Discontinuity Effect

Definition

The interindividual–intergroup discontinuity effect is the tendency in some settings for relations between groups to be more competitive, or less cooperative, than relations between individuals. Why is this effect referred to as a discontinuity rather than just as a difference? Unpublished research has demonstrated that variation in the number of people in an interacting pair from one-on-one to two-on-two to three-on-three to four-on-four, and so on, has found a large difference between one-on-one and two-on-two, a smaller difference between two-on-two and three-on-three, and little change thereafter; that is, there is a discontinuity between one-on one relations and two-on-two (intergroup) relations. Research has documented the discontinuity effect in both nonlaboratory and laboratory contexts.

Nonlaboratory Evidence

The nonlaboratory research has had participants record on small diaries instances of back-and-forth social interaction that fell into one of five categories: (1) one-on-one (participant interacting with another individual), (2) within-group (participant within a group interacting with other group members), (3) oneon-group (participant interacting with a group), (4) group-on-one (participant in a group interacting with an individual), (5) group-on-group (participant within a group interacting with another group). After classifying the social interaction, the participants then evaluated the interaction as cooperative or competitive. Data collected over a number of days indicated that interactions of types 1 and 2 were less competitive, or more cooperative, than interactions of types 3, 4, and 5. More specifically, there was a discontinuity effect, a difference between interactions of type 1 (oneon-one) and type 5 (group-on-group).

Laboratory Evidence

Most of the laboratory research has structured the interaction with the use of a matrix game referred to as the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG). Within the PDG each of two players, A and B, has two choices, X and Y, yielding a total of four possible choice pairings. Typically a choice is made in isolation without knowledge of the other player's choice. Each choice pairing has a different combination of payoffs or outcomes. These payoffs or outcomes can be illustrated with U.S. dollars. If both A and B choose X, they both receive a moderate payoff, say $3.00. If on the other hand, one player chooses Y, while the other player chooses X, the player choosing Y, whether A or B, may receive $4.00 and the other player may receive only $1.00. Finally, if both players choose Y, they may both receive $2.00. The 2 X 2 matrix of four choice pairings thus presents a dilemma. Either A or B can increase outcomes by choosing Y, but if both A and B are guided by selfinterest, they will receive lower outcomes than could have been obtained by mutual X choices. The X choice is a cooperative choice, and the Y choice is sometimes referred to as a competitive choice and sometimes as a defecting choice. If the Y choice is guided by greed, or an interest in increasing outcomes, the competitive label is appropriate. On the other hand, if the Y choice is guided by fear, or an interest in minimizing the reduction in outcomes resulting from the other player's Y choice, the defecting label is appropriate.

...