Centros históricos en Colombia

Social Interdependence Theory is based on two main types of interdependence: positive interdependence and negative interdependence (Deutsch, 1949). Positive interdependence aligns with a cooperative approach to working with others and is defined as ‘the perception that one is linked with others in a way so that one cannot succeed unless they do (and vice versa) and/or that their work benefits one and one’s work benefits them’ (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a, p. 24). Negative interdependence suggests that interactions are more competitive in nature. By definition this results in the perception that ‘one is linked with others in a way so that one cannot succeed if they do’ (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a, p. 25). In this process there are winners and losers and therefore your chance of

61 success is either diminished or heightened depending on the actions of others. To be able to attain your goals, others must fail. If there is no interdependence, individuals perceive their goal attainment is unrelated to others. SIT suggests therefore that the goals to which group members aspire will determine how they interact in any given situation.

Figure 3.3 illustrates the key components of SIT. For both positive and negative interdependence, the goal structure can be presented as three major categories: through the interdependence of means; outcome independence; and boundary interdependence. Means interdependence relates to the reliance on others to provide necessary resources, roles and/or tasks. When there is a positive means relationship, the sharing of resources, roles and tasks can be overlapping and part of an overall strategy to achieve a common goal, as is the case if students divide an assigned task between group members. If the actions of one or more individual/s within the group hinder, interfere, or sabotage the effectiveness of others completing their goals/tasks successfully, then the existent interdependence of the resource means results in a negative experience. Negative means interdependence is also the result of individuals perceiving their situation to have been caused by the performance or lack thereof of others.

There are two types of outcome interdependence: goals and rewards. Positive reward interdependence suggests that group members will be focused on gaining a reward or avoiding the loss of a reward. However the reward-goal dichotomy presents the main theoretical difference that emerged early on between cooperative learning contemporaries, David and Roger Johnson and Robert Slavin. Slavin (1983b) emphasised incentive structures and argued that group rewards and individual accountability were essential to the effectiveness of cooperative learning instructional methods. However, Johnson and Johnson (1989) took a broader view and suggested that for a reward structure to be effective, there needs to be a perception of positive goal interdependence between group members. Both the reward and goal interdependence components of positive outcome interdependence are shown in Figure 3.3.

Johnson and Johnson (2009) note that the way in which other researchers have variously conceptualised interdependence as resource, role, task and/or reward structures (for example as outlined in Figure 3.1) can be subsumed within these three SIT categories of means, outcome, and boundary.

62

Figure 3.3 Social Interdependence Theory diagram Derived from Johnson & Johnson (1989, 2005a, 2009)

Positive Interdependence (Cooperative) Social Interdependence Theory Negative Interdependence (Competitive) No interdependence (Individualistic) Positive Means Interdependence

(Actions & resources needed)

Negative Means Interdependence

(Resources to overcome competitors)

Negative Outcome Interdependence

(Mutually exclusive goals)

Positive Outcome Interdependence

(Mutual goals/rewards)

Positive Goal Interdependence

(each must attain their goals)

Positive Reward Interdependence

(same reward for each individual)

Resource interdependence

(need to combine)

Role interdependence

(assigned interconnected roles)

Task interdependence

(set order & reliance on parts for completion)

Promotive Interaction (Degree of help &

encouragement)

Productivity / Achievement (effort to achieve)

LEVEL of performance,

productivity, achievement & retention of skills & information

QUALITY & level of reasoning strategies & metacognition

PROCESS GAINS & LOSSES

Generation of new ideas; grp to ind. Transfer of knowledge

TRANSFER of LEARNING

Individual’s ability to use knowledge in new situations

Quality of relationships Psychological health, self- esteem & social competence Positive Boundary Interdependence Negative Boundary Interdependence Environmental Historical Identity & expectations Avoid LOSS Achieve GAIN Negative Goal Interdependence Oppositional Interaction Substituability Cathexis Inducibility

63 Having reviewed six decades of research into the social interdependence phenomenon, Johnson and Johnson (2005a) found that positive goal interdependence is the main artery to successful cooperation, higher achievement and greater productivity within the SIT framework, although the combination of both goal and reward interdependence increases that likelihood. The key component however is promotive interaction, which implies mutual assistance, trust, support, and encouragement, in the facilitation of goal accomplishment (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a; 2005a; 2009). Furthermore, it is promotive interaction ‘that most powerfully influences efforts to achieve, caring and committed relationships, and psychological adjustment and social competence’ (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a, p. 63), as well as ‘facilitating the development of new insights and discoveries’ rather than merely motivating individuals (Johnson & Johnson, 2005a). Deutsch (1949, p. 138) first hypothesised that:

Individuals who are exposed to the cooperative social situation will perceive themselves to the more promotively interdependent (in relation to the other individuals composing their group) with respect to goal, locomotions, facilitations, etc., than will individuals who are exposed to the competitive social situation.

Deutsch (1949) went on to outline three psychological consequences shaped by positive interdependence: substitutability (acceptance that there is no need to perform functionally identical actions); positive cathexis (the investment of emotional energy in support of others whose actions are effective); and inducibility (mutual influence), although notably it is argued that without an orientation towards some goal and/or reward outcome, there would be no type of outcome interdependence; and without outcome interdependence there is no cooperation or promotive interaction, or competition for that matter (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).

Oppositional or contrient interaction defined as ‘individuals discouraging and obstructing each other’s efforts to achieve’ (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a, p. 39) is the equivalent element to promotive interaction for negative outcome interdependence. For ease of reference, only the main elements of positive interdependence appear in Figure 3.3; however, for each positive element SIT suggests, there is a corresponding opposite and equal negative component. For example, the productivity and achievement outcomes of both promotive and oppositional interactions rely on the intertwining of various components such as knowledge, skills and level of performance; metacognitive strategies; process gains and losses in the generation of new ideas; and the transfer of learning

64 (Johnson & Johnson, 1989a). In the same way, the psychological processes of substitutability, cathexis and inductibility, have both positive and negative permutations.

Finally, boundary interdependence refers to external factors that segregate and separate (negative interdependence) or alternatively, unifies (positive interdependence) individuals into groups or sub-groups. These factors can include environmental interdependencies such as campus, tutorial times, or proximity due to seating arrangements; personal characteristics, similarities or differences; past history; or identity and expectations (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Once again these types of interdependencies are not independent categories but rather intersect and/or combine to form the parameters that present the particular situation in which the group work takes place. The shared space or ‘field’ (Lewin, 1935) influences how students interact.

To summarise, SIT is based on two key concepts: perceived interdependence and the effectiveness of actions. Therefore, what individuals think and what they do when they work together affects their psychological processes and their patterns of interaction (Johnson & Johnson, 2005a). The key feature of this theoretical position is the reciprocal nature of cooperative efforts to achieve psychological health, and positive relationships, as well as increased efforts to perform. Through the lens of social interdependence theory however, cause and effect are bi-directional and therefore the centrality of these social psychological processes means that they can result in positive or negative experiences and ultimately the success or breakdown of cooperative efforts (Johnson & Johnson, 2005a).