| This research uses an evolutionary lens to study the phenomena of cooperation and social structure. It seeks to understand why cooperation exists and what factors contribute to the emergence of different forms of social structure.;A theory was developed using research on non-human primates. If, members of a group perceive needed resources to be concentrated, predictable, highly visible and consumption of them is delayed then an agonic (hierarchical) social structure will emerge. Alternatively, if, they believe resources to be scattered, unpredictable, hidden and consumption of them is more immediate, then the hedonic (egalitarian) pattern is more likely. The explanation proposed for this relationship is found in evolutionary biology. Various resource contexts presented our ancestors with serious problems for group living. Social structure is a group level adaptation that enables individuals to solve these problems by balancing the tension between self-interest and group interest and thereby sustaining cooperative behavior.;A laboratory experiment was designed to investigate the effect of resource context on social structure. Groups of students completed a task in the form of a game. Half the subjects played the game in a contest resource context and the other half in a forage context. Measurements were taken to determine if the contest context evoked an agonic social structure and the forage context the hedonic form.;The statistical analysis of the agonic and hedonic scales did not uncover a significant difference between the scores of those who played in the contest context and those who played in the forage context. Analysis of responses on a third dependent measure, the active agonic scale, did show a significant difference between the means of the two groups. However, the effects of gender attenuated this difference. As well, those who played the game in the forage context were more likely to indicate that they worked with everyone in the group than those who played in the contest context. However, this difference became non-significant when gender was considered. While statistical significance could not be established for many of the measures, the number of times in which a measured difference was in the predicted direction was significantly greater than would be expected by chance.;While empirical findings were not strong, future refinements to the theory and research approaches were suggested and further investigation encouraged. |
