An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning

Abstract

The widespread and increasing use of cooperative learning is one of the great success stories of social and educational psychology. Its success largely rests on the relationships among theory, research, and practice. Social interdependence theory provides a foundation on which cooperative learning is built. More than 1,200 research studies have been conducted in the past 11 decades on cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts. Findings from these studies have validated, modified, refined, and extended the theory. From the theory, procedures for the teacher’s role in using formal and informal cooperative learning and cooperative base groups have been operationalized. Those procedures are widely used by educators throughout the world. The applications have resulted in revisions of the theory and the generation of new research.

Full text

http://er.aera.net
Educational Researcher
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09339057
2009; 38; 365 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning
http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/5/365
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published on behalf of
http://www.aera.net
By
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Educational Researcher Additional services and information for
http://er.aera.net/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://er.aera.net/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:
http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 365
The widespread and increasing use of cooperative learning is one of
the great success stories of social and educational psychology. Its
success largely rests on the relationships among theory, research, and
practice. Social interdependence theory provides a foundation on
which cooperative learning is built. More than 1,200 research studies
have been conducted in the past 11 decades on cooperative, com-
petitive, and individualistic efforts. Findings from these studies have
validated, modified, refined, and extended the theory. From the the-
ory, procedures for the teacher’s role in using formal and informal
cooperative learning and cooperative base groups have been opera-
tionalized. Those procedures are widely used by educators through-
out the world. The applications have resulted in revisions of the
theory and the generation of new research.
Keywords: collaboration; cooperative learning; instructional
practices
Few instructional practices have been more successfully
implemented in the past 60 years than cooperative learn-
ing. Cooperative learning was relatively unknown and
unused in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. During this time,
there was considerable cultural resistance to the use of cooperative
learning, based first on the social Darwinism that promoted inter-
personal competition with slogans such as, “It’s a dog-eat-dog
world” and “survival of the fittest.” In the late 1960s, after com-
petition began to be criticized (e.g., Sexton, 1961), the cultural
resistance switched to rugged individualism, that is, the view that
strong individuals were built by isolating each student and having
students learn by themselves without interacting with classmates.
Individualistic procedures were recommended, such as programmed
learning, which was aimed at allowing students to go through the
curriculum at their own pace independent of classmates’ rates of
learning, and operant conditioning, which included behavioral
modification (Skinner, 1968). Individualistic learning was then
challenged by social scientists who pointed out the essential role
of peer interaction and relationships in socialization and learning
(Hartup, 1976; D. W. Johnson, 1980; D. W. Johnson &
R. Johnson, 1981d; Ladd, 1999; Lewis & Rosenblum, 1975). It
was not until the 1980s that cooperative learning began to be
widely accepted.
The application of social interdependence theory to education
has become one of the most successful and widespread applica-
tions of social and educational psychology to practice. Although
small-group learning has been used since the beginning of human
existence, the modern use of cooperative learning primarily
began in 1966 with the training of teachers at the University of
Minnesota in the effective instructional use of small groups
(D. W. Johnson, 1970; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1974).
Other ways of structuring cooperative learning include Teams-
Games-Tournament (DeVries & Edwards, 1973), Student Teams
Achievement Divisions (Slavin, 1978), group investigation
(Sharan & Sharan, 1976), academic controversy (D. W. Johnson
& R. Johnson, 1979, 2007), jigsaw (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan,
Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), Team Assisted Individualization (Slavin,
Leavey, & Madden, 1984), complex instruction (Cohen, 1994),
the structural approach (Kagan, 1985), Cooperative Integrated
Reading and Composition Program (Stevens, Madden, Slavin, &
Farnish, 1987), and many more.
The success of cooperative learning is unusual. Many instruc-
tional practices have been recommended during the past 60
years. The vast majority of instructional practices were never
widely adopted (e.g., Richard DeCharms’s [1976] program of
pawns and origins), and of the few that were adopted, most were
abandoned after a few years (e.g., programmed learning, Skinner,
1968; the National Science Foundation–funded science and
social studies programs of the 1960s, the Magic Circle and other
values clarification procedures, multiple learning styles proce-
dures, and Madelyn Hunter’s steps of teaching). Cooperative
learning has been different. From being discounted and ignored,
cooperative learning has steadily progressed to being one of the
dominant instructional practices throughout the world.
Cooperative learning is now utilized 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, almost anywhere in the world,
it is difficult to find a textbook on instructional methods, teach-
ers’ journals, or instructional materials that does not discuss
Educational Researcher, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 365–379
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09339057
© 2009 AERA. http://er.aera.net
An Educational Psychology Success Story:
Social Interdependence Theory and
Cooperative Learning
David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson
Research News
and Comment
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

educational ReseaRcheR
366
cooperative learning. Materials on cooperative learning have been
translated into dozens of languages. Our writings on cooperative
learning, for example, have been translated into 17 languages
(i.e., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Arabic, French, Spanish,
Italian, Greek, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish,
Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish), and the writings of other schol-
ars on cooperative learning have been translated into many more
languages. The success of cooperative learning is largely based on
its having a clear theoretical foundation and hundreds of validat-
ing research studies that point the way for operational procedures
for practitioners such as teachers.
The purpose of this article is to describe how social and edu-
cational psychology has contributed to educational practice by
summarizing social interdependence theory, giving an overview
of the relevant research, and discussing the application of the
theory to education.
Social Interdependence Theory
Social interdependence exists when the outcomes of individuals are
affected by their own and others’ actions (D. W. Johnson & R.
Johnson, 1989). There are two types of social interdependence:
positive (when the actions of individuals promote the achieve-
ment of joint goals) and negative (when the actions of individuals
obstruct the achievement of each other’s goals). Social interde-
pendence may be differentiated from social dependence, inde-
pendence, and helplessness. Social dependence exists when the
goal achievement of Person A is affected by Person B’s actions,
but the reverse is not true. Social independence exists when the
goal achievement of Person A is unaffected by Person B’s actions
and vice versa. Social helplessness exists when neither the person
nor others can influence goal achievement.
Historical Roots
The historical roots of social interdependence theory can be traced
to the emerging school of gestalt psychology at the University of
Berlin in the early 1900s. Gestalt psychology was part of the shift
from mechanistic to field theories (Deutsch, 1968). As the field
became the unit of analysis in physics, so did the whole or gestalt
become the focus of the study of perception and behavior for
gestalt psychologists. They posited that humans develop orga-
nized and meaningful views of their world by perceiving events as
integrated wholes rather than as a summation of parts or proper-
ties. One of the founders of the gestalt school of psychology, Kurt
Koffka, proposed that, similar to psychological fields, groups were
dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among members
could vary (Deutsch, 1968; Deutsch & Krauss, 1965).
Building on the principles of gestalt psychology, Kurt Lewin
(1935, 1948) proposed that the essence of a group is the interde-
pendence among members that results in the group being a
dynamic whole so that a change in the state of any member or sub-
group 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.
Original Theory
Morton Deutsch (1949, 1962) extended Lewin’s notions by examin-
ing how the tension systems of different people may be interrelated.
He conceptualized two types of social interdependence—positive
and negative. Positive interdependence exists when there is a posi-
tive correlation among individuals’ goal attainments; individuals
perceive that they can attain their goals if and only if the other
individuals with whom they are cooperatively linked attain their
goals. Positive interdependence results in promotive interaction
(i.e., individuals encouraging and facilitating each other’s efforts
to complete tasks in order to reach the group’s goals). Negative
interdependence exists when there is a negative correlation among
individuals’ goal achievements; individuals perceive that they can
obtain their goals if and only if the other individuals with whom
they are competitively linked fail to obtain their goals. Negative
interdependence results in oppositional or contrient interaction
(i.e., individuals discouraging and obstructing each other’s efforts
to complete tasks in order to reach their goals). No interdepen-
dence exists when there is no correlation among individuals’ goal
achievements; individuals perceive that the achievement of their
goals is unrelated to the goal achievement of others. The basic
premise of social interdependence theory is that how participants’
goals are structured determines the ways they interact and the
interaction pattern determines the outcomes of the situation
(Deutsch, 1949, 1962).
Deutsch (1949, 1962) posited that positive interdependence
creates the psychological processes of substitutability (i.e., the
degree to which actions of one person substitute for the actions
of another person), positive cathexis (i.e., the investment of pos-
itive psychological energy in objects outside of oneself, such as
friends, family, and work), and inducibility (i.e., the openness to
being influenced by and to influencing others). Negative interde-
pendence tends to create nonsubstitutability, negative cathexis,
and resistance to influence. No interdependence may be charac-
terized by the absence of these three psychological processes.
We have modified and extended social interdependence the-
ory in two major ways (D. W. Johnson, 1970; D. W. Johnson &
R. Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1989, 2005a; D. W. Johnson, R.
Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; D. W. Johnson, Maruyama, R.
Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). First, we have identified and
validated the variables that mediate the effectiveness of coopera-
tion and competition. Second, we have expanded the scope of the
theory by investigating numerous additional dependent vari-
ables, such as psychological health, social support, self-esteem,
perspective taking, bullying, and moral development.
Essential Elements of Cooperation
Deutsch (1949, 1962) focused on three variables: interdepen-
dence, interaction pattern, and outcomes. As a result of our
research on and implementation of cooperation, we posited that
five variables mediate the effectiveness of cooperation: positive
interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interac-
tion, the appropriate use of social skills, and group processing.
Positive Interdependence
Positive and negative interdependence were defined by Lewin
and Deutsch as resulting from mutual goals. Other researchers
soon added other types of interdependence. Positive and negative
interdependence have been structured through complementary
roles (Thomas, 1957), group contingencies (Skinner, 1968), and
dividing information (or other resources) into separate pieces
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 367
(Aronson et al., 1978). Various researchers have structured inter-
dependence through divisions of labor, mutual identity, environ-
mental spaces, and simulations involving fantasy situations (D.
W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1992). These ways of structuring
interdependence may be subsumed into three categories: out-
come, means, and boundary (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989,
2005a). Outcome interdependence includes goals and rewards.
Goals can be real or fantasized (such as being wrecked on the
moon). Regardless of how it is undertaken, structuring positive
outcome interdependence into a situation tends to result in
increased achievement and productivity (Hagman & Hayes,
1986; Jensen, 1996; Jensen, D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 2002;
Matsui, Kakuyama, & Onglatco, 1987; Scott & Cherrington,
1974; Slavin & Tanner, 1979; Wodarski, Hamblin, Buckholdt,
& Ferritor, 1973).
Means interdependence includes resource, role, and task inter-
dependence. These methods are overlapping and not independent
from each other. Resources can be divided among group members
like a jigsaw puzzle. Roles such as reader, recorder, summarizer, and
encourager of participation can be assigned to group members.
The assigned task can be divided so that each group member is
responsible for doing one aspect of the assignment.
The boundaries between individuals and groups can define
who is interdependent with whom. Koffka (1935) pointed out
that abrupt discontinuity produces segregating forces between
the parts of a visual field that it separates, as well as unifying
forces within the separated parts. Based on this principle of per-
ceptual organization (Koffka, 1935; Wertheimer, 1923), bound-
ary interdependence may exist based on abrupt discontinuities
among individuals that segregate individuals into separate
groups. The discontinuity may be created by environmental fac-
tors (different parts of the room or different rooms), similarity
(all seated together or wearing the same color shirt), proximity
(seated together), past history together, expectations of being
grouped together, and differentiation from other groups.
Boundary interdependence thus includes outside enemy (i.e.,
negative interdependence with another group), identity (which
binds members together as an entity), and environmental (such
as a specific work area) interdependence. These types of interde-
pendence are overlapping and not independent from each other.
A series of research studies was conducted to clarify the impact
of positive interdependence on productivity and achievement (see
D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 2005a). First, it is necessary to
demonstrate that positive interdependence has effects greater than
group membership or interpersonal interaction. There is evidence
that group membership in and of itself is not sufficient to produce
higher achievement and productivity—positive interdependence
is also required (Hwong, Caswell, D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson,
1993). Knowing that one’s performance affects the success of group
mates seems to create responsibility forces that increase one’s efforts
to achieve. There is also evidence that interpersonal interaction is
insufficient to increase productivity—positive interdependence is
also required (Lew, Mesch, D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 1986a,
1986b; Mesch, D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 1988; Mesch, Lew,
D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 1986). Individuals achieved higher
with positive goal interdependence than when they worked indi-
vidualistically but had the opportunity to interact with classmates.
Given the impact of positive interdependence above and beyond
group membership and interpersonal interaction, a number of
studies have been conducted contrasting the impact of various
ways of inducing positive interdependence. Researchers have con-
cluded the following:
1. Positive goal interdependence promotes higher achievement
and greater productivity than does resource interdepen-
dence (D. W. Johnson, R. Johnson, Ortiz, & Stanne, 1991).
2. Positive goal and reward interdependence tends to be addi-
tive; although positive goal interdependence is sufficient to
produce higher achievement and productivity than do
individualistic efforts, the combination of goal and reward
interdependence tends to increase achievement more than
does goal interdependence alone or individualistic efforts
(D. W. Johnson, R. Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990;
Lew et al., 1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al., 1988; Mesch et al.,
1986; Ortiz, D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 1996).
3. Resource interdependence by itself may decrease achieve-
ment and productivity, compared with individualistic
efforts (D. W. Johnson et al., 1990; Ortiz et al., 1996).
That is, when individuals need the resources of other group
members but do not share common goals, the emphasis
tends to be on obtaining resources from others without
sharing one’s own resources with them. The result tends to
be an interference with each other’s productivity.
4. Both working to achieve a reward and working to avoid the
loss of a reward produces higher achievement than does
individualistic effort (Frank, 1984). There is no significant
difference between working to achieve a reward and work-
ing to avoid a loss.
Effective
Psychological Processes
Positive Cathexis
Substitutability
Inducibility
Negative Cathexis
Nonsubstitutability
Resistance
None
Interaction Patterns
Promotive
Outcomes
Effort to Achieve, Higher Quality of Relationships,
Psychological Health
Social Interdependence
Negative Interdependence No Interdependence Positive Interdependence
Actions
Contrient None
Positive Negative Negative
Bungling None
FIGURE 1. Overview of social interdependence theory.
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

educational ReseaRcheR
368
5. Positive interdependence does more than simply motivate
individuals to try harder; it facilitates the development of
new insights and discoveries and the more frequent use of
higher level reasoning strategies (Gabbert, D. W. Johnson,
& R. Johnson, 1986; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1981b;
D. W. Johnson, Skon, & R. Johnson, 1980; Skon, D. W.
Johnson, & R. Johnson, 1981).
6. The more complex the procedures involved in interdepen-
dence, the longer it will take group members to reach their
full levels of productivity (Ortiz et al., 1996). The more
complex the teamwork procedures, the more members
have to attend to teamwork and the less time they have to
attend to task work. Once the teamwork procedures are
mastered, however, members concentrate on task work and
outperform individuals working alone.
7. Studies on identity interdependence involving social
dilemmas have found that when individuals define them-
selves in terms of their group membership, they are more
willing to take less from common resources and to contrib-
ute more toward the public good (Brewer & Kramer, 1986;
De Cremer & Van Vjugt, 1999; Kramer & Brewer, 1984).
8. The stronger the interdependence (e.g., common goals,
common outcomes, interpersonal bonds, promotive inter-
action, behavioral influence, communication), the greater
the perceived entitativity of a group (Gaertner & Schopler,
1998; Lickel et al., 2000; Welbourne, 1999). Entitativity is
the perception that a group is a unified and coherent whole
in which the members are bonded together (Campbell,
1958).
Individual Accountability and Personal Responsibility
Positive interdependence is posited to create responsibility forces
that add the concept of ought to group members’ motivation—one
ought to do one’s part, pull one’s weight, contribute, and satisfy
peer norms (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,
1989, 2005a). The positive interdependence that binds group
members together is posited to result in feelings of responsibility
for (a) completing one’s share of the work and (b) facilitating the
work of other group members. Furthermore, when a person’s per-
formance affects the outcomes of collaborators, the person feels
responsible for the collaborators’ welfare as well as for his or her
own (Matsui et al., 1987). Failing oneself is bad, but failing others
as well as oneself is worse. The more a person is liked and respected
by group mates, furthermore, the more responsibility he or she will
feel toward group mates (Wentzel, 1994).
Responsibility forces are increased when there is group and
individual accountability. Group accountability exists when the
overall performance of the group is assessed and the results are
given back to all group members to compare against a standard
of performance. Individual accountability exists when the perfor-
mance of each individual member is assessed and the results are
given back to the individual and the group to compare against a
standard of performance. Hooper, Ward, Hannafin, and Clark
(1989) noted that cooperation resulted in higher achievement
when individual accountability was structured than when it was
not. Archer-Kath, D. W. Johnson, and R. Johnson (1994) found
that by increasing individual accountability, perceived interde-
pendence among group members was also increased.
The lack of individual accountability may reduce feelings of
personal responsibility. Members may reduce their contributions
to goal achievement when the group works on tasks where it is
difficult to identify members’ contributions, when there is an
increased likelihood of redundant efforts, when there is a lack of
group cohesiveness, and when there is lessened responsibility for
the final outcome (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Ingham, Levinger,
Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kerr & Bruun, 1981; Latane,
Williams, & Harkins, 1979; Moede, 1927; Petty, Harkins,
Williams, & Latane, 1977; Williams, 1981; Williams, Harkins, &
Latane, 1981). If, however, there is high individual accountabil-
ity and it is clear how much effort each member is contributing,
if redundant efforts are avoided, if every member is responsible
for the final outcome, and if the group is cohesive, then the social
loafing effect vanishes.
Generally, as the group gets larger and larger, members are less
likely to see their own personal contribution to the group as
being important to the group’s chances of success (Kerr, 2001).
As group size increases, individual members tend to communi-
cate less frequently, which may reduce the amount of informa-
tion utilized in arriving at a decision (Gerard, Wilhelmy, &
Conolley, 1965; Indik, 1965), and the communication may be
less truthful, as members may alter their statements to conform
to the perceived beliefs of the overall group (Gerard et al., 1965;
Rosenberg, 1961). Social loafing, therefore, increases as the size
of the group increases. The smaller the size of the group, there-
fore, the greater tends to be the individual accountability (Messick
& Brewer, 1983). Morgan, Coates, and Rebbin (1970) found
that group performance actually improved when one member
was missing from five-person groups, perhaps because members
believed that their contributions were more necessary.
Promotive Interaction
Positive interdependence is posited to result in promotive inter-
action, and negative interdependence is posited to result in
oppositional or contrient interaction. Promotive interaction
occurs as individuals encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts
to accomplish the group’s goals. Unlike oppositional interaction
and no interaction, promotive interaction is characterized by
individuals
1. acting in trusting and trustworthy ways (e.g., Deutsch, 1962;
D. W. Johnson, 1974; D. W. Johnson & Noonan, 1972);
2. exchanging needed resources, such as information and
materials, and processing information more efficiently
and effectively (e.g., Crawford & Haaland, 1972; D. W.
Johnson, 1974; Laughlin & McGlynn, 1967);
3. providing efficient and effective help and assistance to
group mates (e.g., D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989;
Rosenbaum et al., 1980; Webb & Cullian, 1983);
4. being motivated to strive for mutual benefit (Deutsch,
1949; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989);
5. advocating exerting effort to achieve mutual goals (e.g.,
Pallak, Cook, & Sullivan, 1980; Wicklund & Brehm,
1976);
6. having a moderate level of arousal, characterized by low
anxiety and stress (e.g., Blau, 1954; Haines & McKeachie,
1967; Naught & Newman, 1966);
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 369
7. influencing each other’s efforts to achieve the group’s
goals (e.g., Crombag, 1966; Deutsch, 1949; D. W. Johnson,
R. Johnson, Roy, & Zaidman, 1985; Raven & Eachus,
1963);
8. providing group mates with feedback in order to improve
their subsequent performance of assigned tasks and
responsibilities (Pittman, Davey, Alafat, Wetherill, &
Kramer, 1980; Ryan, 1982);
9. challenging each other’s reasoning and conclusions in
order to promote higher quality decision making and
greater creativity (e.g., D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,
1979, 2007); and
10. taking the perspectives of others more accurately and
thus being better able to explore different points of view
(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989).
Oppositional interaction occurs as individuals discourage,
block, and obstruct each other’s efforts to achieve their goals;
individuals focus both on being productive and on preventing
any other person from being more productive than they are. No
interaction occurs when individuals work independently, without
any interchange with each other; individuals focus only on being
productive and ignore as irrelevant the efforts of others.
Appropriate Use of Social Skills
Unskilled group members cannot cooperate effectively. Effective
cooperation is based on skilled teamwork as well as on task work.
Students, therefore, must be taught the interpersonal and small-
group skills needed for high-quality cooperation and be motivated
to use them. To coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, partici-
pants must (a) get to know and trust each other, (b) communicate
accurately and unambiguously, (c) accept and support each other,
and (d) resolve conflicts constructively (D. W. Johnson, 2009; D.
W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2009). Interpersonal and small-group
skills form the basic nexus among individuals, and if individuals are
to work together productively and cope with the stresses and strains
of doing so, they must have a modicum of these skills.
In their studies on the long-term implementation of coopera-
tive teams, Marvin Lew, Debra Mesch, and colleagues (Lew et al.,
1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al., 1988; Mesch et al., 1986) found that
the combination of positive goal interdependence, a contingency
for high performance by all group members, and a social skills
contingency promoted the highest achievement and productiv-
ity. Archer-Kath et al. (1994) noted that giving participants indi-
vidual feedback on how frequently they engaged in targeted
social skills was more effective in increasing participants’ achieve-
ment than was group feedback.
Not only do social skills promote higher achievement, but
they contribute to building more positive relationships among
group members. Putnam, Rynders, R. Johnson, and D. W.
Johnson (1989) demonstrated that, when participants were
taught social skills, observed, and given individual feedback as to
how frequently they engaged in the skills, their relationships
became more positive.
Group Processing
Group processing occurs when group members (a) reflect on
which member actions were helpful and unhelpful and (b) make
decisions about which actions to continue or change. The pur-
pose of group processing is to clarify and improve the effective-
ness with which members carry out the processes necessary to
achieve the group’s goals. Yager, R. Johnson, D. W. Johnson, and
Snider (1986) found that high-, medium-, and low-achieving
participants rated higher on daily achievement, postinstructional
achievement, and retention measures in the cooperation-with-
group-processing condition than did participants who engaged
in cooperation without any group processing or individualistic
efforts. Participants in the cooperation-without-group-processing
condition, furthermore, achieved higher on all three measures
than did the participants in the individualistic condition. Putnam
et al. (1989) found that more positive relationships developed
between participants who were disabled and those who were non-
disabled when they were taught social skills and were engaged in
group processing, as compared with participants who worked
cooperatively without social skills training or group processing.
These positive relationships tended to carry over to postinstruc-
tional free-time situations. Archer-Kath et al. (1994) discovered
that group processing with individual feedback was more effec-
tive than was group processing with whole-group feedback in
increasing participants’ (a) achievement motivation, actual
achievement, uniformity of achievement among group members,
and influence toward higher achievement within cooperative
groups, (b) positive relationships among group members and
between participants and the teacher, and (c) participants’ self-
esteem and positive attitudes toward the subject area. Finally,
D. W. Johnson et al. (1990) discovered that participants per-
formed higher on problem-solving tasks when they worked coop-
eratively with both instructor processing (the instructor specified
cooperative skills to use, observed, and gave whole-class feedback
as to how well participants were using the skills) and participant
processing (the instructor specified cooperative skills to use,
observed, and gave-whole class feedback as to how well partici-
pants were using the skills, and had groups discuss how well they
interacted as a group) compared with cooperation with instructor
processing only, cooperative with group processing only, and
individualistic efforts. All three cooperative conditions per-
formed higher than did the individualistic condition.
Reflecting on the actions of group members that enhance or
hinder the group’s success may result in the compensation effect
(i.e., an increase in performance occurring when group members
work harder to compensate for the real or imagined shortcom-
ings of other group members; Williams & Karau, 1991). It may
also reduce social loafing through highlighting the unique and
indispensable contributions of each group member (Kerr &
Bruun, 1981). Group processing can clarify the nature of
the group’s goals (Weldon & Weingart, 1993) and their impor-
tance (Karau & Williams, 1993). Group processing can increase
members’ awareness that the group has the resources needed
to succeed and thereby increase collective efficacy (Guzzo,
Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993; Little & Madigan, 1997;
Spink, 1990). Finally, group processing can increase members’
involvement in the group’s efforts (Brickner, Harkins, &
Ostrom, 1986).
During group processing, members are expected to express
respect for each other’s contributions to the group efforts and for
each other as persons. The expression of respect toward a group
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

educational ReseaRcheR
370
member by group leaders tends to increase the group member’s
self-esteem (Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998). The
expression of respect among group members tends to increase
members’ efforts to achieve group goals when the group is
devalued by an outgroup (Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers, &
Doosje, 2002). Respect among group members also increases
members’ belief that they are valued as group members (Emler
& Hopkins, 1990; Tyler & Smith, 1999). It increases members’
commitment to the group, adherence to ingroup norms,
and group-serving behavior (Smith & Tyler, 1997; Tyler,
Degoey, & Smith, 1996). Finally, respect among group mem-
bers tends to increase members’ collective identification (Simon
& Sturmer, 2003).
Conditions for Constructive Competition
There are many reasons why competitors tend to achieve less
than they would if they were working cooperatively (D. W.
Johnson & R. Johnson, 1978, 1989). One reason is that when
working toward competitive goals, individuals tend to engage
in self-protective strategies such as self-worth protection, self-
handicapping behaviors, and defensive pessimism. Self-worth
protection involves withholding effort so that failure can be attrib-
uted to not trying rather than to incompetency (Mayerson &
Rhodewalt, 1988; Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, & Fairfield, 1991;
Thompson, Davidson, & Barber, 1995). Self-handicapping
involves creating an impediment to one’s performance (e.g., pro-
crastination and unrealistically high expectations) so that an
excuse is ready if one fails (Covington, 1992; McCown &
Johnson, 1991). Defensive pessimism involves unrealistically low
(a) expectations for succeeding and (b) valuing of the task, so that
anxiety about succeeding is minimized (Cantor & Harlow, 1994;
Cantor & Norem, 1989; Norem & Illingworth, 1993). Strategies
such as these tend to lower achievement in competitive situa-
tions. Many of the discussions of competition, furthermore, por-
tray it as so destructive that its elimination is recommended,
especially from the school and the workplace (Kohn, 1992, 1993;
Maehr & Midgley, 1991).
Other social scientists, however, have argued that competition
can be constructive and should be encouraged when it is appro-
priately structured (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1978; Sherif,
1978). Social interdependence theory has been expanded in the
past few decades to include the conditions under which competi-
tion may be constructive (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1974,
1978, 1989, 1999, 2005a; R. Johnson & D. W. Johnson, 1979;
Stanne, D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 1999). Indicators of con-
structive competition include completing the task effectively,
perceiving one’s participation in the competition as being person-
ally worthwhile (due to increasing self-confidence, social sup-
port, and achievement) above and beyond winning, becoming
more willing to take on more challenging tasks, strengthening the
relationship with other competitors, improving morale, improv-
ing the ability of competitors to work together cooperatively in
the future, insisting on participating in the competition, and
enjoying the competition. The few attempts to identify the fac-
tors contributing to the potential constructiveness of competi-
tion have theorized that competition tends to be more
constructive when the following occur (D. W. Johnson &
R. Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1989, 1999, 2005a):
1. Winning is relatively unimportant. If winning is too impor-
tant, high levels of anxiety result that interfere with perfor-
mance, especially on motor tasks (Blau, 1954; Deutsch,
1949; Haines & McKeachie, 1967; Naught & Newman,
1966; Tseng, 1969). When winning is too important, most
individuals are likely to perceive their performance as a fail-
ure (Fait & Billings, 1978; Sherif, 1978). If winning is too
important, losing promotes the development of competition-
learned helplessness, whereas winning can promote the devel-
opment of psychological burnout (Roberts, 1980).
2. All participants have a reasonable chance to win.
Motivation to achieve is based on the perceived likelihood
of being able to achieve a challenging goal (Atkinson,
1964). Those who believe they cannot win will not try, will
cheat, will avoid challenge, will use superficial and effort-
minimizing strategies, will engage in impaired problem
solving, will use other self-handicapping strategies, and
will have less interest in and enjoyment of the experience
(Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Butler,
1987; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Graham & Golan, 1991;
Halisch & Heckhauser, 1977; Hurlock, 1927; Lepley,
1937; Matthews, 1979; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle,
1988; Nolen, 1988; Pintrich, 1989; Utman, 1997).
3. There are clear and specific rules, procedures, and criteria
for winning. Ambiguity in competition interferes with
achievement, as energy is directed toward worrying about
what is fair and unfair (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,
1974, 1989).
In two field studies in business and industry, Tjosvold, D. W.
Johnson, R. Johnson, and Sun (2003, 2006) found that variables
related to constructive competition included the fairness of the
rules, the motivation to compete and win, the perception that
one’s chances of winning are good, a strong positive relationship
among competitors, competitors acting fairly during the compe-
tition, and a history of confirming each other’s competence. By
controlling these factors, the constructiveness of competition
may be enhanced.
Conditions for Constructive Individualistic Efforts
Individualistic efforts may be most appropriate when the follow-
ing occur (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1974, 1978, 1989,
1999, 2005a):
1. Cooperation is too costly, difficult, or cumbersome because
of the unavailability of skilled potential cooperators or the
unavailability of the resources needed for cooperation to
take place.
2. The goal is perceived as important, relevant, and worthwhile.
3. Participants expect to be successful in achieving their goals.
4. Unitary, nondivisible, simple tasks need to be completed,
such as the learning of specific facts or the acquisition or
the performance of simple skills.
5. The directions for completing the tasks are clear and spe-
cific, so participants do not need further clarification on
how to proceed and how to evaluate their work.
6. What is accomplished will be used subsequently in a
cooperative effort. Individualistic efforts can supplement
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 371
cooperative efforts through a division of labor in which each
person learns material or skills to be subsequently used in
cooperative activities. Learning facts and simple skills to be
used in subsequent cooperative efforts increases the per-
ceived relevance and importance of individualistic tasks. It is
the overall cooperative effort that provides the meaning to
individualistic work. It is contributing to the cooperative
effort that makes individualistic goals important.
Research on Social Interdependence
Amount and Characteristics of Research
The study of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts
is commonly recognized as the oldest field of research in U.S.
social psychology. In the late 1800s, Triplett (1898) conducted a
study on the factors associated with competitive performance.
Since then, more than 1,200 studies have been conducted on the
relative merits of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
efforts and the conditions under which each is appropriate. Many
of the research studies have yielded findings with high internal
validity, being carefully conducted by skilled investigators under
highly controlled laboratory (31%) and field (65%) settings.
When rated on the variables of random assignment to condi-
tions, 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% of the studies met these criteria.
This is one of the largest bodies of research within psychology,
and it provides sufficient empirical research to test social interde-
pendence theory’s propositions.
Findings from the research on social interdependence have an
external validity and a generalizability rarely found in the social
sciences. The more variations in places, people, and procedures
the research can withstand and still yield the same findings, the
more externally valid the conclusions. The research has been con-
ducted over 11 decades by many different researchers with mark-
edly different theoretical and practical orientations working in
different settings. Participants in the studies varied from age 3 to
older adults and have come from different economic classes and
cultural backgrounds. Widely different research tasks, ways of
structuring social interdependence, and measures of the depen-
dent variables have been used. The duration of studies ranged
from 1 session to more than 100 sessions. The research has been
conducted in numerous cultures in North America (Caucasian,
Black American, Native American, and Hispanic populations)
and countries from North, Central, and South America, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Rim. The research
on social interdependence includes both theoretical and demon-
stration studies conducted in educational, business, and social
service organizations. The diversity of the research gives social
interdependence theory wide generalizability and considerable
external validity.
The many diverse dependent variables examined in studies on
social interdependence over the past 110 years may be subsumed
within three broad categories (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,
1989, 2005a): effort to achieve, positive interpersonal relation-
ships, and psychological health (see Table 1).
Effort to Achieve
The average person cooperating was found to achieve at about
two thirds of a standard deviation above the average person per-
forming within a competitive (effect size = 0.67) or individualistic
(effect size = 0.64) situation (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,
1989). All effect sizes were computed using Cohen’s d and
adjusted for sample size utilizing the procedure recommended by
Hedges and Olkin (1985). When only studies yielding findings
with high internal validity were included in the analysis, the effect
sizes were 0.88 and 0.61, respectively. Cooperative experiences
promote more frequent insight into and use of higher level cognitive
and moral reasoning strategies than do competitive (effect size =
0.93) or individualistic (effect size = 0.97) efforts. Cooperators
tend to spend more time on task than do competitors (effect size =
0.76) or participants working individualistically (effect size =
1.17). Competitors tended to spend more time on task than did
participants working individualistically (effect size = 0.64).
Cooperation, when compared with competitive and individual-
istic efforts, tends to promote greater long-term retention, higher
intrinsic motivation and expectations for success, more creative
thinking (i.e., process gain), greater transfer of learning, and
more positive attitudes toward the task and school.
Positive Relationships and Social Support
More than 180 studies have compared the impact of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic efforts on interpersonal attrac-
tion. Cooperative efforts, when compared with competitive
Table 1
Mean Effect Sizes for Impact of Social Interdependence
on Dependent Variables
Dependent
Variable
Cooperative
vs.
Competitive
Cooperative
vs.
Individualistic
Competitive
vs.
Individualistic
Achievement 0.67 0.64 0.30
Interpersonal
attraction
0.67 0.60 0.08
Social support 0.62 0.70 −0.13
Self-esteem 0.58 0.44 −0.23
Time on task 0.76 1.17 0.64
Attitudes toward
task
0.57 0.42 0.15
Quality of
reasoning
0.93 0.97 0.13
Perspective
taking
0.61 0.44 −0.13
High-quality
studies
Achievement 0.88 0.61 0.07
Interpersonal
attraction
0.82 0.62 0.27
Social support 0.83 0.72 −0.13
Self-esteem 0.67 0.45 −0.25
Source. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition:
Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted
with permission.
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

educational ReseaRcheR
372
(effect size = 0.67) and individualistic (effect size = 0.60) experi-
ences, promoted considerably greater interpersonal attraction
among individuals (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). This
remains true when only the methodologically high-quality stud-
ies are examined (effect sizes = 0.82 and 0.62, respectively) and
when the studies focusing on relationships between White and
minority participants (effect sizes = 0.52 and 0.44, respectively)
and relationships between participants who were disabled and
nondisabled (effect sizes = 0.70 and 0.64, respectively) are exam-
ined. These results validate social judgment theory (D. W. Johnson
& R. Johnson, 1989), an extension of social interdependence
theory. The social judgments individuals make about each other
result in either a process of acceptance, resulting in mutual liking
and respect, or a process of rejection, resulting in mutual dislike
and lack of respect. Since the 1940s, furthermore, more than 106
studies comparing the relative impact of cooperative, competi-
tive, and individualistic efforts on social support have been con-
ducted. Cooperative experiences promoted greater task-oriented
and personal social support than did competitive (effect size =
0.62) or individualistic (effect size = 0.70) experiences. This was
still true when only the methodologically high-quality studies are
examined (effect sizes = 0.83 and 0.72, respectively).
An important question is whether the relationships formed
within cooperative groups will continue voluntarily in subse-
quent nontask situations. A number of studies have demon-
strated that when individuals were placed in postinstructional,
free-choice situations there was more cross-ethnic interaction
(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1981b, 1982a; D. W. Johnson,
R. Johnson, Tiffany, & Zaidman, 1983) and more cross-handicap
interaction (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c,
1982b, 1982c; R. Johnson & D. W. Johnson, 1981, 1982;
R. Johnson, D. W. Johnson, DeWeerdt, Lyons, & Zaidman,
1983; R. Johnson, D. W. Johnson, Scott, & Ramolae, 1985;
Martino & Johnson, 1979) when individuals had been in a coop-
erative rather than a competitive or individualistic situation. In
other words, the relationships formed within cooperative groups
among heterogeneous peers do seem to generalize to post-task
situations.
Another question is whether the quality of interpersonal rela-
tionships among students is related to academic achievement.
Roseth, D. W. Johnson, and R. Johnson (2008) conducted a
meta-analysis on 148 studies involving more than 17,000 early
adolescents. The studies were conducted in 11 different coun-
tries. They found that positive peer relationships explained 33%
of the variation in academic achievement, and when only the
moderate- and high-quality studies were included, positive peer
relationships explained 40% of the variation in achievement. It
seems that if teachers want to increase early adolescents’ achieve-
ment, teachers should facilitate the development of friendships.
Another question is whether there is a relationship among
cooperative experiences, social interdependence dispositions, and
harm-intended aggression, victimization, and prosocial behavior
(Choi, D. W. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 2009). Two hundred and
seventeen students from third to fifth grades completed a series
of questionnaires. A path analysis was conducted among the vari-
ables. The results indicate that cooperative experiences predicted
cooperative predispositions, the absence of individualistic predis-
positions, and engagement in prosocial behavior. Cooperative
predispositions predicted the engagement in prosocial behavior
and the absence of engaging in harm-intended aggression.
Competitive predispositions predicted engaging in harm-
intended aggression. Individualistic predispositions predicted
none of the measured behaviors. If schools wish to prevent bully-
ing and increase prosocial behaviors, the use of cooperative learn-
ing and efforts to help students become more predisposed to
engage in cooperation seem to be important strategies.
Psychological Health and Self-Esteem
We have conducted eight studies directly measuring the relation-
ship between social interdependence and psychological health
(see D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989, 2005a). The samples
included university individuals, older adults, suburban high
school seniors, juvenile and adult prisoners, step-couples,
Olympic hockey players, and Chinese business managers. The
results indicate that working cooperatively with peers and valuing
cooperation result in greater psychological health than do com-
peting with peers or working independently. Cooperative atti-
tudes were highly correlated with a wide variety of indices of
psychological health. More specifically, cooperativeness is posi-
tively related to emotional maturity, well-adjusted social rela-
tions, strong personal identity, ability to cope with adversity,
social competencies, basic trust and optimism about people, self-
confidence, independence and autonomy, higher self-esteem,
and increased perspective taking skills.
Competitiveness was in some cases positively and in some
cases negatively related to psychological health, including condi-
tional self-esteem and egocentrism. Individualistic attitudes were
negatively related to a wide variety of indices of psychological
health, especially a wide variety of pathology, basic self-rejection,
and egocentrism.
An important aspect of psychological health is self-esteem.
There have been more than 80 studies comparing the relative
impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experi-
ences on self-esteem. Cooperative experiences promote higher
self-esteem than do competitive (effect size = 0.58) or individu-
alistic (effect size = 0.44) experiences, even when only the meth-
odologically high-quality studies are examined (effect sizes = 0.67
and 0.45, respectively). Norem-Hebeisen and D. W. Johnson
(1981) studied 821 White, middle-class, high school seniors in a
Midwestern suburban community. They found that cooperative
experiences tend to be related to beliefs that one is intrinsically
worthwhile, others see one in positive ways, one’s attributes com-
pare favorably with those of one’s peers, and one is a capable,
competent, and successful person. Competitive experiences tend
to be related to conditional self-esteem based on whether one
wins or loses. Individualistic experiences tend to be related to
basic self-rejection.
Psychological health includes internalizing constructive val-
ues. There are values inherent in social interdependence.
Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts have inher-
ent value systems that are taught by the flow of day-to-day life
within schools (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 2000). The values
inherently taught by cooperative efforts include commitment to
one’s own and others’ success and well-being, commitment to the
common good, and the view that facilitating and promoting the
success of others is a natural way of life. Engaging in competitive
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 373
efforts inherently teaches the values of getting more than others,
beating and defeating others, seeing winning as important, and
believing that opposing and obstructing the success of others is a
natural way of life. The values inherently taught by individualistic
experiences are commitment to one’s own self-interest and the
view that others’ well-being is irrelevant. Schools inculcate
numerous values in students and the instructional methods used
influence the values that students develop.
Finally, social interdependence theorists note that both posi-
tive and negative interdependence create conflicts among indi-
viduals (Deutsch, 1973; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 2005b,
2007; Tjosvold, 1991). In cooperative situations, conflicts occur
over how best to achieve mutual goals. In competitive situations,
conflicts occur over who will win and who will lose. Two of the
conflict resolution programs implemented in schools to teach
students how to manage conflicts constructively are (a) the
Teaching Students to Be Peacemakers program in which students
are taught how to resolve conflicts of interests constructively by
engaging in integrative negotiations and peer mediation (D. W.
Johnson & R. Johnson, 2005b) and (b) the Academic Controversy
program in which students are taught how to challenge intellec-
tually each other’s ideas, reasoning, and conclusions (D. W.
Johnson & R. Johnson, 2007). The research on both programs
indicates that conflicts that occur within the context of positive
(as opposed to negative) interdependence might result in a wide
variety of positive outcomes (such as higher achievement, more fre-
quent use of higher level reasoning, more accurate perspective tak-
ing, more integrative agreements, greater liking for each other, and
more positive attitudes toward conflict).
Application of Social Interdependence Theory
There is a two-way relationship between theory and practice.
Practice is guided by validated theory. Operationalizing the the-
ory in practical situations can reveal inadequacies in the theory
that lead to its modification and refinement (which requires new
research studies to validate the changes). Having a validated the-
ory does not mean that it will direct or even influence practice.
Effective practices can be derived from sound theories, but they
can also be validly derived from unsound theories or from no
theory at all (i.e., through trial and error or luck). Effective prac-
tice can be derived from validated theory only if the theory is
stated with sufficient precision that effective procedures can be
deduced for practitioners to use. Social interdependence theory
has such precision. Once practical procedures are deduced,
they must be implemented in a wide range of settings and then
evaluated. A number of conditions, such as inertia, resistance to
change, economic conditions, prejudice, and cultural resistance,
can result in effective practices not being implemented or institu-
tionalized. At the University of Minnesota, the Cooperative
Learning Center has worked with school districts and universities
throughout the world in implementing cooperative learning (D. W.
Johnson & R. Johnson, 1994). The widespread and diverse use of
cooperative learning has resulted in modifications and extensions of
social interdependence theory and numerous new research studies.
Operationalizing Teaching Procedures
In the history of the use of cooperative learning, there are practitio-
ners who were known for using cooperative learning procedures,
but they did not clearly specify the teacher’s role in doing so.
Frances Parker in the last half of the 19th century and John
Dewey in the first half of the 20th century promoted the wide-
scale use of cooperative learning in the United States. Yet their
method of teacher training was basically, “Watch me and do like-
wise.” When Parker and Dewey died, their cooperative learning
procedures basically disappeared. We have, therefore, tried to
operationalize the teacher’s role with enough specificity that edu-
cators can learn how to use cooperative learning without having
to watch a master teacher’s use of cooperative learning.
Teacher training, furthermore, should emphasize conceptual
understanding of the nature of cooperative learning and the basic
elements that make it work. Although many teachers like take-
and-use sessions, developing a mental model of the cause-and-
effect relationships inherent in the use of cooperative learning
increases retention of what is learned, improves transfer to the
classroom, and supports long-term maintenance of the use of
cooperative learning (Farr, 1987). Conceptual understanding
provides teachers with a framework to organize what they know
about cooperative learning, to guide their practices, and to inte-
grate their new knowledge. Seeing the internal cohesion of coop-
erative learning procedures, where each step in conducting a
cooperative lesson cues the next, increases the likelihood of teach-
ers using it with high fidelity year after year (Horton & Mills,
1984). Operational procedures were formulated for three types
of cooperative learning: formal, informal, and base groups (D. W.
Johnson, R. Johnson, & Holubec, 2008).
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). Any course requirement or assignment
may be structured to be cooperative. In formal cooperative learn-
ing, teachers do the following (Johnson et al., 2008):
1. Make a number of preinstructional decisions. A teacher has
to decide on the objectives of the lesson (both academic
and social skills objectives), the 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 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 in which to be engaged.
3. Monitor students’ learning and intervene in the groups to pro-
vide task assistance or to increase students’ interpersonal and
group skills. A teacher systematically observes and collects
data on each group as it works. When needed, the teacher
intervenes to assist students in completing the task accu-
rately 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.
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

educational ReseaRcheR
374
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.,
2008). Students engage in quick dialogues or activities in tempo-
rary, 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 organized so
that students engage in 3- to 5-minute focused discussions before and
after a lecture and 2- to 3-minute turn-to-your-partner discussions
interspersed every 10 to 15 minutes throughout a lecture.
Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous coopera-
tive learning groups with stable membership whose primary
responsibilities are to provide support, encouragement, and assis-
tance to make academic progress and develop cognitively and
socially in healthy ways as well as holding each other accountable
for striving to learn (Johnson et al., 2008). Typically, cooperative
base groups (a) are heterogeneous in membership, (b) meet regu-
larly (e.g., 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 and meet at
the beginning and end of each class session (or week) to complete
academic tasks such as checking each member’s homework,
doing routine tasks such as taking attendance, and engaging in
personal support tasks such as listening sympathetically to per-
sonal problems or providing guidance for writing a paper.
These three types of cooperative learning form a gestalt for
teacher practice. A typical class session may begin with a base
group meeting that is followed by a short lecture in which infor-
mal cooperative learning is used. The lecture is followed by a for-
mal 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.
Cooperative School
Just as operational procedures must be derived from social inter-
dependence for teachers, operational procedures for creating a
cooperative school must be created for administrators, school
staff, staff development personnel, and school leaders (D. W.
Johnson & R. Johnson, 1994). The heart of the school is the
collegial teaching team. Collegial teaching teams are small coop-
erative groups whose purpose is to increase teachers’ instructional
expertise and success. The focus is on improving instruction gen-
erally and increasing members’ expertise in using cooperative
learning specifically. Collegial teaching teams meet once a week
for approximately 60 minutes. The principal is a member of each
collegial teaching team, moving from one meeting to another as
time allows. A school governing council consists of the principal
and one member of each collegial teaching team. Information is
shared in this meeting to be passed on to each collegial teaching
team. Most decisions are made in this group. In addition, there
are school task forces, each of which focuses on a different issue and
which are made up of one member of each collegial support
group. The task forces meet periodically to achieve specific tasks.
Information about each task force is passed back to the collegial
teaching team. A full faculty meeting is held once a month and
when special issues needing active participation of all faculty
arise. Finally, cooperative learning procedures are used and mod-
eled during faculty meetings to ensure that all staff members are
involved and participating. It should be noted that the evidence
supporting the use of cooperative teams at the adult level is just
as strong as it is for the use of cooperative learning at the K–12
level (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 2003).
Field Evaluations and Institutionalization
Cooperative learning has been used by so many different teachers,
in so many different subject areas and settings, in preschool through
adult education, with so many varied tasks and students, and in so
many different countries and cultures that its effectiveness is almost
taken for granted. Cooperative procedures have also been opera-
tionalized for teams in business and industry, health care, and other
organizational settings (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 2003). They
have also been used in therapy, marriage counseling, and family
counseling settings. This widespread and diverse use validates not
only the operational definitions of the teacher’s role and the
instructional procedures, but also social interdependence theory
and the clarity of the conceptual definitions.
In addition to this widespread use, however, approximately
65% of the research that has been conducted on cooperative
learning represents field studies demonstrating its effectiveness in
a wide range of classes, subject areas, grade levels, and students.
The use of cooperative learning procedures by so many different
teachers, in so many different subject areas and settings, in pre-
school through adult education, with so many varied tasks and
students, and in so many different countries and cultures, vali-
dates the theory and the clarity of the conceptual definitions.
After cooperative learning procedures have been demonstrated
to be effective in actual field settings, educators must be persuaded
to adopt and implement them and eventually institutionalize them
into schools and teacher preparation programs. The Cooperative
Learning Center at the University of Minnesota, therefore, has cre-
ated and maintains an international network of schools and uni-
versities that are implementing cooperative learning.
Expansion of the Scope of Social Interdependence Theory
The implementation of cooperative learning has expanded the
outcomes considered by social interdependence theory and
thereby extended its scope (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989,
2005a). Issues of school integration, inclusion of students with
disabilities, and the increased diversity of immigrants have
focused the school on the use of cooperative learning to create
positive relationships among diverse students. The emphasis on
solving social problems has expanded the dependent variables to
the use of positive peer pressure to increase prosocial and decrease
antisocial behaviors (e.g., prevention of drug abuse, inculcating
academic values in at-risk students, enhancing self-esteem, pre-
venting violence). These and other factors have resulted in the
expansion of the theory to include new dependent variables and
have fermented considerable new research.
Conclusion
Cooperative learning is an unusually strong psychological success
story. From being discounted and ignored in the 1940s through
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 375
the 1970s, cooperative learning is now a standard and wide-
spread teaching procedure. The lineage of social interdepen-
dence theory can be traced from Kurt Koffka, through Kurt
Lewin, to Morton Deutsch, and, subsequently, to David Johnson
and Roger Johnson. However, many other researchers have con-
tributed to the overall theoretical framework. The theory pro-
vides a conceptual framework to organize thinking about
cooperation and competition, summarize what is known, and
generate research studies. The research has focused on numerous
outcomes, which may be loosely structured into three categories:
effort to achieve, quality of interpersonal relationships, and psy-
chological health. This is one of the largest bodies of knowledge
in education or social psychology. From the validated theory, a
number of operational procedures have been derived in many
different areas. In education, procedures for cooperative formal,
informal, and base groups have been operationalized from the
theory and applied throughout much of the world. Although
many teaching procedures have been recommended over the
past 60 years, very few are still around. Almost none are as wide-
spread and institutionalized into instructional practices as is
cooperative learning.
NOTE
This article is based on the Distinguished Contributions to
Educational Research Award Lecture presented at the 2009 AERA
annual meeting.
REFERENCES
Anderman, E., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and
cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90, 84–93.
Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Individual ver-
sus group feedback in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology,
134, 681–694.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The
jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Atkinson, J. (1964). An introduction to achievement motivation. New
York: Van Nostrand.
Blau, P. (1954). Co-operation and competition in a bureaucracy.
American Journal of Sociology, 59, 530–535.
Branscombe, N., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002).
Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753.
Brewer, M., & Kramer, R. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas:
Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549.
Brickner, M., Harkins, S., & Ostrom, T. (1986). Effects of personal
involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763–770.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evalu-
ation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational per-
ceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
79, 474–482.
Campbell, D. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of status
of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.
Cantor, N., & Harlow, R. (1994). Personality, strategic behavior, and
daily-life problem solving. Curriculum Development and Psychological
Science, 3, 169–172.
Cantor, N., & Norem, J. (1989). Defensive pessimism and stress and
coping. Social Cognition, 7, 92–112.
Choi, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Relationship among
cooperative learning experiences, social interdependence, children’s aggres-
sion, victimization, and prosocial behaviors. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on
motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, J., & Haaland, G. (1972). Predecisional information seeking
and subsequent conformity in the social influence process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 112–119.
Crombag, H. (1966). Cooperation and competition in means-
interdependent triads: A replication. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 4, 692–695.
DeCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom.
New York: Irvington Press, distributed by Halstead Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination
in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
De Cremer, D., & Van Vjugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in
social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 29, 871–893.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human
Relations, 2, 129–152.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In
M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275–319).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deutsch, M. (1968). Field theory in social psychology. In G. Lindzey &
E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1,
pp. 412–487). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Deutsch, M., & Kraus, R. (1965). Theories of social psychology. New
York: Basic Books.
DeVries, D., & Edwards, K. (1973). Learning games and student teams:
Their effects on classroom process. American Educational Research
Journal, 10, 307–318.
Emler, N., & Hopkins, N. (1990). Reputation, social identity and the
self. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory:
Constructive and critical advances (pp. 113–131). New York: Springer.
Fait, H., & Billings, J. (1978). Reassessment of the value of competition.
In R. Martens (Ed.), Joy and sadness in children’s sports (pp. 98–103).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Farr, M. (1987). The long-term retention of knowledge and skills: A cogni-
tive and instructional perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Frank, M. (1984). A comparison between an individual and group goal
structure contingency that differed in the behavioral contingency and
performance-outcome components. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
University of Minnesota.
Gabbert, B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Cooperative learn-
ing, group-to-individual transfer, process gain and the acquisition of
cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of Psychology, 120, 265–278.
Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and
intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European
Journal of Social Psycholog y, 28, 963–980.
Gerard, H., Wilhelmy, R., & Conolley, E. (1965). Conformity and
group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79–82.
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognitive
task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information pro-
cessing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187–196.
Guzzo, R., Yost, P., Campbell, R., & Shea, G. (1993). Potency in groups:
Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Hagman, J., & Hayes, J. (1986). Cooperative learning: Effects of task,
reward, and group size on individual achievement (Tech. Rep. No. 704).
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

educational ReseaRcheR
376
Boise, ID: Scientific Coordination Office, U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 278720)
Haines, D., & McKeachie, W. (1967). Cooperative versus competitive
discussion methods in teaching introductory psychology. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 58, 386–390.
Halisch, F., & Heckhauser, H. (1977). Search for feedback information
and effort regulation during task performance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 35, 724–733.
Harkins, S., & Petty, R. (1982). The effects of task difficulty and task
uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 1214–1229.
Hartup, W. (1976). Peer interaction and the behavioral development of
the individual child. In E. Schloper & R. Reicher (Eds.), Psychopathology
and child development (pp. 203–218). New York: Plenum.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New
York: Academic Press.
Hooper, S., Ward, T., Hannafin, M., & Clark, H. (1989). The effects of
aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102–109.
Horton, D., & Mills, C. (1984). Human learning and memory. Annual
Review of Psychology, 35, 361–394.
Hurlock, E. (1927). Use of group rivalry as an incentive. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 22, 278–290.
Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1993). Effects
of cooperative and individualistic learning on prospective elementary
teachers’ music achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology,
133, 53–64.
Indik, B. (1965). Organization size and member participation: Some empir-
ical tests of alternative explanations. Human Relations, 18, 339–350.
Ingham, A., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The
Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 371–384.
Jensen, M. (1996). Cooperative quizzes in the anatomy and physiology
laboratory: A description and evaluation. Advances in Physiology
Education, 16(1), S48–S54.
Jensen, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2002). Impact of positive
interdependence during electronic quizzes on discourse and achieve-
ment. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 161–166.
Johnson, D. W. (1970). Social psychology of education. New York: Holt.
Johnson, D. W. (1974). Communication and the inducement of coopera-
tive behavior in conflicts: A critical review. Speech Monographs, 41, 64–78.
Johnson, D. W. (1980). Importance of peer relationships. Children in
Contemporary Society, 13, 121–123.
Johnson, D. W. (2009). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-
actualization (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and
group skills (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1974). Instructional goal structure:
Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational
Research, 44, 213–240.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (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:
Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51–70.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981a). Building friendships between
handicapped and nonhandicapped students: Effects of cooperative
and individualistic instruction. American Educational Research
Journal, 18, 415–424.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981b). Effects of cooperative and
individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 73, 454–459.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981c). The integration of the handi-
capped into the regular classroom: Effects of cooperative and indi-
vidualistic instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6,
344–353.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981d). Student-student interaction: The
neglected variable in education. Educational Researcher, 10(1), 5–10.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982a). Effects of cooperative, com-
petitive, and individualistic learning experiences on cross-ethnic
interaction and friendships. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 47–58.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982b). Effects of cooperative and
individualistic instruction on handicapped and nonhandicapped stu-
dents. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 257–268.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982c). Effects of cooperative and com-
petitive learning experiences on interpersonal attraction between
handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Social
Psychology, 116, 211–219.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition:
Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Positive interdependence: Activity
manual and guide. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Leading the cooperative school
(2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone:
Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & 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. (2003). Training for cooperative group
work. In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. Smith, International handbook
of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 167–183).
London: Wiley.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005a). New developments in social
interdependence theory. Psychology Monographs, 131, 285–358.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005b). Teaching students to be peace-
makers (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
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., & Holubec, E. (2008). Cooperation in the
classroom (8th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
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, 5–54.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact
of positive goal and resource interdependence on achievement, inter-
action, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology, 118, 341–347.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Roy, P., & Zaidman, B. (1985). Oral inter-
action in cooperative learning groups: Speaking, listening, and the
nature of statements made by high-, medium-, and low-achieving
students. Journal of Psycholog y, 119, 303–321.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). The
impact of leader and member group processing on achievement in
cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507–516.
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., & Noonan, P. (1972). Effects of acceptance and recip-
rocation of self-disclosures on the development of trust. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 19, 411–416.
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 377
Johnson, D. W., Skon, L., & Johnson, R. (1980). Effects of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic conditions on children’s problem-
solving performance. American Educational Research Journal, 17,
83–94.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Tiffany, M., & Zaidman, B. (1983). Are
low achievers disliked in a cooperative situation? A test of rival theo-
ries in a mixed-ethnic situation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
8, 189–200.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1979). Type of task and student
achievement and attitudes in interpersonal cooperation, competition,
and individualization. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 37–48.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1981). Building friendships between
handicapped and nonhandicapped students: Effects of cooperative
and individualistic instruction. American Educational Research
Journal, 18, 415–424.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1982). Effects of cooperative and com-
petitive learning experiences on interpersonal attraction between
handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Social
Psychology, 116, 211–219.
Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., DeWeerdt, N., Lyons, V., & Zaidman, B.
(1983). Integrating severely adaptively handicapped seventh-grade
students into constructive relationships with nonhandicapped peers
in science class. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 611–618.
Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., Scott, L., & Ramolae, B. (1985). Effects
of single-sex and mixed-sex cooperative interaction on science
achievement and attitudes and cross-handicap and cross-sex relation-
ship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 207–220.
Kagan, S. (1985). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. Riverside:
University of California at Riverside.
Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review
and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 681–706.
Kerr, N. (2001). Motivational gains in performance groups: Aspects and
prospects. In J. Fargas, K. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social
mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior
(pp. 350–370). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, N., & Bruun, S. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative expla-
nations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 7, 224–231.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition (2nd ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kramer, R., & Brewer, M. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource
use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.
Ladd, G. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early
and middle childhood. In Annual review of psychology (Vol. 50,
pp. 333–359). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light
the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
Laughlin, P., & McGlynn, R. (1967). Cooperative versus competitive
concept attainment as a function of sex and stimulus display. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 398–402.
Lepley, W. (1937). Competitive behavior in the albino rat. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 21, 194–201.
Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986a). Positive
interdependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingen-
cies and isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23,
476–488.
Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986b).
Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills
and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstream-
ing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 229–239.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
Lewis, M., & Rosenblum, L. (Eds.). (1975). Friendship and peer rela-
tions. New York: Wiley.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S.,
& Uhles, A. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group
entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246.
Little, B., & Madigan, R. (1997). The relationship between collective
efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group
Research, 28, 517–534.
Maehr, M., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A
school-work approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399–427.
Martino, L., & Johnson, D. W. (1979). Cooperative and individualistic
experiences among disabled and normal children. Journal of Social
Psychology, 107, 177–183.
Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. (1987). Effects of goals and
feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
407–415.
Matthews, B. (1979). Effects of fixed and alternated payoff inequity on
dyadic competition. Psychological Record, 29, 329–339.
Mayerson, N., & Rhodewalt, F. (1988). The role of self-protective attri-
butions in the experience of pain. Journal of Social Clinical Psychology,
6, 203–218.
McCown, W., & Johnson, J. (1991). Personality and chronic procrasti-
nation by university students during an academic examination period.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 413–415.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Students’ goal orienta-
tions and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive
interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement.
Journal of Social Psycholog y, 128, 345–352.
Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Isolated
teenagers, cooperative learning and the training of social skills. Journal
of Psychology, 120, 323–334.
Messick, D., & Brewer, M. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review.
Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 11–44.
Moede, W. (1927). Die richtlinien der leistungs-psycholgie [Guidelines for
a psychology of performance]. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4, 193–207.
Morgan, B., Coates, G., & Rebbin, T. (1970). The effects of phlebotomus
fever on sustained performance and muscular output (Tech. Rep. No.
ITR-70–14). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville, Performance
Research Laboratory.
Naught, G., & Newman, S. (1966). The effect of anxiety on motor
steadiness in competitive and non-competitive conditions. Psychonomic
Science, 6, 519–520.
Nolen, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivation orientations and
student strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
Norem, J., & Illingworth, K. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of
reflecting on self and tasks: Some implications of optimism and
defensive pessimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
822–835.
Norem-Hebeisen, A., & Johnson, D. W. (1981). Relationships between
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic attitudes and differenti-
ated aspects of self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 49, 415–425.
Ortiz, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1996). The effect of positive
goal and resource interdependence on individual performance.
Journal of Social Psycholog y, 136, 243–249.
Pallak, M., Cook, D., & Sullivan, J. (1980). Commitment and energy
conservation. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual,
1, 235–253. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

educational ReseaRcheR
378
Petty, R., Harkins, S., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of
group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 3, 575–578.
Pintrich, P. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and
cognition in college classrooms. In M. Maehr & C. Ames (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation-enhancing envi-
ronments (Vol. 6, pp. 117–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pittman, T., Davey, M., Alafat, K., Wetherill, K., & Kramer, N. (1980).
Informational versus controlling verbal rewards. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 6, 228–233.
Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1989).
Collaborative skills instruction for promoting positive interactions
between mentally handicapped and nonhandicapped children.
Exceptional Children, 55, 550–557.
Raven, B., & Eachus, H. (1963). Cooperation and competition in
means-interdependent triads. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 307–316.
Rhodewalt, F., Morf, C., Hazlett, S., & Fairfield, M. (1991). Self-
handicapping: The role of discounting and augmentation in the pres-
ervation of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
122–131.
Roberts, G. (1980). Children in competition: A theoretical perspective
and recommendations for practice. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice,
4, 37–50.
Rosenbaum, M., Moore, D., Cotton, J., Cook, M., Hieser, R., &
Shovar, N., et al. (1980). Group productivity and process: Pure and
mixed reward structures and task interdependence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 626–642.
Rosenberg, L. (1961). Group size, prior experience, and conformity.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 436–437.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2008). Promoting early
adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships. Psychological Bulletin,
134, 223–246.
Ryan, R. (1982). Control and information in the interpersonal sphere:
An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
Scott, W., & Cherrington, D. (1974). Effects of competitive, coopera-
tive, and individualistic reinforcement contingencies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 748–758.
Sexton, P. (1961). Education and income. New York: Viking.
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small-group teaching. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Sherif, C. (1978). The social context of competition. In R. Martens
(Ed.), Joy and sadness in children’s sports (pp. 81–97). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Simon, B., & Sturmer, S. (2003). Respect for group members:
Intragroup determinants of collective identification and group-
serving behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
183–193.
Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Skon, L., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981). Cooperative peer
interaction versus individual competition and individualistic efforts:
Effects on the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73, 83–92.
Slavin, R. (1978). Student teams and comparison among equals: Effects
on academic performance and student attitudes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, 532–538.
Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1984). Combining cooperative
learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathe-
matics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School
Journal, 84, 409–422.
Slavin, R., & Tanner, A. (1979). Effects of cooperative reward structures
and individual accountability on productivity and learning. Journal of
Educational Research, 72, 294–298.
Smith, H., & Tyler, T. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact of
group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146–170.
Smith, H., Tyler, T., Huo, Y., Ortiz, D., & Lind, E. (1998). The self-
relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership,
self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 34, 470–493.
Spink, K. (1990). Collective efficacy in the sort setting. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 380–395.
Stanne, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Social interdepen-
dence and motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 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.
Thomas, D. (1957). Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group
functioning. Human Relations, 10, 347–366.
Thompson, T., Davidson, J., & Barber, J. (1995). Self-worth protection
in achievement motivation: Performance effects and attitudinal
behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 598–610.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict positive organization. Reading MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Sun, H. (2003). Can
interpersonal competition be constructive within organizations?
Journal of Psychology, 137, 63–84.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Sun, H. (2006).
Competitive motives and strategies in organizations: Understanding
constructive interpersonal competition. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 10, 87–99.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and com-
petition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
Tseng, S. (1969). An experimental study of the effect of three types of distri-
bution of reward upon work efficiency and group dynamics. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the jus-
tice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics
of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 913–930.
Tyler, T., & Smith, H. (1999). Justice, social identity, and group pro-
cesses. In T. Tyler, R. Kramer, & O. John (Eds.), The psychology of the
social self (pp. 223–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Utman, C. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 170–182.
Webb, N., & Cullian, L. (1983). Group interaction and achievement in
small groups: Stability over time. American Educational Research
Journal, 20, 411–423.
Welbourne, J. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsis-
tency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 35, 481–508.
Weldon, E., & Weingart L. (1993). Group goals and group perfor-
mance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307–334.
Wentzel, K. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance,
classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 173–182.
Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt: II
[Laws of organization in perpetural forms: II]. Psychologische
Forschung, 4, 301–350.
Wicklund, R., & Brehm, J. (1976). Perspectives in cognitive dissonance.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from

June/July 2009 379
Williams, K. (1981, June). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loaf-
ing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern
Psychological Association, Detroit.
Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deter-
rent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.
Williams, K., & Karau, S. (1991). Social loafing and social compensa-
tion: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570–581.
Wodarski, J., Hamblin, R., Buckholdt, D., & Ferritor, D. (1973).
Individual consequences contingent on the performance of low-
achieving group members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3,
276–290.
Yager, S., Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact
of group processing on achievement in cooperative learning groups.
Journal of Social Psycholog y, 126, 389–397.
AUTHORS
DAVID W. JOHNSON is a professor in the Department of Educational
Psychology, University of Minnesota, 60 Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury Drive
SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; johns010@umn.edu. His research focuses
on cooperation and competition, conflict resolution, and diversity.
ROGER T. JOHNSON is a professor in the Department of Curriculum
and Instruction, University of Minnesota, 60 Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury
Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; johns009@umn.edu. His research
focuses on inquiry learning, cooperation and competition, and conflict
resolution.
Manuscript received May 4, 2009
Final revisions received May 8, 2009
Accepted May 8, 2009
by on July 14, 2009 http://er.aera.netDownloaded from