Cooperation - Wikipedia
Relationships between cooperating firms are usually visible even to outsiders. . The definition of a competitor or a cooperative partner is difficult as the roles. Some people use cooperation relationship (i.e. a relationship of cooperation), Reactive time means nothing to me, while reaction time is an. South-South Cooperation: This type of cooperation is mainly used to create, of bilateral cooperation are the governments of countries that maintain relations based on Cultural Cooperation: Provides the proper means or basic training for .
Any level which is not competitive with others of the same level will be eliminated, even if the level below is highly competitive. A classic example is that of genes which prevent cancer. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably, and at the cellular level, they are very successful, because they are in the short term reproducing very well and out competing other cells in the body.
However, at the whole organism level, cancer is often fatal, and so may prevent reproduction. Therefore, changes to the genome which prevent cancer for example, by causing damaged cells to act co-operatively by destroying themselves are favoured. Multi-level selection theory contends that similar effects can occur, for example, to cause individuals to co-operate to avoid behaviours which favour themselves short-term, but destroy the community and their descendants long term.
Market effect[ edit ] One theory suggesting a mechanism that could lead to the evolution of co-operation is the "market effect" as suggested by Noe and Hammerstein. In that case, each partner in a system could benefit from specializing in producing one specific resource and obtaining the other resource by trade.
When only two partners exist, each can specialize in one resourceand trade for the other.
Trading for the resource requires co-operation with the other partner and includes a process of bidding and bargaining. This mechanism can be relied to both within a species or social group and within species systems. It can also be applied to a multi-partner system, in which the owner of a resource has the power to choose its co-operation partner.What is COOPERATIVE? What does COOPERATIVE mean? COOPERATIVE meaning & explanation
This model can be applied in natural systems examples exist in the world of apes, cleaner fish, and more. Easy for exemplifying, though, are systems from international trading. Arabic countries control vast amounts of oil, but seek technologies from western countries. These in turn are in need of Arab oil.
The solution is co-operation by trade. Symbiosis[ edit ] Symbiosis refers to two or more biological species that interact closely, often over a long period of time. Symbiosis includes three types of interactions— mutualismcommensalismand parasitism —of which only mutualism can sometimes qualify as cooperation. Mutualism involves a close, mutually beneficial interaction between two different biological species, whereas "cooperation" is a more general term that can involve looser interactions and can be interspecific between species or intraspecific within a species.
In commensalism, one of the two participating species benefits, while the other is neither harmed nor benefitted. In parasitism, one of the two participating species benefits at the expense of the other.
Symbiosis may be obligate or facultative. In obligate symbiosis, one or both species depends on the other for survival. In facultative symbiosis, the symbiotic interaction is not necessary for the survival of either species.
Two special types of symbiosis include endosymbiosisin which one species lives inside of another, and ectosymbiosis, in which one species lives on another. Rhizobia nodules on Vigna unguiculata Mutualism is a form of symbiosis in which both participating species benefit. A classic example of mutualism is the interaction between rhizobia soil bacteria and legumes Fabaceae.
- Navigation menu
- Popular 'Decision Making, Problem Solving, & Strategy' Terms
- Use 'cooperation' in a Sentence
In this interaction, rhizobia bacteria induce root nodule formation in legume plants via an exchange of molecular signals. The legume benefits from a new supply of usable nitrogen from the rhizobia, and the rhizobia benefits from organic acid energy sources from the plant as well as the protection provided by the root nodule.
Since the rhizobia live within the legume, this is an example of endosymbiosis, and since both the bacteria and the plant can survive independently, it is also an example of facultative symbiosis.
Lichens are another example of mutualism. Lichens consist of a fungus the mycobiont and a photosynthetic partner the photobiontwhich is usually a green alga or a cyanobacteria. The mycobiont benefits from the sugar products of photosynthesis generated by the photobiont, and the photobiont benefits from the increased water retention and increased surface area to capture water and mineral nutrients conferred by the mycobiont.
Many lichens are examples of obligate symbiosis. In fact, one-fifth of all known extant fungal species form obligate symbiotic associations with green algae, cyanobacteria or both. Specifically, in by-product mutualism, both participants benefit, but cooperation is not involved. For example, when an elephant defecates, this is beneficial to the elephant as a way to empty waste, and it is also beneficial to a dung beetle that uses the elephant's dung.
However, neither participant's behavior yields a benefit from the other, and thus cooperation is not taking place.
For example, a hidden benefit would not involve an increase in the number of offspring or offspring viability. One example of a hidden benefit involves Malarus cyaneus, the superb fairy-wren.
However, the presence of helpers does confer a hidden benefit: In a study of 79 students, participants played a game in which they could repeatedly give money to others and receive from others. They were told that they would never interact with the same person in the reciprocal role. A player's history of donating was displayed at each anonymous interaction, and donations were significantly more frequent to receivers who had been generous to others in earlier interactions.
Prisoner's dilemma Cooperative hunting by wolves allows them to tackle much larger and more nutritious prey than any individual wolf could handle. However, such cooperation could, potentially, be exploited by selfish individuals who do not expose themselves to the dangers of the hunt, but nevertheless share in the spoils. Even if all members of a group benefit from cooperation, individual self-interest may not favor cooperation.
The prisoner's dilemma codifies this problem and has been the subject of much research, both theoretical and experimental. In its original form the prisoner's dilemma game PDG described two awaiting trial prisoners, A and B, each faced with the choice of betraying the other or remaining silent.
The " game " has four possible outcomes: Clearly d "cooperation" is the best mutual strategy, but from the point of view of the individual betrayal is unbeatable resulting in being set free, or getting only a two-year sentence.
Remaining silent results in a four-year or six-month sentence. This is exemplified by a further example of the PDG: The mutually best ploy would be for both parties to order the cheapest items on the menu mutual cooperation. But if one member of the party exploits the situation by ordering the most expensive items, then it is best for the other member to do likewise.
In fact, if the fellow diner's personality is completely unknown, and the two diners are unlikely ever to meet again, it is always in one's own best interests to eat as expensively as possible. Situations in nature that are subject to the same dynamics rewards and penalties as the PDG define cooperative behavior: However, in Axelrod and Hamilton  noted that if the same contestants in the PDG meet repeatedly in the so-called iterated prisoner's dilemma game, IPD then tit-for-tat foreshadowed by Robert Trivers ' reciprocal altruism theory  is a robust strategy which promotes altruism.
Thereafter each contestant repeats the other player's last move, resulting in a seemingly endless sequence of mutually cooperative moves. However, mistakes severely undermine tit-for-tat's effectiveness, giving rise to prolonged sequences of betrayal, which can only be rectified by another mistake. Since these initial discoveries, all the other possible IPD game strategies have been identified 16 possibilities in all, including, for instance, "generous tit-for-tat", which behaves like "tit-for-tat", except that it cooperates with a small probability when the opponent's last move was "betray".
The result is that none is evolutionarily stableand any prolonged series of the iterated prisoner's dilemma game, in which alternative strategies arise at random, gives rise to a chaotic sequence of strategy changes that never ends. A male peacock with its beautiful but clumsy, aerodynamically unsound erectile tail, which Amotz Zahavi believes is a handicap, comparable to a race horse's handicap. The larger the handicap the more intrinsically fit the individual see text. The best horses in a handicap race carry the largest weights, so the size of the handicap is a measure of the animal's quality.
There are striking parallels between cooperative behavior and exaggerated sexual ornaments displayed by some animals, particularly certain birds, such as, amongst others, the peacock. Both are costly in fitness terms, and both are generally conspicuous to other members of the population or species.
Cooperation | Definition of Cooperation by Merriam-Webster
This led Amotz Zahavi to suggest that both might be fitness signals rendered evolutionarily stable by his handicap principle. These systems are aimed at reducing disparities in performance, thereby making the outcome of contests less predictable.
In a horse handicap raceprovenly faster horses are given heavier weights to carry under their saddles than inherently slower horses. Similarly, in amateur golfbetter golfers have fewer strokes subtracted from their raw scores than the less talented players. The handicap therefore correlates with unhandicapped performance, making it possible, if one knows nothing about the horses, to predict which unhandicapped horse would win an open race.
Among humans[ edit ] Humans cooperate for the same reasons as other animals: Certain studies have suggested that fairness affects human cooperation; individuals are willing to punish at their own cost altruistic punishment if they believe that they are being treated unfairly.
Responders refused unfair offers from human partners at a significantly higher rate than those from a computer partner. The experiment also suggested that altruistic punishment is associated with negative emotions that are generated in unfair situations by the anterior insula of the brain.
Besides cooperation with an immediate benefit for both actors, this behavior appears to occur mostly between relatives. It involves two or more animals pulling rewards towards themselves via an apparatus they can not successfully operate alone.
The reason for this is that the traditional organizational approaches based on the prevalent organizational theories F. Mayo turn out to be obsolete in offering the right organizational solutions. The main concept they provide to overcome this is cooperation, thus a managerial behavior that tries to synthetize the different needs through confrontation. The thesis is that encouraging cooperative behavior reduces complexity and increases management performance.
HOW4 is a platform that, through the Organizational Network Analysismeasures in an effective and objective way the level of cooperation within an organization. Some researchers assert that cooperation is more complex than this. They maintain that helpers may receive more direct, and less indirect, gains from assisting others than is commonly reported. Furthermore, they insist that cooperation may not solely be an interaction between two individuals but may be part of the broader goal of unifying populations.
The "pay-to-stay" theory suggests that individuals help others rear offspring in order to return the favor of the breeders allowing them to live on their land. The "territory inheritance" theory contends that individuals help in order to have improved access to breeding areas once the breeders depart.