Theories Cooperation

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2015).
Theoretical approaches to cooperative

learning. In R. Gillies (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Developments in research and
practice (pp. 17-46). New York: Nova.
Chapter Two
THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO COOPERATIVE

LEARNING
David W. Johnson* and Roger T. Johnson

University of Minnesota, Minnesota, US
ABSTRACT
Four of the major theoretical orientations to cooperation and competition are
cognitive-development, social-cognitive, behavioural-learning, and social
interdependence theories. Of the four, social interdependence theory has generated the
most research and applications. The basic premise of social interdependence theory is
that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals
interact with each other, which, in turn, determines outcomes. The hundreds of studies
that have been conducted indicate that cooperation, compared with competitive and
individualistic efforts, tends to result in higher achievement and productivity, more
positive interpersonal relationships, and greater psychological health. The characteristics
of social interdependency theory include the validating research having high internal and
external validity and the theory being well formulated with clearly defined concepts,
being testable and generating addition research, being dynamic (not static), focusing on
relationship (not intrapersonal) variables, being applicable at multi-levels (e.g.,
intrapersonal, interpersonal), generating both theoretical and demonstration studies, being
cumulative, being profound, being strategic, being powerful, and being the foundation on
which other theories are built. Overall, social interdependence theory is the most useful
theory underlying cooperative learning.
Keywords: achievement; behavioural-learning; cognitive-developmental; collaboration;

cooperation; cooperative learning; competition; individualistic efforts; interpersonal
relations; oppositional interaction; psychological health; promotive interaction; social
interdependence; social-cognitive
*
* Corresponding Author address
Email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Instructional procedures often have short lives, no matter how effective they seem to be.
To be maintained as an instructional practice over decades and even centuries, the
instructional practice has to be built on a foundation of theory validated by research.
Specifically, the future of cooperative learning depends on its being part of a cycle of theory-
research-practice. There are at least four major theories supporting the use of cooperative
learning (social interdependence, cognitive-developmental, social-cognitive and behavioural
theories). The one most influential in the development and use of cooperative learning is
social interdependence theory. This chapter, therefore, examines the value of social
interdependence theory in developing, validating, and ensuring the future of cooperative
learning. More specifically, this chapter makes the following points.
1. The strength and the promise of cooperative learning lies in the interaction among
theory, research, and practice. There are many theories that never get applied, and
there are many atheoretical practices that are adopted by schools and then
discontinued. In order to be implemented and then institutionalised in schools, an
instructional practice has to derived from a theory validated by research. Cooperative
learning is a clear example of this process. The future of cooperative learning rests
upon it continuing to be built on a foundation of theory.
2. There are three levels of theory: Comprehensive, middle level, and micro level.
While this chapter focuses primarily on middle range theories, micro-theories enrich,
clarify, expand, and enhance the middle range theories.
3. Social interdependence theory has generated the most research and clear operational
procedures that have been applied at all levels of education.
4. There are two types of research studies: Theoretical and atheoretical, demonstration
studies. Both have their place in promoting the use of cooperative learning.
5. Diversity in theorising and in practical procedures is needed to provide a healthy
environment for the continued growth and refinement of cooperative learning. A
wide variety of approaches are needed to provide a creative tension in the evolution
of cooperative learning.
6. This chapter, while mostly focusing on social interdependence theory, is a humble
attempt to summarise the impact of social interdependence theory on the
implementation and institutionalisation of cooperative learning. It is not intended to
imply that social interdependence theory is the only or should be the only theory
underlying cooperative learning.
THEORIES OF COOPERATION
Theory is to practice what the soil is to plants. If the soil is appropriate, the plant will
grow and flourish. If the theory is appropriate, the research and practice will grow and
continuously improve. Without an appropriate theory, research tends to be “mindless
3 Theoretical Approaches to Cooperative Learning
empiricism” and practice tends to be static and stagnant. This chapter focuses on the
theoretical approaches to cooperative learning.
A theory consists of a set of interrelated concepts, definitions, and propositions that
explain or predict events or situations by specifying relations among variables. The word
“theorise” comes from the Greek word “theorein,” which consists of a blend of two words,
“thea” which means to see or observe, and “horan” which means to see a thing attentively or
to contemplate it. Theorising thus consists of observing and studying a phenomenon and then
contemplating and explaining it. Because theories are derived from the current understanding
of a person or group of persons, they are dynamic as they may change according to changes in
the observations and contemplations of the theorists. As situations and environmental
conditions change, theories may change. In addition, theories are limited by the capacity of
humans (or the theorists) to observe accurately and understand correctly the phenomenon
being considered. Since all human brains have inherent limitations, the theories generated by
humans have similar limitations. As human capacity to understand develops, theories also
develop. To an important extent, therefore, all theorising is a reflection of reality perceived by
humans at a certain moment in time and human history.
Without theory the studies on cooperative learning would be isolated data points
unrelated to each other indicating the results of discrete uses of cooperative learning in
specific situations and under specific circumstances. No one study can provide the evidence
that convinces teachers to use cooperative learning, teacher educators to incorporate
cooperative learning into teacher training and inservice training programs, or governments to
mandate the use of cooperative learning in their countries’ schools. To have a widespread and
pervasive impact on education, many studies have to be conducted and organised into a
conceptual network that illuminates what they mean as a whole. The explanatory conceptual
framework that goes beyond the findings of any one study and explains what they all mean
together as a whole, is a theory.
In the social sciences, there are three levels of theorising. First, there are comprehensive
theories that attempt to develop laws of science that hold and apply universally, explaining
the interrelationships among all variables of importance independent of time and space and
historical setting. Early in the 20 th Century there was an attempt to build mega-theories that
explained all or much of human behaviour, such as Lewin’s (1935) field theory, Tolman’s
(1932) purposeful behaviour theory, Hall’s (1935) drive reduction theory, and many others.
Second, there are middle range theories that focus on specific phenomena, yet can
subsume a number of concepts and micro-theories. They are limited in scope and do not
attempt to explain all of human psychology. A classic example is Durkheim's (1897) theory
of suicide, in which he proposed a relationship between the breakdown of social bonds found
in religions (Protestantism vs. Catholicism) as the reason for higher rates of suicide in specific
areas. For cooperative learning, middle-range theories include the four theories discussed in
this chapter (cognitive development theory, social cognitive theory, the group contingencies
aspect of operant conditioning, and social interdependence theory). Social interdependence
theory in particular is a middle-range theory. It deals with a broad range of phenomena (as
reflected in the number of dependent variables studied), serves as a foundation for other
theories, and subsumes many of the micro-theories into a unifying framework (see Johnson,
2003; Johnson & Johnson, 2005a, 2009a). Positive interdependence, for example, may
subsume group reinforcement, entitativity (the perception that a group is a unified and
coherent whole in which the members are bonded together, see Campbell, 1958), role theory,
4 David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson
divisions of labour, individual accountability (i.e., responsibility forces), and many other
phenomena.
Third, there are micro-level theories that explain one specific phenomenon. Since the
1950s there has been a trend in social psychology for researchers to formulate micro theories
to explain a single phenomenon, usually explaining causation with individual variables.
Dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), attribution theory (Heider, 1958), efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1977), reactance theory (Brehm, 1966), and are examples. In terms of cooperative
learning, micro theories include the effects of explaining answers to others, giving and
receiving academic support, heterogeneous group membership, and accountable talk.
Source: Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 1. General Theoretical Frameworks.
The theories discussed in this chapter are middle-range theories. Generally, the
comprehensive theories are too far removed from cooperative learning and micro theories are
not broad enough to encompass cooperative learning. There are at least four middle range
theoretical perspectives that have guided research on and practice of cooperative learning—
social interdependence, cognitive-developmental, social-cognitive and behavioural theories
(see Figure 1).
Cognitive-Developmental Theory
An early theory of cooperation is cognitive-developmental theory. The cognitive

developmental theories of cooperation include those of Piaget (1950), Vygotsky (1978), and
Johnson and Johnson (1979, 2007, 2009a). To Jean Piaget (1950), cooperation is striving to
attain common goals while coordinating one’s own feelings and perspective with a
consciousness of others’ feelings and perspective. From Piaget and related theories comes the
premise that when individuals co-operate on the environment, socio-cognitive conflict occurs
that creates cognitive disequilibrium, which in turn stimulates perspective-taking ability and
cognitive development. Cooperation in the Piagetian tradition is aimed at increasing a
person's intellectual development by forcing him or her to reach consensus with others who
hold opposing points of view about the answer to the problem. A number of researchers have
conducted studies on cooperation from the Piagetian point of view (e.g., Hayek, Toma,
Oberle, & Butera, 2014).
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1978) and related theorists claim that human individual
mental functions and accomplishments are socially constructed in interpersonal relationships.
Knowledge is social phenomenon, constructed from cooperative efforts to learn, understand,
and solve problems. Individual mental functioning is the internalised and transformed version
of the accomplishments of a group. A central concept is the zone of proximal development,
which is the zone between what a person can do on his or her own and what the person can
achieve while working in cooperation with older individuals or more capable peers.
According to Vygotsky, unless persons work cooperatively, they will not grow intellectually
and the time persons work alone should therefore be minimised.
A central aspect of cooperation according to cognitive-developmental theory is conflict
among ideas or controversy. Constructive controversy theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1979,
2007, 2009a) posits that being confronted with opposing points of view creates
disequilibrium, uncertainty, or conceptual conflict, which creates a search for more
information and a reconceptualisation of the issue, which results in a more refined and
thoughtful conclusion. The key steps of constructive controversy are organising what is
known into a position, advocating that position to someone who is advocating an opposing
position, attempting to refute the opposing position while rebutting the attacks on one's own
position, reversing perspectives so that the issue may be seen from multiple points of view
simultaneously, and creating a synthesis to which all sides can agree.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991) views cooperation as the
shared belief of group members in their collective power to produce desired results. In
collective agency individuals work cooperatively to secure what they cannot accomplish on
their own. Key behaviours are modeling, coaching, and providing conceptual frameworks that
result in understanding of what is being learned (i.e., scaffolding) (Lave & Wenger). Ideally,
the learner will cognitively rehearse and restructure information as well as explaining the
material being learned to a collaborator. Doing so facilitates retaining the material in memory
and incorporating it into existing cognitive structures (Wittrock, 1990). Finally, social-
cognitive theory places cooperation at the center of a community of practice, a group of
people who share a craft or a profession.
An extension of social cognitive theory is situated cognition theory (Suchman, 1987),
which assumes both the physical and social environment have a powerful influence on
cognitive activity. The more important of the two is the social environment, which consists of
both the immediate group and the social communities to which group members belong.
Through the social environment, that is, cooperative groups, members develop shared
cognitions that are the property of the group, not of any one individual member. Cooperation,
in other words, involves building and maintaining a shared conception of the problem being
solved. Through dialogue group members learn to understand each other and create shared
cognitions. It is the joint seeking to construct the solution to a problem that creates the
understanding.
Behavioural-Learning Theory
A third theoretical approach to cooperation is behavioural-learning theory. Behavioural

learning theories (Bandura, 1977; Homans, 1961; Skinner, 1968; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
assume that individuals will work hard on those tasks for which they secure a reward and will
fail to work on tasks that yield no reward or yield punishment. Cooperative efforts are
designed to provide incentives for the members of the group to participate in a group effort
since it is assumed that individuals will not intrinsically help their classmates or work toward
a common goal. Skinner focused on group contingencies, Bandura focused on imitation, and
Homans as well as Thibaut and Kelley focused on the balance of rewards and costs in social
exchange among interdependent individuals. Skinner noted that just as individuals will repeat
behaviours for which they are reinforced, groups will behave in the same way. Operant
conditioning does specify practical procedures for educators through training teachers to use
group contingencies to motivate student achievement.
Once one moves beyond Skinner’s (1968) operant conditioning theory, the most
developed behavioural theory of cooperation and competition was developed by Thibaut and
Kelley (1959). They assumed that individuals act to maximise their self-interests by behaving
in ways to maximise their rewards and minimise their punishments or costs. Cooperation is
thus defined as acting in ways perceived to maximise joint rewards and minimise joint costs,
competition as acting in ways to maximise ones own rewards and minimise ones own costs
relative to others, and individualistic efforts as acting in ways to maximise ones own rewards
and minimise ones own costs with little or no regard of the outcome for others.
Social Interdependence Theory
A fourth theoretical approach to cooperation is social interdependence theory. Of the

theories of cooperation, social interdependence theory is the most important in terms of
research generated and practical applications.
Definitions
The initial formulation of social interdependence theory was published in 1949 (Deutsch,
1949). Its roots, however, lie in the work of two earlier prominent psychologists. In the early
1900s, Kurt Koffka, one of the founders of Gestalt Psychology proposed that groups were
dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among members could vary. In the 1920s and
1930s, Koffka’s proposal was extended by Kurt Lewin, who stated that: (a) the essence of a
group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals) that resulted in the
group being a “dynamic whole” so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup
changes the state of all other members or subgroups; and (b) an intrinsic state of tension in
group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the desired common
goals. He proposed that goal interdependence results in the group being a “dynamic whole”
so that a change in the state of any member or subgroup changes the state of any other
member or subgroup. One of Lewin’s graduate students, Morton Deutsch (1949) extended
Lewin’s notions to the relationship among the goals of two or more individuals. In doing so,
he developed a theory of cooperation and competition. Deutsch (1949) defined positive
interdependence (i.e., cooperation) as existing when a situation is structured so that
individuals’ goal achievements are positively correlated; individuals perceive that they can
reach their goals if, and only if, the others in the group also reach their goals. Thus,
individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to all those with whom they are cooperatively
linked.
He defined negative interdependence (i.e., competition) as existing when a situation is
structured so that individuals’ goal achievements are negatively correlated; each individual
perceives that when one person achieves his or her goal, all others with whom he or she is
competitively linked fail to achieve their goals. Thus, individuals seek an outcome that is
personally beneficial but detrimental to all others in the situation. Later, Deutsch (1962)
added individualistic efforts, which exist when a situation is structured so there is no
correlation among participants' goal attainments. Each individual perceives that he or she can
reach his or her goal regardless of whether other individuals attain or do not attain their goals
(Deutsch, 1962). Thus, individuals seek an outcome that is personally beneficial without
concern for the outcomes of others.
Taken together, these concepts form the basis of social interdependence theory. Social
interdependence exists when individuals share common goals and each individual’s outcomes
are affected by the actions of the others (Johnson & Johnson 1989). It is differentiated from
social dependence (i.e., the outcomes of one person are affected by the actions of a second
person but not vice versa) and social independence (i.e., individuals' outcomes are unaffected
by each other’s actions).
Interaction Patterns
Watson and Johnson (1972) proposed a broad theory that they called “Structure-Process-
Outcome Theory”. That is, the way in which the situation is structured determines the process
of interaction among participants, which in turn determines the outcomes. The structure of the
situation includes the roles adopted by each participant and the norms regulating behaviour in
the situation. But most important of all, it includes the way in which the goals of participants
are interdependent. This became the basic premise of social interdependence theory, that is,
the way in which interdependence is structured determines how individuals interact, which in
turn, determines outcomes (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson, 1970, 2003; Johnson & Johnson,
1989, 2005, 2009b; Watson & Johnson, 1972).
Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction; negative
interdependence tends to result in oppositional interaction, and no interdependence results in
an absence of interaction. Promotive interaction occurs when members help and assist each
other, exchange resources, give and receive feedback, challenge each other's reasoning, and
encourage increased effort. Group members focus on maximising the success of their
groupmates as well as their own. Oppositional interaction occurs as individuals discourage
and obstruct each other’s efforts to achieve. Individuals focus both on increasing their own
success and on preventing anyone else from being more successful than they are. No
interaction exists when individuals work independently without any interaction or
interchange with each other. Individuals only focus on increasing their own success and
ignore as irrelevant the efforts of others. The relationship between the type of social
interdependence and the interaction pattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional. Each may
cause the other.
Psychological States
Deutsch (1949, 1962) emphasised three psychological processes inherent in cooperation
and competition. Depending on whether individuals promote or obstruct each other’s goal
accomplishments, there is substitutability (i.e., the actions of one person substitute for the
actions of another), cathexis (i.e., the investment of psychological energy in objects and
events outside of oneself), and inducibility (i.e., openness to influence). Essentially, in
cooperative situations the actions of participants substitute for each other, participants
positively cathect to each other’s effective actions, and there is high inducibility among
participants.
In competitive situations the actions of participants do not substitute for each other,
participants negatively cathect to each other’s effective actions, and inducibility is low. When
there is no interaction, there is no substitutability, cathexis, or inducibility.
VALIDATION OF SOCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE

The relationship between theory and research traditionally involves the following
(Johnson, 2003). Theory identifies, clarifies, and defines the phenomena of interest and their
relationships with each other. Theory tends to be of limited value unless it adequately
subsumes the existing research into a meaningful conceptual framework. Theory also inspires
and guides new research. Research validates or disconfirms the theory thereby leading to its
refinement and modification.
The study of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts is one of the oldest
fields of research in social psychology. In the late 1800's, a series of research studies on the
factors associated with competitive performance was conducted in the United States (Triplett,
1898), England (Turner, 1889, cited in Trippett, 1898), and Germany (Mayer, 1903).
Since then over 1,200 studies from which effect sizes could be computed have been
conducted (there are many more studies from which an effect size cannot be computed,
including numerous qualitative studies) on the relative merits of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic efforts and the conditions under which each is appropriate (Johnson, 2003;
Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1989, 2005, 2009b). This is one of the largest bodies of
research within the social sciences.
Social interdependence theory summarises the existing research into the following
conceptual framework. Positive interdependence (defined by Deutsch in 1949), leads to
promotive interaction, which results in outcomes such as effort to achieve, positive
relationships, psychological health.
Interaction Patterns
Positive interdependence creates promotive interaction. Promotive interaction occurs as

individuals encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts to reach the group’s goals (such as
maximising each member’s learning) (Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1989, 2005a, 2009a). Group
members promote each other’s success by:
1. Giving and receiving help and assistance (both task-related and personal).
2. Exchanging resources and information.
3. Giving and receiving feedback on taskwork and teamwork behaviours.
4. Challenging each other’s reasoning.
5. Advocating increased efforts to achieve. Encouraging others to achieve increases
their and one's own commitment to do so.
6. Mutually influencing each other. Group members actively seek to influence and be
influenced by each other. If a member has a better way to complete the task,
groupmates usually quickly adopt it.
7. Acting in trusting and trustworthy ways.
8. Engaging in the interpersonal and small group skills needed for effective teamwork.
9. Processing how effectively group members are working together and how the
group’s effectiveness can be continuously improved.
Negative interdependence typically results in students opposing each other’s success.

Oppositional interaction occurs as students discourage and obstruct each other’s efforts to
achieve. Students focus both on increasing their own achievement and on preventing any
classmate from achieving higher than they do. No interaction exists when students work
independently without any interaction or interchange with each other. Students focus only on
increasing their own achievement and ignore as irrelevant the efforts of others. Each of these
interaction patterns creates different outcomes.
Outcomes
The type of social interdependence structured determines how students interact, which in
turn determines the outcomes of the situation. While the research has focused on numerous
outcomes, which may be subsumed within the broad and interrelated categories of effort to
achieve, quality of relationships, and psychological health (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005a,
2009a) (see Figure 2). Figure 2 shows the relationships among the outcomes.
Effort to Achieve
Overall, cooperation tends to promote higher achievement than competitive or
individualistic efforts (effect sizes = 0.67 and 0.64 respectively) (Johnson & Johnson, 1989,
2005a, 2009a). An important aspect of school life is engagement in learning. One indication
of engagement in learning is time on task. Cooperators spent considerably more time on task
than did competitors (effect size = 0.76) or students working individualistically (effect size =
1.17). In addition, students working cooperatively tended to be more involved in activities
and tasks, attach greater importance to success, and engage in more on-task behaviour and
less apathetic, off-task, disruptive behaviours. Finally, cooperative experiences, compared
with competitive and individualistic ones, have been found to promote more positive attitudes
toward the task and the experience of working on the task (effect sizes = 0.57 and 0.42
respectively).
Source: Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 2. Outcomes of Cooperative Learning.
Quality of Relationships
Cooperation generally promotes greater interpersonal attraction among individuals than
does competitive or individualistic efforts (effect sizes = 0.67 and 0.60 respectively) (Johnson
& Johnson, 1989, 2005a, 2009a). Cooperative experiences tend to promote greater social
support than does competitive (effect size = 0.62) or individualistic (effect size = 0.70)
efforts. Stronger effects are found for peer support than for superior (teacher) support. The
high-quality studies tend to have even more powerful effects.
Psychological Health
Several studies have directly measured the relationship between social interdependence
and psychological health (see Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999, 2005a, 2009a). The samples
studied included university students, older adults, suburban high-school seniors, juvenile and
adult prisoners, step-couples, Olympic hockey players, and Chinese business executives. The
results indicate that cooperative attitudes are highly correlated with a wide variety of indices
of psychological health, competitiveness was in some cases positively and in some cases
negatively related to indices of psychological health, and individualistic attitudes were
negatively related to a wide variety of indices of psychological health. One important aspect
of psychological health is self-esteem. The studies that have been conducted at the college
level found that cooperation promoted higher self-esteem than did competitive (effect size =
0.47) or individualistic (effect size = 0.29) efforts. Members of cooperative groups also
become more socially skilled than do students working competitively or individualistically.
Finally, there is evidence that cooperation promotes more frequent use of higher level
cognitive and moral reasoning strategies than do competitive (effect size = 0.93) or
individualistic (effect size = 0.97) efforts. Cooperation also tends to promote more accurate
perspective taking than do competitive (effect size = 0.61) or individualistic (effect size =
0.44) efforts. Thus, the more cooperative learning experiences in which students are involved,
the more mature their cognitive and moral decision making and the more they will tend to
take other people’s perspectives into account when making decisions.
Other Outcomes
A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the impact of quality of interpersonal
relationships on achievement. Over 8 decades of research on over 17,000 early adolescents
from 11 countries found that higher achievement and more positive peer relationships were
associated with cooperative rather than competitive or individualistic goal structures (Roseth,
Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). More specifically, 33% of the variation in achievement was
accounted for by positive peer relationships (40% when the low quality studies were
removed). Another meta-analysis was conducted to determine the impact of motivation on
achievement. Johnson, Johnson, Roseth, and Shin (2014) found that the results of 629
independent studies representing 26 different countries indicated that compared to
competitive and individualistic goal structures, the relative effects of cooperative goal
structures on motivation and achievement were positively correlated, accounting for 14%
(24% when low quality studies were removed) of the variance in achievement (and vice
versa). A concern in schools is bullying. Choi, Johnson, and Johnson (2011) examined the
relationship between (a) cooperative, competitive, and individualistic predispositions and
experiences, and (b) harm-intended aggression (i.e., bullying) and prosocial behaviour.
Cooperativeness predicted prosocial behaviours and the absence of harm-intended aggression,
while competitiveness predicted harm-intended aggression. In other words, engaging in
competition and being competitive tends to increase bullying and engaging in cooperative
experiences and being cooperative tends to decrease bullying and increase prosocial
behaviour.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY

AND RESEARCH
It is not enough for a theory to be conceptualised. It must produce valid research, be well
formulated, and ideally be profound, strategic, and powerful. The characteristics of social
interdependence theory separate it from most middle level social science theories (see Figure
3).
Figure 3. Characteristics of Social Interdependence Theory.
Internal Validity
The research validating social interdependence theory has considerable internal validity.
Many of the over 1,200 research studies that have been conducted on social interdependence
have high internal validity, being carefully conducted by skilled investigators under highly
controlled, laboratory and field conditions (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005a, 2009a). When
rated on the variables of random assignment to conditions, clarity of control conditions,
control of the experimenter effect, control of the curriculum effect (same materials used in all
conditions), and verification of the successful implementation of the independent variable, 51
percent of the studies met these criteria.
External Validity
The research on social interdependence has an external validity and generalisability

rarely found in the social sciences (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005a, 2009a). The research
has been conducted over twelve decades by many different researchers with markedly
different theoretical, methodological, and practical orientations working in different settings.
A wide variety of research tasks, ways of structuring social interdependence, and measures of
the dependent variables have been used. Participants in the studies varied from ages three to
post-college adults and have varied in economic class, age, sex, nationality, and cultural
background. The studies were conducted with different durations, lasting from one session to
100 sessions or more. Research on social interdependence has been conducted in numerous
cultures in North America (with Caucasian, Black-American, Native-American, and Hispanic
populations) and countries from North, Central, and South America, Europe, the Middle East,
Asia, the Pacific Rim, and Africa. In all of these studies, the results are quite similar. The
diversity of these studies gives social interdependence theory wide generalisability and
considerable external validity.
Types of Studies
One of the strengths of the research on social interdependence is that it consists of both
theoretical and demonstration, atheoretical studies. Of the 1,200 studies that contained enough
data to compute an effect size, 31 percent have been laboratory studies 65 percent have been
field evaluations. Theory driven research begins with some theoretical point, and then inspires
research to confirm, disconfirm, or to develop further the initial theory. Theory is induced,
modified, and refined from research results. The theory-based studies tend to be carefully
controlled laboratory or field experiments with high internal validity. Fifty-one percent of the
studies randomly assigned participants to conditions, clearly defined control conditions,
controlled for an experimenter effect, controlled for a curriculum effect (same materials used
in all conditions), carefully operationalised the independent variable, ensured that the
measures of the dependent variables were both reliable and valid, and verified the successful
implementation of the independent variable. Theoretical research is the heart of verifying the
effectiveness of cooperative learning and ensuring that cooperative learning will still be used
in the future. There are shortcomings, however, with theoretical studies. One of the
shortcomings is lack of external validity. Many of the studies were conducted in social
psychology laboratories using college students as participants. Such studies tend to lack
credibility with many practitioners as, although they validate theory and clarify the power of
cooperative efforts on the dependent variables of interest, they do not demonstrate that
cooperative learning could work in the “real world”.
Atheoretical, demonstration studies on cooperative learning strive to demonstrate that a
specific type of cooperative learning “works” better than other methods of instruction without
testing any theoretical premise. Such studies tend to produce facts without any theoretical
framework, and are often described as “mindless empiricism” (Swedberg, 2014). In mindless
empiricism a person produces facts with no or little reference to theory. The person begins by
collecting data and then summarises the results without linking them to a theory, or a person
tests hypotheses not directly related to any theoretical tradition. Sometimes there are post-hoc
theoretical explanations that are presented as “window dressing” to enhance the importance of
the findings. Atheoretical studies provide independent findings that are not cumulative and do
not add to the “edifice” of knowledge about cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
efforts.
The demonstration literature is aimed at demonstrating that cooperative efforts are
effective in real life settings. Most of these studies were conducted to evaluate a program’s
success (i.e., external validity) without considering the potential theoretical relevance of the
results. Demonstration studies may be grouped into four categories (i.e., summative
evaluations, comparative summative evaluations, formative evaluations, and survey studies).
Summative evaluations investigate the central question of whether a particular
cooperative, competitive, or individualistic program produces beneficial results. They are the
largest category of demonstration studies. In education, the comparison is typically between a
cooperative learning method and “traditional” classroom learning. The Johns Hopkins
research on specific cooperative learning programs (Teams-Games-Tournaments [DeVries &
Edwards, 1974], Student Team Achievement Divisions [Slavin, 1980], Team-Assisted
Individualization [Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1986], Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition Program [Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987]) are examples. They
tended to focus on achievement on lower-level learning tasks in actual classes for several
months. The reviews of these studies (Slavin, 1983, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 2002a) are
organised around a particular method, not a theoretical proposition. While these evaluation
studies are of interest, the information value of their conclusions tends to be limited to the
specific program evaluated.
Comparative summative evaluations involve the comparative question of which of two or
more cooperative learning methods produces the most beneficial effects when compared on
the same criterion measures. In education, for example, the jigsaw method might be compared
with Team Assisted-Individualization. There is an inherent problem with such studies, as it is
difficult if not impossible to tell if both methods have been implemented at the same strength.
The results can be inadvertently be biased through carefully implementing one method at full
strength and loosely implementing the other method at partial strength.
Formative evaluations involve how a cooperative, competitive, or individualistic
program could be improved. Formative evaluations are aimed at improving ongoing
implementations. The critical incident method seems well suited to the diagnosis of training
deficiencies or unintended consequences, as does a combination of surveys with follow-up
interviews of a representative subsample of respondents.
Survey studies (Johnson & Johnson, 1991) investigate the impact of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic efforts and attitudes on such variables as perceived social
support, self-esteem, and attitudes toward the task. Survey studies have also compared the
responses of individuals in high-use settings (where the type of social interdependence was
frequently used) with the responses of individuals in low-use settings on a number of climate
variables (e.g., Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1983; Johnson & Johnson, 1983; Johnson,
Johnson, Buckman, & Richards, 1986). These studies provide data about the long-term
impact of cooperative efforts on a variety of attitudinal and learning climate outcomes.
Demonstration studies have both weaknesses and strengths. First, like all case studies,
demonstration studies simply indicate that a certain method worked at that time in those
circumstances. In a different classroom different results might be obtained. Second,
demonstration studies are always in danger of being biased because the researcher is typically
evaluating programs they have developed themselves and have a professional and sometimes
a financial stake in their success. Reviews of demonstration studies suffer the same limitation
as reviews are often conducted by the researchers who invented the programs. The third
problem with demonstration studies is that they may evaluate a cluster of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic elements. The “cooperative method” evaluated may be only
one element of a broader educational package and, therefore, cooperative learning was
confounded with other variables. The original jigsaw procedure (Aronson, Blaney, Stephen,
Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), for example, is a combination of resource interdependence

(cooperative) and individual reward structure (individualistic). Teams-Games-Tournaments
(DeVries & Edwards, 1974) and Student-Teams-Achievement-Divisions (Slavin, 1980) are
mixtures of cooperation and intergroup competition. Team-Assisted-Individualization (Slavin
et al., 1986) is a mixture of individualistic and cooperative learning. It is difficult to interpret
the results of studies evaluating the effectiveness of such mixtures as it is impossible to know
which elements contributed which part of the found effects. While they support the use of the
specific method, they do not provide strong evidence that cooperative learning in and of itself
is effective. A fourth problem with demonstration studies is that they often lack
methodological rigor, focusing far more on external validity (such as length and setting of the
study) than on internal validity (such as experimental control). In many demonstration
studies, the comparison has been with an ambiguous and unknown “traditional classroom
learning”. When differences are found, it is not clear what has been compared with what. The
lack of methodological quality creates doubts as to the value of the results. Finally, most
demonstration studies have been conducted in elementary schools. This limits their relevance.
There are at least three strengths to demonstration studies. First, there is a clear value to
demonstration studies when their results are viewed in combination with more controlled
theory-based, experimental studies. When the results of the demonstration studies agree with
and support the results of the theoretical studies, the demonstration studies strengthen the
validity and credibility of the theory. Second, demonstration studies provide a model for
practitioners who wish to implement identical programs. Third, the high external validity of
demonstration studies gives their results high credibility to practitioners.
Well Formulated Theory with Well Defined Conceptual Concepts
Social interdependence theory is well-formulated. It summarises complex observations in

abstract, logically-related propositions that explain causal relationships. In 1949 there was
considerable conceptual confusion concerning the nature of cooperation and competition.
Deutsch (1949) brought clarity and insight to the nature of these phenomena when he
published the basic theory of cooperation and competition. In the 1920s and 1930s, there was
some research on cooperation and competition, but it was disjointed, used a variety of
definitions of cooperation and competition (even within the same study) that were ambiguous
and in some cases contradictory, and provided little conceptual clarity as to the nature of
cooperation or competition. At least three prior books on cooperation and competition were
written by Maller (1929) (Cooperation and Competition: An Experimental Study in
Motivation), Margaret Mead (1936) (Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive
Peoples), and May and Doob (1937) (Competition and Cooperation). Deutsch’s (1949) clear
conceptual definitions utilising positive and negative interdependence among goals (a)
brought considerable conceptual clarify to the nature of social interdependence (his
definitions of cooperation and competition had single denotations and few if any
connotations), (b) helped reorganise the previous studies by creating a framework from which
it was possible to classify the operational definitions in previous studies as to the actual type
of social interdependence created, and (c) helped operationalise the types of social
interdependence in future studies.
Testable Theory That Generates Research
Testability is a vital feature of a theory. A theory that cannot be verified (Reichenbach,

1951) or falsified (Popper, 1935) is not scientific. It is necessary to link the theory to
empirical facts according to scientific logic. This is mainly done through formulating testable
hypotheses and conducting research to verify them. The relationship between theory and
research, however, is not one way (Johnson, 2003; Merton, 1957). Empirical research can
shape the development of theory through the discovery of valid results that were not
anticipated, the accumulation of research findings that the theory does not adequately explain,
the clarification of the nature of theoretical concepts, and the demonstration of the
relationship between the theory and new dependent variables. Theories vary in the extent to
which they can be and have been empirically tested. Theory tends to be of limited value
unless it (a) adequately subsumes the existing research into a meaningful conceptual
framework, and (b) generates further research that validates or disconfirms the theory and
establishes the conditions under which the hypothesised relationships occur. Social
interdependence theory has done both.
There are theories that seem quite profound and useful (e.g., Freud’s theory of
psychodynamics), but the research methodology does not exist to test their basic propositions
(e.g., Oedipal Complex). By demonstrating that cooperation and competition could be studied
experimentally, Deutsch set the stage for an explosion of research on social interdependence
in the subsequent decades. Over 97 percent of the studies on social interdependence have
been conducted subsequent to Deutsch’s development of the basic theory. The amount,
quality, and generalizability of the research provide strong confirmation of the basic
propositions of the theory. This is one of the largest bodies of research within the social
sciences and it provides sufficient empirical research to test social interdependence theory’s
propositions.
In addition, if research is to have impact on theory and practice, it must be summarised
and communicated in a complete, objective, impartial, and unbiased way. There is always a
danger that theories will be formulated on small and nonrepresentative samples of available
knowledge, thereby resulting in fallacious conclusions that in turn lead to mistaken practices.
A quantitative reviewing procedure allows for more definitive and robust conclusions. Some
of the most sophisticated reviews of psychological research, many pioneering the use of meta-
analysis, have used social interdependence theory as their organising framework (Johnson,
1970; Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1989, 2005a, 2009a; Johnson, Johnson, Maruyama,
Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson,
1995; Stanne, Johnson, & Johnson, 1999; Roseth et al., 2008; Johnson, Johnson et al., 2014).
Social interdependence theory, therefore, has served as a major conceptual structure for
inquiry into cooperation and competition for the past 65 years.
Cumulative Nature of the Theory
Like General MacArthur, most psychological theories never die but slowly fade away (as
people lose interest) without either: (a) being built into the larger edifice of well-tested human
knowledge, or (b) being destroyed by recalcitrant facts and abandoned, perhaps regrettably, as
a “nice try” (Johnson, 2003). The strength of a theory is reflected in the extent to which it
builds on a cumulative past. A theory is supposed to build on past theories so that it corrects,
extends, and refines the older theories. This is how knowledge advances. Most psychological
theories are “soft” in the sense that they lack the cumulative character of scientific
knowledge. They tend to be neither corroborated or refuted. Social interdependence theory is
an exception.
Social interdependence theory is clearly cumulative (Johnson, 2003). The historical roots
of social interdependence theory can be traced to a shift from mechanistic to field theories in
physics (Deutsch, 1968). This shift especially influenced the emerging school of Gestalt
Psychology at the University of Berlin in the early 1900s. As the “field” became the unit of
analysis in physics, so did the “whole” or “gestalt” became the focus of the study of
perception and behaviour for Gestalt psychologists. Gestalt psychologists posited that humans
are primarily concerned with developing organised and meaningful views of their world by
perceiving events as integrated wholes rather than a summation of parts or properties. One of
the founders of the Gestalt School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka (1935), proposed that similar
to psychological fields, groups were dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among
members’ goals could vary. Building on the principles of Gestalt Psychology, Kurt Lewin
(1935) proposed that the essence of a group is the interdependence among members which
results in the group being a “dynamic whole” so that a change in the state of any member or
subgroup changes the state of any other member or subgroup. Group members are made
interdependent through common goals. As members perceive their common goals, a state of
tension arises that motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the goals. Morton
Deutsch took Lewin’s notions and extended them into social interdependence theory.
Dynamic (Not Static) States
Social interdependence theory focuses on dynamic (not static) states (Johnson & Johnson,
1989, 2005a, 2009a). When individuals engage in cooperative or competitive efforts, each
action either increases or decreases the level of cooperation or competition present in the
situation. The level of cooperation occurring in a group is a quasi-stationary equilibrium
(Lewin, 1935), a balance between the forces for increased cooperation and the forces for less
cooperation. With each action a member takes, the balance shifts, and the level of cooperation
changes. Supporting a member’s efforts tends to move the equilibrium point towards
increased cooperation, while refusing to help a struggling group member tends to move the
equilibrium point towards decreased cooperation.
Relationship (Not Individual) Variables
Social interdependence theory focuses on relationship, not individual variables. Lewin

(1935) emphasised the importance of studying relationship variables. Social interdependence
theory is one of the few social psychology theories that has remained firmly in this Lewinian
tradition. Most psychological theories have focused on individual variables, attempting to
understand the laws that govern the behaviour of a single individual. They assume that the
causes of an individual’s behaviour are inside the individual, consisting of personality traits,
attitudes, values, skills, aptitudes, brain chemistry, and genes. In contrast, social
interdependence theory focuses on relationship variables that reside among parties (Johnson
& Johnson, 2005a, 2009a). It assumes that the causes of an individual’s behaviour are in the
interaction among individuals, changing constantly according to the way one’s actions affect
the actions of others. Cooperation and competition are relationship variables, involving
interaction between at least two parties.
Profound Theory
An essential characteristic of a theory is whether it is profound, as opposed to trivial. A

theory is profound when individuals who know the theory understand more about the real
world than do people who do not know the theory. An empirical, theoretically connected
body of knowledge is needs to be profound. There can be little doubt that people who
understand social interdependence theory can manage cooperative and competitive situations
more effectively than individuals who do not understand the theory. The research on the
implementation of cooperative learning indicates that a teacher who understands the nature of
social interdependence can structure and use cooperative learning more effectively than do
teachers who do not know the theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). For example, a teacher
knowledgeable about the five basic elements of cooperative groups (positive interdependence,
individual accountability, promotive interaction, social skills, group processing) has a tool kit
for effectively intervening in groups that are not functioning effectively. Social
interdependence theory is an example of how a good theory can change the course of
education. From being relatively unknown and unused in the 1960s, cooperative learning is
now utilised in schools and universities throughout most of the world in every subject area
and from preschool through graduate school and adult training programs. Its use so pervades
education that it is difficult to find a textbook on instructional methods, a teacher’s journal, or
instructional materials that do not discuss cooperative learning. The widespread use of
cooperative learning throughout the world indicates that it may be successfully implemented
in a wide variety of conditions and academic levels. In other words, there is considerable
evidence that social interdependence theory is profound.
Strategic Theory
Another essential characteristic of a theory is whether it is strategic or narrow. A theory is

strategic when it has implications for and applications to a wide range of problems and
situations. Cooperative and competition are so central to human life that there is almost no
aspect of human behaviour to which the theory does not apply. Social interdependence theory
has been used as a guide to build concrete practical procedures in education (Johnson &
Johnson, 1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2013), business (Tjosvold, 1989), individual
and group psychotherapy (Johnson & Matross, 1977), family therapy (Johnson, 1983),
mediation (Kessel, 2000), organisational and community development (Johnson & Johnson,
1994a), international conflict and peace building (Deutsch, 1983; Johnson & Johnson, 2010a),
being a citizen in a democracy (Johnson & Johnson, 2010b), and many other areas. It has
been used as a guide to provide procedures to solve social problems such as desegregation,
inclusion of handicapped students in the regular classroom, the prevention of drug abuse, and
the raising of low self-esteem of at-risk pupils. There are so many applications of social
interdependence theory that they cannot be all listed here.
Another indicator of strategicness is the number and variety of the dependent variables
studied in the research. Social interdependence is a generic human phenomenon that effects
many different outcomes simultaneously. The dependent variables are often classified into
three major areas (effort to achieve, interpersonal relations, psychological health), so many
different dependent variables have been studied that social interdependence theory is one of
the most strategic theories in the social sciences. Related to effort to achieve, for example,
there have been studies on individual achievement and long-term retention, group and
organisational productivity, higher-level reasoning, generation of new ideas and solutions,
moral reasoning, transfer of training and learning, job satisfaction, learning strategies,
achievement motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, continuing motivation, time on
task, and many other variables. Related to interpersonal relations, numerous measures of
interpersonal attraction have been used, along with measures of group cohesion, esprit-de-
corps, interpersonal affection and love, liking among diverse individuals (ethnicity, culture,
handicapping conditions, and so forth), attitudes toward diversity, and prejudice. In addition,
there is considerable research on academic support and personal social support. Related to
psychological health, measures have been used for psychological adjustment; cognitive,
social, psychological development; social competencies; self-esteem; personal causation and
locus of control, attributions concerning success and failure, self-efficacy; shared identity;
internalisation of values; and coping with stress. There are few if any theories in social
psychology that is more strategic than social interdependence theory.
Powerful Theory
A theory is powerful when it has considerable internal and external validity and
generalises across a wide range of individual differences, situational variables, cultures, and
historical periods. A weak theory may hold only for males in a very specific set of
circumstances. A strong theory holds no matter what persons are like (gender, economic
class, ethnicity, culture, age), what circumstances prevail, what historical decade the research
was conducted in, which country and culture the research was conducted in, and how long the
research sessions lasted and how many sessions were included in the research (Johnson &
Johnson, 1989, 2005a, 2009a). The more variations in places, people, and procedures the
research can withstand and still yield the same findings, the more powerful the theory. The
research on social interdependence theory indicates that it is a very powerful theory.
Multi-Level Theory
Social interdependence theory is a multi-level theory, applying to intrapersonal (i.e.,

elements within an individual may cooperate or compete with each other), interpersonal,
intergroup, and international dynamics. Thus, the theory is relevant to many levels of human
life, being as relevant to world peace as it is to group effectiveness. There is probably no

theory and body of research more important for so many areas and levels of human existence
than social interdependence theory and the research on cooperation and competition (Johnson,
1970, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005a, 2009a). Understanding social interdependence
is essential, among other things, for (social interdependence theory has been applied in each
of these areas):
1. Understanding how to ensure elements within an individual (i.e., desire for

immediate gratification and desire for long-term wellbeing) cooperate rather than
compete with each other.
2. Understanding how to create positive, caring relationships among individuals while
they work together to achieve mutual goals.
3. Understanding how to organise team efforts to increase the quality of work and
productivity.
4. Implementing cooperative learning in all levels of education in order to maximise
students’ efforts to learn, quality of relationships, and cognitive and social
development and psychological health.
5. Providing a framework for organizational functioning and organisational
effectiveness (Johnson & Johnson, 1994a; Tjosvold, 1989).
6. Providing the context in which diversity becomes a positive resource increasing
productivity and quality of life (Johnson & Johnson, 2002b).
7. Developing creative entrepreneurs to provide economic advances to the society in
which they reside (Johnson & Johnson, in press).
8. Increasing the effectiveness of peace education by highlighting the nature of
cooperation and investment in each other’s future that has to occur if peace is to be
established and maintained (Johnson & Johnson, 2006).
9. Teaching individuals how to be committed, effective, and productive citizens of a
democracy (Johnson & Johnson, 2014).
10. Resolving international, national, intergroup, and interpersonal conflicts through
understanding how to decrease competitive elements in the conflict and increase
cooperative elements (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson & Johnson, 2005b, 2007).
11. Understanding how interdependence may be established and maintained among
nations and regions of the world in order to solve global problems and increase the
standard of living throughout the world.
Mediating Variables
The implementation of cooperative learning focuses attention on the variables that

mediate the effectiveness of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts. The need to
increase the effectiveness of cooperative learning in dealing with a variety of educational
issues such as increasing achievement, improving relationships among diverse peers, and
improving psychological health and self-esteem lead to the examination of the internal
dynamics of cooperation and the variables that mediated its effectiveness. The more the
internal dynamics of cooperation are understood, the more effectively cooperative learning
may be implemented and the more the theory is extended and enhanced. The five basic
elements of effective cooperation were identified as the result of the efforts to understand the
internal dynamics of cooperation so it could be more effectively implemented. The five basic
elements are (Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1989; Johnson et al., 2013):
1. Positive interdependence.
2. Individual accountability.
3. Promotive interaction.
4. Social skills.
5. Group processing.
These mediating variables enable teachers to structure cooperative learning more

effectively, solve problems students had in working together, and adapt cooperative learning
to different student populations, subject areas, and conditions. Subsequently, the theory has
been modified to include all five variables.
The implementation of cooperative learning has led to the expansion of the concept of
positive interdependence. Lewin and Deutsch viewed interdependence as existing among
individuals’ goals (which individuals are committed to achieve). The day-to-day use of
cooperation in settings (such as schools and businesses) in which goals are imposed, revealed
that in many cases simply presenting mutual goals did not in and of itself create a perception
of positive interdependence. Positive goal interdependence was supplemented and
strengthened by inventive practitioners by giving rewards for group as well as individual
performance, assigning group roles, dividing resources among group members, assigning
each group a specific work space, and having groups develop their own name and logo. The
theoretical distinctions among outcome (goals and rewards), means (roles, resources, task),
and boundary (identity, environmental, outside enemy) interdependence resulted (Johnson,
2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005a, 2009a).
Social interdependence theory posits that when group members are committed to their
mutual goals, there are responsibility forces that ensure all members do their fair share of the
work. The day-to-day use of cooperative learning revealed that when students are not
committed to the imposed learning goals and they feel relatively anonymous, they may feel
little responsibility and engage in social loafing. The importance of clear individual
accountability was thus highlighted. Finding new ways to make each group member
individually accountable for their fair share of the work strengthened the responsibility forces
generated in cooperative efforts.
Social interdependence originally assumed that group members would have the necessary
social skills (communication, decision making, leadership, conflict resolution skills) needed
to work effectively with each other (Johnson, 2014; Johnson & F. Johnson, 2013). The day-
to-day use of cooperative learning revealed that many students had very few social skills.
Teachers, therefore, had to incorporate the teaching of social skills into their use of
cooperative learning and correspondingly, the theory had to be modified to take into account
the necessary condition of having socially skilled group members (as part of promotive
interaction).
In order continuously to improve the effectiveness of cooperative groups, it is necessary
to periodically examine the processes being used to achieve the group’s goals. Social
interdependence theory did not discuss this issue, but practitioners highlighted the need for
structured group processing. Group members discuss how well they are achieving their goals
and maintaining effective working relationships, thereby identifying and solving problems in
working together. This is an important addition to the nature of promotive interaction.
Deutsch (1962, 1973, 1985) has posited that trust, conflict, and distributive justice are
mediators of the effectiveness of cooperation. The greater the trust, the more effective
cooperative efforts tend to be. Effective cooperative requires that conflicts of interest are
resolved constructively. The effectiveness of cooperation is increased when benefits are
distributed based on equality and need and when the distribution of benefits according to
equity (i.e., high performers receive more than low performers) is avoided.
Foundation for Other Theories
While competing theories have been proposed by such social scientists as Piaget (1950)
and Skinner (1968), and in such diverse fields as economics, sociology, anthropology,
ethology, evolution, and psychology, social interdependence theory has been the foundation
for numerous other theories. Those theories deal with such phenomena as trust, conflict,
integrative negotiations, social justice, positive power, and values. Trust is based on the belief
that the other person will behave in a cooperative, not a competitive manner (Deutsch, 1962).
Conflict resolution is based on restoring cooperation among disputants and reducing
competitive behaviour (Deutsch, 1973). Integrative negotiations are grounded in promoting a
cooperative problem-solving (as opposed to a competitive “win-lose”) process of coming to
an agreement (Johnson & F. Johnson, 2013; Johnson & R. Johnson, 2003). Distributive
(social) justice may be based on equality (cooperative rationale), equity (competitive
rationale), or a need basis (altruistic rationale) (Deutsch, 1985). Newly conceptualised views
of positive power are based on the view that power is positive when it enhances the
cooperative aspects of the situation and reduces the competitive aspects of the situation
(Coleman & Tjosvold, 2000; Johnson & F. Johnson, 2013). Cooperation is the basis for social
identity theory and procedural justice (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Recent discussions of
inculcating values detail how cooperation tends to promote prosocial values while
competition tends to promote more self-centered values (Johnson & Johnson, 1996, 2000).
Without social interdependence theory these theories would not be as well formulated or as
meaningful. The greater the validation for social interdependence theory, furthermore, the
more the validation for these and other related theories.
Clear Operational Definitions
One of the unique aspects of social interdependence theory is that operational procedures
have been developed for each type of social interdependence and the procedures have been
implemented in a wide variety of applied settings. Within education the operational
definitions of cooperative learning derived from social interdependence theory have been
implemented at the preschool, elementary, secondary, university, and adult education levels.
This is rather unique among the wide variety of cooperative learning procedures. From social
interdependence theory, three types of cooperative learning have been operationalised: formal
cooperative learning, informal cooperative learning, and cooperative base groups (Johnson et
al., 2013).
Formal cooperative learning consists of students working together, for one class period
to several weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specific tasks and
assignments (such as problem solving, completing a curriculum unit, writing a report,
conducting an experiment, or having a dialogue about assigned text material) (Johnson et al.,
2013). Any course requirement or assignment may be structured to be cooperative. In formal
cooperative learning teachers:
1. Make a number of preinstructional decisions. A teacher has to decide on the

objectives of the lesson (both academic and social skills objectives), size of groups,
the method of assigning students to groups, the roles students will be assigned, the
materials needed to conduct the lesson, and the way the room will be arranged.
2. Explain the task and the positive interdependence. A teacher clearly defines the
assignment, teaches the required concepts and strategies, specifies the positive
interdependence and individual accountability, gives the criteria for success, and
explains the expected social skills to be engaged in.
3. Monitor students’ learning and intervene within the groups to provide task
assistance or to increase students' interpersonal and group skills. A teacher
systematically observes and collects data on each group as it works. When it is
needed, the teacher intervenes to assist students in completing the task accurately and
in working together effectively.
4. Evaluate students’ learning and help students process how well their groups
functioned. Students’ learning is carefully assessed and their performances are
evaluated. Members of the learning groups then process how effectively they have
been working together.
Informal cooperative learning consists of having students work together to achieve a joint
learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period
(Johnson et al., 2013). Students engage in quick dialogues or activities in temporary, ad-hoc
groups in response to a limited number of questions about what is being learned. The brief
dialogues or activities may be used to focus student attention on the material to be learned, set
a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as to what will be covered in a class
session, ensure that students cognitively process the material being taught, and provide
closure to an instructional session. Informal cooperative learning groups are often organised
so that students engage in three-to-five minute focused discussions before and after a lecture
and two-to-three minute turn-to-your-partner discussions interspersed every ten to fifteen
minutes throughout a lecture. Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous
cooperative learning groups with stable membership whose primary responsibilities are to
provide support, encouragement, and assistance to make academic progress and develop
cognitively and socially in healthy ways as well as holding each other accountable for striving
to learn (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2013). Typically, cooperative base groups (a) are
heterogeneous in membership, (b) meet regularly (for example, daily or biweekly), and (c)
last for the duration of the semester, year, or until all members are graduated. Students are
assigned to base groups of three to four members, meet at the beginning and end of each class
session (or week) to complete academic tasks such as checking each members’ homework,
routine tasks such as taking attendance, and personal support tasks such as listening
sympathetically to personal problems or providing guidance for writing a paper. These three
types of cooperative learning may be used together. A typical class session may begin with a
base group meeting, which is followed by a short lecture in which informal cooperative
learning is used. The lecture is followed by a formal cooperative learning lesson. Near the end
of the class session another short lecture may be delivered with the use of informal
cooperative learning. The class ends with a base group meeting. These three types of
cooperative learning may be used at all levels of education, and even form the basis for
organising the cooperative school (Johnson & Johnson, 1994a). At the school level, faculty
and staff can meet weekly in teaching teams and/or study groups, engage in school-based
decision making, and structure faculty meetings and school events cooperatively.
Competitive and Individualistic Efforts
Social interdependence theory has been expanded in the past few decades to include the
conditions under which competition may be constructive (Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1978,
1989, 1999; Stanne et al., 1999; Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2003). Competition
tends to be more constructive when winning is relatively unimportant, all participants have a
reasonable chance to win, and there are clear, specific, and fair rules, procedures, and criteria
for winning. Individualistic efforts may be most appropriate when cooperation is too costly,
the goal is perceived to be important, participants expect to be successful, the task is unitary
and nondivisible, directions for completing the task are simple and clear, there is adequate
space and resources for each student, and what is accomplished will be used subsequently in a
cooperative effort.
DIFFERENCES AMONG THEORIES

Social interdependence theory, behavioural-learning theory, cognitive-developmental
theory, and social cognitive theory all predict that cooperative learning will promote higher
achievement than will competitive or individualistic learning. There are, however, basic
differences among the theoretical perspectives. Social interdependence theory assumes that
cooperative efforts are based on intrinsic motivation generated by interpersonal factors in
working together and joint aspirations to achieve a significant goal. Behavioural-learning
theory assumes that cooperative efforts are powered by extrinsic motivation to achieve
rewards. Social interdependence theory is made up of relational concepts dealing with what
happens among individuals, while the cognitive perspectives are focused on what happens
within a single person. Behavioural learning theory assumes that individuals are motivated by
self-interest only. Social interdependence theory assumes that individuals are motivated by
concern for the wellbeing of other group members and the common good as well as self-
interest. The differences in basic assumptions among the theoretical perspectives have yet to
be fully explored or resolved.
NEED FOR HETEROGENEITY IN THEORISING

AND PRACTICAL PROCEDURES
While this chapter has focused primarily on social interdependence theory, the authors do
not mean to imply that it is the only theory on which cooperative learning is based or the only
theory that will guide the future evolution of cooperative learning. It has been the most
influential on cooperative learning so far, but this does not mean that it will always be so.
Diversity in theorising (and in practical procedures) is needed to provide a healthy
environment for the continued growth and refinement of cooperative learning. The more
heterogeneous the theorising and the procedures used to implement cooperative learning, the
more promising is cooperative learning’s future. The heterogeneity produces conflict, and
from such intellectual conflict comes creativity and innovation (Johnson & Johnson, 2007).
CONCLUSION
The long-term survival of cooperative learning as an instructional method depends on its
being based on a clearly formulated theory that has been validated by research.
Demonstration studies that show a certain procedure works are not enough to ensure the
continued use of cooperative learning. An example is that although there were a number of
studies that demonstrated that in the early 1970s Teams-Games-Tournaments procedure
produced higher achievement than did traditional classroom learning, very few schools base
their instructional program on Teams-Games-Tournaments today. The same may be said
about Dewey’s Project Method and Frances Parker’s version of cooperative learning.
Hundreds of instructional procedures (if not thousands) have been developed over the past 60
years, nontheoretical demonstration studies were conducted showing that they were effective,
but the procedures are gone, adopted and then dropped despite their effectiveness.
Instructional procedures often have short lives, no matter how effective they are. To be
maintained as an instructional practice over decades and even centuries, requires that they are
built on a foundation of theory validated by theoretical research.
What separates cooperative learning from most other instructional methods is that it is
clearly part of a cycle of theory, research, and practice. While there are at least four middle
range theories that provide a basis for cooperative learning (cognitive developmental, social
cognitive, behavioural, and social interdependence), it is social interdependence theory that
has provided: (a) the major impetus for research on cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic efforts; (b) the clearest operationalisations of cooperative learning; and (c) the
most widespread implementation of cooperative learning at all levels of education (preschool,
elementary, secondary, university, adult education). The basic premise of social
interdependence theory is that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines
how individuals interact with each other, which, in turn, determines outcomes. Well over
twelve-hundred research studies have been conducted to validate or disconfirm social
interdependence theory. There is sufficient research, with both high internal and external
validity, to test the theory. The hundreds of studies that have been conducted indicate that
cooperation, compared with competitive and individualistic efforts, tends to result in higher
achievement and productivity, more positive interpersonal relationships, and greater
psychological health. The amount, quality, and generalisability of the research provide strong
confirmation of the basic propositions of the theory and the effectiveness of cooperative
relative to competitive and individualistic efforts.
The characteristics of social interdependency theory that elevate it above most other
theories include the validating research having high internal and external validity. Social
interdependence theory has generated both theoretical and demonstration studies, the results
of which are cumulative. Social interdependence theory is well formulated with clearly
defined concepts, testable, is dynamic (not static), focuses on relationship (not intrapersonal)
variables, is profound, is strategic, is powerful, and is the foundation on which other theories
are built. Social interdependence theory is applicable at multi-levels (intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and so forth). Finally, social interdependence theory has been applied in many
diverse areas (most notably in education and business) and the applications have had
profound effects on the theory and related research, revealing inadequacies in the theory and
pointing to further research that needs to be conducted.
Overall, social interdependence theory is the most influential theory underlying
cooperative learning. This does not mean that the other theories related to cooperative
learning are inadequate or faulty. This chapter is not meant to imply that social
interdependence theory is the only or should be the only theory underlying cooperative
learning. Each theory has their supporters, research has been conducted to validate them, and
cooperative learning procedures have been operationalised from most of them. A creative
tension among the theories is probably ideal for moving the theories forward and refining
cooperative learning.
REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Campbell, D. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of status of aggregates of
persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.
Choi, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2011). Relationship among cooperative learning
experiences, social interdependence, children’s aggression, victimization, and prosocial
behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 976-1003.
Coleman, P., & Tjosvold, D. (2000, July). Positive power: Mapping the dimensions of
constructive power relations. Paper presented at the Social Interdependence Theory
Conference, Silver Wind Farm, Minnesota.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-52.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In Jones M (ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Deutsch, M. (1968). Field theory in social psychology. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 412-487). Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1983). The prevention of World War III: A psychological perspective. Political
Psychology, 4(1), 3-31.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
DeVries, D., & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: Their effects on
cross-race and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 741-749.
Durkheim, E. (1897/2013). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: Beta Nu Publishing.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Hall, C. L. (1935). The conflicting psychologies of learning: A way out. Psychological
Review, 42, 491-516.
Hayek, A., Toma, C., Oberle, D., & Butera, F. (in press). Grading hampers cooperative
information sharing in group problem solving. Social Psychology 46.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Oxford, England: Harcourt,
Brace.
Johnson, D. W. (1970). Social psychology of education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Johnson, D. W. (1983a). Resolving marital conflicts constructively. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Company.
Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: The interrelationships among theory,
research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 931-945.
Johnson, D. W. (2014). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization (11th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2013). Joining together: Group theory and group skills
(11th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative,
competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213-240.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1978). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 3-15.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Constructive controversy
and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-61.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1983). Social interdependence and perceived academic and
personal support in the classroom. Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 77-82.
Johnson, D. W, & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1991). Cooperative learning and classroom and school
climate. In B. Fraser, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation,
antecedents and consequences (pp. 55-74). New York: Pergamon Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994a). Leading the cooperative school (2nd ed.). Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994b). Cooperative learning and American values. The
Cooperative Link, 9(3), 3-4.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1996). Cooperative learning and traditional American values:
An appreciation. NASSP Bulletin, 80(579), 63-65.
Johnson, D. W, & Johnson R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2000). Cooperative learning, values, and culturally plural
classrooms. In M. Leicester, C. Modgill, & S. Modgill (Eds.), Values, the classroom, and
cultural diversity (pp. 15-28). London: Cassell PLC.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2002a). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 5-14.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2002b). Multicultural education and human relations. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2003). Field testing integrative negotiations. Peace and
Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9(1), 39-68.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005a). New developments in social interdependence theory.
Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005b). Teaching students to be peacemakers (4th ed.).
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005). Essential components of peace education. Theory Into
Practice, 44(4), 280-292.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2007). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the
classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009a). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-
379.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009b). Engergizing learning: The instructional power of
conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37-52.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010a). Teaching students how to live in a democracy. In
F. Salili, & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Democracy and multicultural education (pp. 201-234).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010b). The impact of social interdependence on value
education and student wellbeing. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.),
International research handbook of values education and student wellbeing (pp. 825-
848). New York: Springer Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Constructive controversy as a means of teaching
citizens how to engage in political discourse. Policy Futures in Education, 12(3), 417-
430.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (in press). Constructive controversy: Teaching students
how to think creatively. In A. Vollmer, M. Dick, & T. Wehner (Eds.), Innovation as a
social process: Constructive controversy – a method for conflict management. Berlin:
Gabler/Eiesbaden/Germany Publishers.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Anderson, D. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom
climate. Journal of Psychology, 114, 135-142.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Buckman, L., & Richards, P. (1986). The effect of prolonged
implementation of cooperative learning on social support within the classroom. Journal
of Psychology, 119, 405-411.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (2013). Cooperation in the classroom (9th ed.).
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal
attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation
and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 5-54.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Roseth, C. J., & Shin, T. S. (2014). The relationship between
motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 44, 622-633.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
Johnson, D. W., & Matross, R. (1977). Interpersonal influence in psychotherapy: A social
psychological view. In A. Gurman, & A. Razin (Eds.), Effective psychotherapy: A
handbook of research (pp. 395-432). New York: Pergamon Press.
Kessel, K. (2000). Mediation. In M. Deutsch, & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict
resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 522-545). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw Hill.
Maller, J. B. (1929). Cooperation and competition: An experimental study in motivation. New
York: Teachers College (Columbia University) Press.
May, M., & Doob, L. (1937). Co-operation and competition. Social Science Research Council
Bulletin, 125. New York: Social Science Research Council.
Mayer, A. (1903). Uber einzel-und gesamtleistung des scholkindes [On individual and
collective achievement of the school child]. Archiv fur die Gesamte Psychologie [Archive
of General Psychology], 1, 276-416.
Mead, M. (1936/1961). Cooperation and competition among primitive peoples. Boston, MA:
Beacon.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
Popper, K. (1935). Logik der forschung. Zur erkenntnistheorie der modernen
naturwissenschaft. New York: Springer. English translation by K. Popper, J. Freed, & L.
Freed (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and
problem solving: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129-143.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt.
Reichenbach, H. (1951). The rise of scientific philosophy. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). The relationship between
interpersonal relationships and achievement within cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic conditions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246.
Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin, R. (1980). Effects of individual learning expectations on student achievement. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 72, 520-524.
Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48
(February), 71-82.
Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1986). Team accelerated instruction: Mathematics.
Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.
Stanne, M. B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Social interdependence and motor
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 133-154.
Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading
and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine
communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swedberg, R. (2014). Theorizing in social science: The context of discovery. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Tjosvold, D. (1989). Team organization: An enduring competitive advantage. Chichester,
West Sussex: Wiley.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Sun, H. (2003). Can interpersonal competition
be constructive within organizations? Journal of Psychology, 137(1), 63-84.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposeful behavior in animals and men. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American
Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social
identity, and behavioral engagement. New York: Psychology Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, G., & Johnson, D. W. (1972). Social psychology: Issues and insights (2nd ed.).
Philadelphia, PA.: Lippincott.
Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24,
345-376.
SCH

Theories Cooperation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theories Cooperation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theories Cooperation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2015).

Theoretical approaches to cooperative

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO COOPERATIVE

David W. Johnson* and Roger T. Johnson

Keywords: achievement; behavioural-learning; cognitive-developmental; collaboration;

Figure 1. General Theoretical Frameworks.

An early theory of cooperation is cognitive-developmental theory. The cognitive

Social Cognitive Theory

A third theoretical approach to cooperation is behavioural-learning theory. Behavioural

Social Interdependence Theory

A fourth theoretical approach to cooperation is social interdependence theory. Of the

VALIDATION OF SOCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE

Positive interdependence creates promotive interaction. Promotive interaction occurs as

Negative interdependence typically results in students opposing each other’s success.

Figure 2. Outcomes of Cooperative Learning.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY

Figure 3. Characteristics of Social Interdependence Theory.

The research on social interdependence has an external validity and generalisability

Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), for example, is a combination of resource interdependence

Well Formulated Theory with Well Defined Conceptual Concepts

Social interdependence theory is well-formulated. It summarises complex observations in

Testable Theory That Generates Research

Testability is a vital feature of a theory. A theory that cannot be verified (Reichenbach,

Cumulative Nature of the Theory

Dynamic (Not Static) States

Relationship (Not Individual) Variables

Social interdependence theory focuses on relationship, not individual variables. Lewin

An essential characteristic of a theory is whether it is profound, as opposed to trivial. A

Another essential characteristic of a theory is whether it is strategic or narrow. A theory is

Social interdependence theory is a multi-level theory, applying to intrapersonal (i.e.,

life, being as relevant to world peace as it is to group effectiveness. There is probably no

1. Understanding how to ensure elements within an individual (i.e., desire for

The implementation of cooperative learning focuses attention on the variables that

These mediating variables enable teachers to structure cooperative learning more

Foundation for Other Theories

Clear Operational Definitions

1. Make a number of preinstructional decisions. A teacher has to decide on the

DIFFERENCES AMONG THEORIES

NEED FOR HETEROGENEITY IN THEORISING

Slavin, R. (1980). Effects of individual learning expectations on student achievement. Journal

You might also like