Examples

The single-trial Prisoner's Dilemma, discussed in Entry #5, is defined by the conflict between self-interest (“me”) and joint interest (“we”). An individual is always better off choosing a noncooperative option, irrespective of the partner's behavior, even though the cooperative choice is preferable from a dyadic standpoint. Choices in the “classic” case of the single-trial Prisoner's Dilemma, involving simultaneous and irrevocable choice (as in the story from which the situation takes its name), are unlikely to be influenced by past interactions or future goals. In contrast, in Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas, behavior is likely to be affected by prior interactions and considerations regarding future interactions with the partner. This is true even when the choices at each point are simultaneous and irrevocable. The persons become able to react contingently to each other's prior behaviors and, therefore, to develop strategies for influencing each other's behavior. For example, a person is unlikely to prepare extensively for a joint working meeting if she knows that her colleague has repeatedly slacked off before in past meetings. On the other hand, a person may devote greater time and effort preparing for a joint task when anticipating future shared endeavors in order to motivate the other to enhance her performance in the future.

Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas are common in everyday life (and are considerably more common than the single-trial Prisoner's Dilemma).

A “situation” is defined in the dictionary as “a position with respect to conditions and circumstances,” or, more generally, as a “site” or “problem.” These introductory chapters describe how, in keeping with that definition, we describe and distinguish among situations involving several persons, that is, interpersonal situations. In this chapter, we give concrete examples of a simple yet useful method for characterizing such situations, namely, the “outcome matrix,” and explain the rationale for its use. We then show the implications of that method as well as some of its limitations. Chapter 3 describes our remedies for those limitations.

This Atlas is based on a particular theory known as “interdependence theory.” It was first presented by Thibaut and Kelley (1959) and then elaborated in Kelley and Thibaut (1978) and Kelley (1984b). It derives from Kurt Lewin's emphasis on interdependence as “the essence of a group” (1948, p. 84), and it implements that view by borrowing payoff matrices from game theory (Luce & Raiffa, 1957) and adapting them to the broader purposes of an interpersonal psychology. Other, newer elaborations of the theory, concerning situational conditions affecting the timing and sequencing of behavior and the availability of information, are less well developed but deserve and receive attention in our Atlas.

The theory aspires to provide a means for drawing systematic and logical distinctions among situations which make it possible to imagine laying them out on a “map” or “globe” of the situational “world” – hence our metaphor of an “atlas.”

Examples

This situation is a generalization of the two-person Prisoner's Dilemma situation to more than two persons (hence, it is sometimes called an N-person PD or NPD situation; its other most common label is a social dilemma). As in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG), each person's concern is whether she or he should make a choice which advantages the self but disadvantages others – in this situation, several others (e.g., all members of a group). For example, the police might give each member of a captured N-person criminal gang the same basic choices offered to the two prisoners in the classic PD (e.g., confess and thereby knock 1 year off your own sentence but also thereby add 2 years to every other gang member's sentence). Or, members of a fishing village might choose between maximizing their individual catches (and, hence, profits) versus limiting their catches/profits (but thereby helping to preserve the long-term viability of the fishing grounds upon which this and future generations of the village depend); Hardin's (1968) famous example of the “Tragedy of the Commons” is a very similar social dilemma. Or, members of a group performing some task might choose between working hard (and thereby improving the chances of the group performing well and quickly) or hardly working (and saving themselves effort while still profiting from any group success). In each case, noncooperative behavior brings better outcomes for oneself; but cooperative behavior brings better outcomes to the group as a whole.

Examples

The name of this situation is based on a deadly game. In one version, the two contestants – invariably males – drive their cars at high speed, headlong toward each other. The essence of this high-stakes game is to see which contestant has the stronger nerves. The first one to veer off course to avoid a collision loses the test of courage and is branded a “chicken” (i.e., a coward). If both drivers (in a simultaneous moment of sanity) veer off, the contest ends in a draw – somewhat embarrassing but giving neither a justification for accusing the other of less courage. Of course, if neither driver “chickens out,” the result is a fatal – and hence, rather hollow – “victory” for both. Another variation on this game – in which the contestants simultaneously drive toward a cliff's edge – was depicted in the film Rebel without a Cause.

A similar situation occurs when neighboring countries, seeking something valuable possessed by the other, issue ultimatums threatening war if the other will not yield. If one's neighbor yields, one may gain something of real value, but if neither yields and both carry through on their threats, the resulting war is likely to cost both far more than what was sought through the initial threats.

Struggles for dominance in a group can also create a Chicken situation.

The following section of the Atlas devotes a chapter to each of 21 abstract interpersonal situations that we have chosen to describe in detail. We will use the term “entry” for each of these situations, parallel to usage in listings for maps in a geographical atlas, topics in an encyclopedia, or locations in a table of basic elements. In this introduction, we first describe the structure and contents of each entry. Then we describe our reasons for selecting these particular situations, the criteria used for including or excluding potential entries. Finally, we discuss the issue of the adequacy of our coverage of situations and the potential strengths and weaknesses of our reasoning.

The Structure of Individual Entries

Each situation is first described through concrete, everyday examples from interpersonal life, with the goal of illustrating the more abstract features of each entry in a nontechnical fashion. A conceptual description follows, using the various analytical tools developed in the earlier chapters. Each situation is characterized in terms of the basic control components that influence individuals' outcomes in the situation, as well as the response and informational conditions that are typically part of the social problem. Then, the relation of this entry to other “family” members or “neighbors” is discussed, in order to help the reader gain perspective on the conceptual “location” of the situation, the region of the interpersonal situation map that it occupies.

Examples

Investment situations are extended situations in which each person, at each of a series of preliminary steps, must make an “investment” in order to move toward a desirable goal. For example, in seeking to establish a successful business, the owners proceed through a series of preliminary steps at which they invest time and effort in order to reach their goal. They work evenings and weekends, forgo short-term financial profits, and reinvest early earnings in development activities, including employee training and construction projects. In the situations considered here, those of mutual investment, both owners must engage in these activities. If either loses heart and backs out of the venture, their investments are lost and the company fails. If both persist and jointly work their way through the early steps, making suitable choices and effective investments of time, effort, and resources, they may achieve a desirable goal – a company that will earn substantial profits.

In like manner, the partners in an emerging romantic relationship must work together, making their way through preliminary steps at which they invest a variety of resources in their involvement. They disclose private thoughts and feelings to each other, purchase joint possessions, develop a shared friendship network, spend time becoming acquainted with one another's family members, and exert effort to resolve conflicts involving incompatible preferences. If both partners successfully surmount the preliminary hurdles of their involvement, they may achieve a desirable goal – a committed, trusting relationship in which each partner gratifies the other's needs.

In this chapter, we examine in some detail the 2 × 2 outcome matrices which, as explained in chapter 2, define the problems that interdependent persons may encounter. This requires further explanation of how the basic patterns of interdependence (see Table 2.7) may be combined to produce more complex patterns. Our general point is that many complex situations can be understood more clearly when considered as a combination of certain basic elements. We then take a closer look at the three dimensions of symmetric interdependence shown in chapter 2 (Figure 2.2) and see how various common patterns are distributed through those dimensions. The distribution enables us to gain further understanding of each situation by examining its location relative to other situations. For example, as will be explained in this chapter, the distribution of the situations has implications for the developmental course of a dyadic relationship as, through changes in the individuals and the problems they encounter, a pair moves from one kind of situation to another. Readers who are less interested in the full implications of our combinatorial system may prefer to skip this chapter and go directly to the following “Introduction to the Entries” and to the entries themselves.

Exploring the Possible 2 × 2 Matrices by Combining the Basic Components

All possible patterns of 2 × 2 interdependence can be constructed by combining the patterns of control represented in Table 2.7: Bilateral Actor Control (BAC), Mutual Partner Control (MPC), and Corresponding or Conflicting Mutual Joint Control (MJC).

Examples

This situation is one in which the actions of a single person provide a benefit for all (including himself or herself). Such situations arise routinely both in dyadic and group settings. For example, in marriages or business partnerships, joint obligations (e.g., responding to invitations, paying bills) can be fulfilled equally well by either partner. Likewise, either marriage partner can simultaneously benefit self and the spouse by making a particular “right” choice – for example, both benefit when either cleans the house, quiets the children, or prepares a meal. As Steiner (1972) has observed, performance groups face this situation in group tasks where a single member can effectively do the work of the entire group. For example, a group of students in a chemistry lab may have a single lab assignment requiring a single written report, for which all the students will receive the same grade. In such a case, any single lab-group member could (in principle) complete, write up, and turn in the assignment. Many bystander intervention settings (cf. Latané & Darley, 1970) also have this structure. Often only one bystander needs to act (e.g., give or seek help) in order to “solve” the problem confronting the group of bystanders (i.e., deal with the emergency).

Conceptual Description

The essential feature of the situation of disjunctive interdependence is that an act or choice of any single group member is sufficient to determine a desired outcome for all.

Examples

A younger brother wants to “hang out” with his older brother and be at the same place as the older one, but the older brother finds that the younger one “cramps his style” and prefers not to have the younger one around. So the situation is one of hide and seek, with the older brother doing the hiding and the younger, the seeking. In marriages, situations of this type are sometimes reflected in a general conflict over closeness. One member of the couple wants a close relationship while the partner wants more independence. (Christensen and Heavey report that in heterosexual pairs, it is usually the woman who wants closeness.)

Athletic competitions, whether they be individual or team contests, involve one situation of this sort after another. The concepts of “offense” and “defense” are based on the distinction between different preferences about being “with” or being “separate from” another person or team: The offense wants to go to a location different from where the defense is located but the defense wants to be where the offense is. The preferences can shift rapidly. For example, in baseball the batter wants to swing where the ball “is” but then wants the ball to travel to where the fielders “aren't.” In other words, the batter “defends” the plate (as the coach often instructs the Little Leaguer) but acts offensively in relation to the other team's defense. In boxing, each man shifts from defensive dodging to offensive striking on a moment-by-moment basis.

Examples

Mary's father offers her a trip to Disneyland if she earns good grades during the coming year. To earn the prize, Mary must exercise self-control, forgoing activities that she otherwise would love and engaging in activities that are not necessarily fun but will help her do well in school. She may need to cut back on soccer practice in order to spend more time on homework, and may find it necessary to spend some afternoons studying rather than playing with friends. This self-control problem will be less difficult if she places considerably greater value on the trip to Disneyland than on the alternative activities that she must forgo, and to the degree that she can count on her father to deliver on his promise if she indeed earns good grades.

John's cholesterol level is dangerously high. His wife promises to buy him a Jaguar if he radically changes his eating habits and lowers his cholesterol level. To obtain the Jaguar (and avoid the risk of serious health problems), John must carefully plan and prepare meals, forgo the convenience of fast food, and inhibit the impulse to eat many of his favorite foods. He is more likely to be successful if he develops strong intentions to engage in health-related behaviors and identifies strategies to forgo temptation. He may find it helpful to distract himself, bringing to mind “cool” thoughts about high cholesterol foods (“french fries look like a stack of lumber”) and inhibiting “hot” thoughts (“french fries are crispy, salty, and delicious”).

Examples

In this situation, one person has control over how the outcomes resulting from the pair's joint activities are divided between them. If that person exploits his or her power, taking for himself or herself the lion's share of those outcomes, the partner's only (ultimate) recourse is to refuse to continue in the joint activities. For example, when an older and younger brother play “cops and robbers,” the older one may be able to determine the enjoyment each gets from the game by assigning the roles and controlling who gets to use the available toys. However, neither will gain any satisfaction from the game unless both play. If the older boy takes the choice roles and the preferred equipment, the younger boy must either accept the unfair allocation or threaten to refuse to play the game with enthusiasm or to continue it at all. It is the weaker person's “threat” in this scenario from which this situation takes its name. In general, this situation gives rise to the problem of managing an exchange of “justice” for “loyalty,” one partner's just allocations being made in return for the other partner's loyalty in supporting their joint activities.

The structure and dynamics of this situation are common in various types of relationships and settings. For instance, a supervisor may have the power to determine how important job resources, such as office space and funds for computing, are split between her and a subordinate.

Examples

The Mutual Partner Control situation rests on each individual's preferences and aversion regarding the partner's possible behaviors. Each person's concern is “How do my partner's actions affect me, and how do my actions affect him or her?” This situation exists when people can benefit each other or not. For example, colleagues may (or may not) compliment each other's writing style, lovers may (or may not) exchange endearments, and cousins may (or may not) send each other greeting cards at Christmas. This situation also exists when people can harm each other or not. Members of opposing political parties may (or may not) deliver gratuitous insults and young siblings may (or may not) hurtfully poke each other. In each case, each person's choice is whether or not to have a positive or negative effect on the partner's outcomes.

Conceptual Description

There are two essential requirements for an ideal or “pure” situation of Mutual Partner Control. First, the outcome of each individual must be entirely in the hands of the interaction partner. Each individual's well-being is entirely under the control of the partner's actions. The individual can do nothing to enhance or ameliorate the partner's effect. For example, under many circumstances the two siblings can avoid or dodge each other's blows. To consider that as a situation of Mutual Partner Control, we would have to imagine their being in some confined space (e.g., the back seat of the family car) where such dodging is not possible.