European journal of social psychology vol:29 issue:5-6 pages:815-823
In line with a social-support-for-shared-self-interest interpretation of competitive intergroup behavior Schopler, Insko, Graetz, Drigotas, Smith and Dahl (1993) observed that, in the face of consistent cooperative outgroup, behavior, two ingroup members behaved competitively, when this strategy, had been suggested by another (role-playing) ingroup member. Because a comparable amount of competitive PDG-choosing was observed in a no-suggestion condition with two subjects and one neutral role player (single no-suggestion condition), Schopler et al. assumed that the two subjects, motivated by greed, each initiated and supported competitive suggestions. Within the boundaries of Schopler et al.'s, research paradigm, the present experiment aimed to rest this assumption by adding a no-suggestion cooperative feedback condition with two neutral role players, rendering impossible any form of explicit social support. In this double no-suggestion condition a significant reduction of competitive responding,vas observed, compared to a single no-suggestion condition. Additionally it was observed that the single no-suggestion condition yielded less competition than a manipulated (explicit) competitive suggestion condition. Finally, the new condition still produced more competition than a manipulated (explicit) cooperative suggestion condition. As a whole, our results are in line with predictions derived from the social-support-for-shared-self-interest-hypothesis. Nevertheless, alternative interpretations, calling for further research, are also proposed. (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.