefore affirming her findings to be accountable. The advantage in this hypotheses are the positive outcomes distributed with those who influence the cooperative behavior as oppose to those who do not give them the disadvantage to cooperate with others. In addition, the second hypothesis referenced, Group size will influence cooperation in groups in such a way that members of small groups will cooperate more than members of large groups (Wagner, 1986). This is where free riding,- avoidance of cooperation- are contemplated because of sharing rewards, and social loafing, -when you lack effort when working with others- takes place when addressing the size of the group. According to Kidwell and Bennett, these two conscious choices correlate with a similar awareness of action, as a result, this behavior could jeopardize the performance of the group (1993). The advantage her is that a small group could encourage more cooperation, whereas a larger one could jeopardize it. The more