Cooperation and Competition – The Pillars of Human Psychology

In modern psychology and philosophy there is much debate about whether humans are inherently competitive beings, or whether they are inherently cooperative beings. Proponents of the Machiavellian hypothesis believe that much of human modernity arose from competitive adaptations which we inherited from our prehuman ancestors. On the other hand, scholars like Tomasello and Henrich argue that human modernity came about as a result of cooperative adaptations which arose due to certain selection pressures in early human lineages and created a ratcheting effect between culture and human evolution. Throughout this paper I am going to address this discussion by using evolutionary psychology to view two different collections of adaptations, one being cooperation oriented, and the other being competition oriented. After reviewing the development and inner workings of these two collections I will attempt to address certain issues regarding how various aspects of human modernity came about, and finally I will argue that the framework I have presented can help humans better understand themselves and as a result help increase their general wellbeing.

The fundamental idea of evolutionary psychology is that all beings are composed of a vast array of different evolutionarily derived adaptations. These adaptations arose in response to specific selection pressures, allowing individuals to respond to their environment in ways that maximize their evolutionary fitness. These adaptations are domain specific and evolve to increase an organism’s success in any number of functional domains. In this report I am going to be looking specifically at those adaptations which have evolved in humans to navigate intraspecies interactions. I will argue that it is useful to group adaptations within this domain into two broad collections, each defined by the general mechanism or pathway it takes to increase an individual’s success through interaction with others. I will then go on to discuss the evolution of the two collections of adaptations and how they exist and interact within modern humans.

One important idea presented in Cosmides and Tooby’s paper The Theoretical Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology is the idea that the aspects of the mind which regulate human behavior are a direct result of domain specific adaptations which arose over time due to certain selection pressures. One crucial category of these adaptations mentioned in this reading are motivational systems, which the authors describe as computational mechanisms that solve adaptive problems through the assignment of certain values to specific inputs which then regulates behavior in evolutionarily adaptive ways. These motivational systems then have a large influence on fundamental aspects of an organism’s behavior. For example, how much value an individual assigns to certain inputs, what emotions an individual is disposed to feel in regard to certain inputs, what inputs an individual directs their attention towards, and how an individual interprets certain inputs are all things these motivational systems would influence. With this said we can see that motivational systems are a key adaptation which strongly influences an organism’s behavior in particular domains. Motivational systems are critical aspects of human psychology and can be used to interpret and better understand the ways in which any group of organisms including humans interact with one another.

Different motivational systems have evolved in different domains to mediate an organism’s behavior in ways which increase that organism’s evolutionary fitness. Certain selective pressures are what cause these motivational systems to arise. As such different motivational systems which arise under different selective pressures may look fundamentally dissimilar in their value assignments and behavioral mediation even if the two motivational systems developed in the same domain. These domain specific motivational systems pave the way for the evolution of other more functionally specific adaptations. For instance, in the case of human cooperation, for altruistic adaptations to develop humans first had to have evolved some motivational system which placed value on cooperation for one reason or another. In Tomasello’s paper Why We Cooperate he emphasizes how mutualistic environments created selection pressures which over time led to the emergence of cooperative adaptations within humans. Such pressures made it adaptive to value cooperation. For cooperation to come about in the first place some motivational system must have first developed which placed value on cooperation in order to achieve some mutual goal. And it is only after such adaptations had arisen that a more functionally specialized adaptation like altruism could develop. In effect more general adaptations like motivational systems are needed to lay the foundation which more specific adaptations can build on.

When it comes to understanding any species and why that species acts and behaves the way it does in a particular domain looking at these adaptations and the underlying motivational systems which more specific adaptations have built upon is crucial. It is also very important to take into account the selection pressures which have led to such adaptations. Human beings are no exception to this, and I believe taking the evolutionary history of the two collections of adaptations being discussed into account can help us better understand human psychology and how this psychology functions in the environment which we now live in. This understanding can also help humans better navigate such an environment and make more informed decisions about the lives they live today.

I believe that there are two distinct collections of adaptations which have evolved in the domain of intraspecies interactions among humans. I believe these two collections began to evolve at different time periods, under different evolutionary pressures and as a result have underlying motivational systems which have taken two fundamentally different pathways for value assignment and behavioral mediation. I believe the first, and much older collection of adaptations evolved to increase an individual’s success through viewing others as competitors. Such a collection of adaptations has an underlying motivational system which places value on inputs having to do with competition and over time has accumulated specific competition-oriented adaptations to increase success using this pathway. I will call the collection of adaptations which uses Competition as a means of success the Collection of Competitive Adaptations (CCPA). This CCPA is seen all throughout the animal kingdom and this evolutionary pathway is often regarded as ancient. The second collection of adaptations, which is less prevalent in the animal kingdom in general but certainly a very dominant collection among humans, are those adaptations which promote cooperation between agents in a species as a means of increasing individual success. Like the CCPA this collection of adaptations also has an underlying motivational system however in this collection the motivational system places value on inputs having to do with cooperation. This collection of adaptations which uses cooperation as a means of success I will refer to as the Collection of Cooperative Adaptations (CCOA).

Scholars like Tomasello and Henrich have extensively researched the CCOA and shown that it is not only the dominant collection of adaptations within human intraspecies interactions but also that such adaptations can explain much of the emergence of behavioral and cognitive modernity in humans today. In Why We Cooperate Tomasello argues that certain selection pressures made cooperation necessary for survival and reproduction among humans resulting in the emergence of cooperative adaptations. He conducts extensive studies on human infants to show that such cooperative tendencies are innate within humans and actually act as the default guide of intraspecies interactions until the children become acquainted with social and cultural norms, which then begin to shape and constrain such interactions. Tomasello also does extensive research on apes to show that cooperative adaptations are very scarce within apes and are only seen in select circumstances. Rather, we see that apes rely heavily on competitive adaptations in the domain of intraspecies interactions. This suggests that for the most part the CCOA began to accumulate later on in the evolution of humans, after the lineage had split off from our prehuman ancestors.

In Henrich’s book The Secret of Our Success, he provides an important explanation of how the emergence of CCOA ultimately led to cognitive and behavioral modernity through cumulative culture and the ratcheting effect between cumulative culture and the selection pressures that it created. He illustrates that after the initial emergence of the CCOA humans began to live in larger groups where culture could develop. After culture began to develop a new set of selection pressures emerged in which those who could better absorb and learn culture were more successful in survival and reproduction. Thus, more and more adaptations emerged within human psychology which better facilitated humans to generate and absorb culture. And as a result of this general increase in the ability of humans to take in culture, more and more culture was able to be generated, in turn further increasing the selection pressures to take in culture, and so on. Henrich argues this feedback loop between culture and evolution is the key factor to explaining how humans reached the level of cognition they have reached today.

So, as Tomasello and Henrich have demonstrated, the CCOA is not only an important collection of adaptations within the domain of intraspecies interactions, but they truly have played a foundational role in shaping humans as a species. With this said I believe it’s important to remember and take into account the CCPA which certainly still exists in humans and has also played an important role in shaping society as we know it today. As such I will now go on to discuss the evolution of CCPA in humans and the role they have played in shaping humans today so that a better conclusion can be drawn about how the two collections interact with each other and coexist within human psychology.

Adaptations which increase an organism’s success via means of competition are extremely abundant and evolutionarily ancient. In fact, such adaptations are thought to have arisen almost as soon as organisms began to interact with one another in environments with limited resources (Maynard Smith & Szathmáry, 1995). As a result, a CCPA is deeply rooted in almost all organisms, including humans, and such adaptations are elicited in a large array of situations. The earliest motivational systems were those which placed value on resources needed to survive and reproduce such as food, water, shelter, and mates. With value already placed on these resources, when such resources became scarce it then became adaptive for organisms to view other agents as threats who might inhibit their access to these resources. As such, new motivational systems developed which placed value not just on the vital resources themselves but also on other agents who needed access to these same resources. Behaviors such as rivalry and aggression towards others then arose as a result of these motivational systems which placed value on competing. This was of course adaptive because in situations where there are more consumers of a resource than there is that resource, it is beneficial to be able to scare/fight off other agents to get the resources necessary for survival.

So, we know that the CCPA has been an evolved collection of adaptations within organisms for a very long time. We can infer that such adaptations developed in prehuman ancestors due to resource scarcity and were then passed down over time as human evolution unfolded until finally being inherited by Homo sapiens. Such competition-oriented adaptations can be seen in many aspects of human-to-human interactions and have over time interwoven themselves into key aspects of the societal framework in which humans live and interact. So, while the CCOA and the cumulative culture which came along with them were likely the primary reason humans were able to progress to behavioral and cognitive modernity, they in no way erased the CCPA from the human psychological repertoire. As a result, then I argue that both CCOA and CCPA interwork and coexist in a way which causes both competition and cooperation to be present and important aspects of the way in which modern human society functions.

In The Evolution of Aggression, Buss and Duntley discuss how certain adaptations from the CCPA such as status striving, rivalry, and aggression interact with and influence modern environments such as social hierarchies, political structures, corporate hierarchies and workplaces. They discuss what they call “mismatch environments” in which these competitive adaptations that evolved under selection pressures of scarce resources and small group interaction now operate in the very large culturally constructed systems of modern day. They argue that because the environments in which these adaptations were adaptive differ so much from the modern-day environments that they are operating in, such adaptations often become maladaptive or even dangerous and dysfunctional. The authors also suggest that such competition-oriented adaptations have played a role in the way societal structures themselves are devised. They point to the fact that similar dominance hierarchies which humans use throughout society are seen extensively among primates, and competitive adaptations such as aggression are used to climb such hierarchies. Justice systems are also used as an example of foundational aspects of human society which arose out of competition-based adaptations such as a drive to punish cheaters and retaliate against exploitation. Overall, their article helps illustrate how the CCPA has played an important role in shaping many structures and norms within modern society.

Thus far I have established that both a CCPA and a CCOA are deeply rooted in human psychology. These two collections of adaptations evolved at different periods of time as the result of different selection pressures. There are foundational adaptations called motivational systems which place value on specific inputs (in this case related to cooperation and competition) and upon these other more functionally specialized adaptations may form. All of these adaptations in the domain of intraspecies interactions among humans coexist and interact simultaneously. Different situations elicit different adaptations. Some situations cause more cooperation-oriented adaptations to activate such as interacting with ingroup members, or engaging in collaborative tasks that require shared goals, and other situations cause more competition-oriented adaptations to be activated such as working to climb corporate hierarchies or interacting with outgroup members. Both collections of these adaptations also shaped humans and the environment they operate in into what it is today.

This setup brings me to one of the points that I believe this framework helps illustrate, which is that there can be certain adaptations which may act as add-ons – or more functionally specialized adaptations to both CCPA and CCOA depending on what context it is used in. I believe this concept can help settle a debate which has been taking place in evolutionary psychology over why adaptations such as theory of mind evolved in humans. Some scholars argue for the Machiavellian hypothesis, which states that theory of mind developed because it was useful in interactions which involved competition so that one individual could manipulate and trick others in order to outcompete them. Essentially, the Machiavellian hypothesis argues that ToM evolved as a functionally specialized adaptation which evolved as part of the CCPA on top of existing competitive motivational systems. Another major theory which many advocate for, is the Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis. This theory would say that ToM evolved in humans because it was conducive to absorbing culture by allowing individuals to better learn from and copy others as a result of being able to infer their internal mental states including the goals they have and strategies they use. So, the Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis is arguing that ToM is a functionally specialized adaptation which evolved as part of the CCOA, on top of existing cooperative motivational systems.

I believe that there is a key problem with this debate, which is the fact that it assumes ToM had to have evolved because it was adaptive for one collection or another. I think it is pretty clear that ToM would be very adaptive for both collections of adaptations, and since both collections of adaptations are present within humans and interwork and coexist within human psychology, I do not see why a trait like ToM would need to specifically evolve for one collection of adaptations or the other. Rather I believe such an adaptation likely evolved because it was adaptive for intraspecies interactions as a whole. ToM would be adaptive for both those interactions which involve competition such as trying to infer what your rival is going to do next and for those interactions which involve cooperation such as learning from a model and inferring their goals and strategies.

Henrich briefly touches on this debate in his book The Secret of Our Success. He argues for the Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis and against the Machiavellian hypothesis using a study he conducted in his laboratory on children ages 3-7. In the study children observed novel social interactions which gave them some information that they could either use to copy the strategies of others, or to outcompete a partner to maximize their own rewards. The results showed that children strongly favored using theory of mind for cultural learning over Machiavellian exploitation. To me what this displays is something that aligns with Tomasello’s work on children, which is that children have greater cooperative predispositions then they do competitive ones. Nonetheless, children’s competitive predispositions may still be prompted in specific circumstances such as sharing toys which are personal to them, but overall, it seems that the CCOA has more influence over children than the CCPA or at least is more easily prompted in situations which could prompt either collection. With this said I still don’t think it would be fair to say either theory is entirely correct or incorrect, but rather that ToM evolved mostly for cooperation in humans (because humans’ default more towards cooperation than competition), but also for competition as well. Henrich in some ways alludes to this conclusion in his argument, but I thought it important to explicitly state this to emphasize that the evolution of ToM does not have to be mutually exclusive to one collection.

Now that I have laid out my framework for adaptations in the domain of human intraspecies interactions I would like to move on to argue why I believe recognizing this framework is important for modern humans. Through the research presented by Buss and Duntley, Tomasello, and Henrich we have seen that humans do not only possess a CCPA and a CCOA but more importantly, both of these collections of adaptations work to shape human psychology and society into what we know it as today. These adaptations not only shape how we interact with other humans, but they also shape the societal framework which these interactions are taking place in. Cooperation and Competition are built into the foundations of our society, and they interact with each other often. And, because we built our society with minds deeply grounded in both competition and cooperation, there are now countless situations in everyday life that may provoke one collection or the other, or more often than not, both. For instance, say Jim works at Wendy’s as a Shift Manager, and there are 5 other Shift Managers. Jim likes the other Shift Managers, he values his connection with them, cooperates with them in the work environment, and even goes out for drinks with them on the weekends. At the same time, Jim knows the General Manager is not going to be there forever, and he wants the spot, but so do the other 5 Shift Managers. The very people Jim likes and cooperates with, he is also in competition with. He may like them and cooperate with them, while at the same time try to out compete them by purposely trying to work harder than them, especially when the General Manager is around. He may feel a bit relieved and even happy when Kelly, one of the five Shift Managers who works extremely hard and is likely Jim’s greatest competitor for the General Manager spot, shows up to work 30 minutes late and gets a talking-to from the General Manager. The story of Jim is commonplace in our society, because society itself was set up by minds which function on cooperation and at the same time competition.

I argue that it is crucial for humans to realize this. It is crucial, because I believe once one is informed about these two collections of adaptations, they can more purposely choose which adaptations, specifically motivational systems they emphasize in their actions and as a result increase their wellbeing. In the scenario presented, Jim has two different motivational systems at play, one based out of the CCOA, and one based out of the CCPA. The motivational system falling in the CCPA places value on inputs having to do with competition for external resources (in this case the General Manager position and the money and status that comes along with it). The motivational system falling in the CCOA places value on inputs having to do with cooperation such as cooperating with the other Shift Managers, connecting with them, valuing them as friends and even acting altruistic toward them. In today’s world these two collections of adaptations and their underlying motivational systems effectively give humans a choice of where they place their drive or what they can value.

In Ryan and Deci’s paper Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being they look into this concept. Specifically, Ryan and Deci view the two different fundamental motivations which humans often use to propel themselves through life, one being external motives related to the CCPA such as wealth, fame, status, and power, and the other being intrinsic motives such as personal growth, community contribution, and connections to others – which are closely related to the CCOA. Ryan and Deci then argue that those people who put value on intrinsic motives have a much higher sense of well-being then those who put value on extrinsic motives – even when such extrinsic motives are achieved. Kasser and Ryan surveyed 200-300 college students and had them rate how important various intrinsic and extrinsic goals were to them. They then took a survey which measured well-being through self-esteem, depression, anxiety, general satisfaction, and self-actualization. The results showed that those who prioritized intrinsic motives were positively associated with well-being and those who put more priority on extrinsic motives were negatively associated with well-being. Overall, it was clear that people who valued extrinsic motives had poorer mental health than those who valued intrinsic motives, even when extrinsic motives were achieved. These findings correlate with the findings introduced in my earlier work dealing with ARS and CARP. Human beings have internal reward systems which increase one’s well-being when they act altruistically in human-to-human interactions (Nicol, 2025).

Understanding this is vital because now, rather than just blindly being propelled forward by whichever motivational system is elicited to a stronger extent in a certain situation, individuals can make informed decisions about which motivations they act on and indulge in (or at least attempt to – it’s not always that easy). For instance, if Jim knows that working to outcompeting the other shift managers for the General Manager position will bring him less happiness, then just connecting with them and valuing his relationships with them, then he is less likely to choose that competitive route even if on the surface it looks more appealing. Without this information, even if Jim is slightly conflicted about his decision to place the promotion before his relationships, he is likely to still do it because on the surface oftentimes the value of such exterior motives seem more tangible than those of the interior motives – and thus seem more likely to increase well-being. In reality this is not the case and understanding this framework and the implications it has can help humans recognize this.

Throughout this paper I have presented a framework which emphasizes two collections of adaptations functioning in the domain of intraspecies interactions, the CCPA, and the CCOA. I have discussed the evolution of these two collections of adaptations and how they have both become deeply rooted in human psychology and led to the formation of modern human functioning both mentally and in society. I argued that both of these collections have underlying motivational systems which more functionally specific adaptations may build upon, and that some functionally specific adaptations such as theory of mind may be beneficial to both motivational systems, and don’t necessarily need to have exclusively evolved for any one system. Finally, I argued that recognizing these two collections of adaptations is important for modern humans because it has the ability to help individuals better understand themselves and make more informed decisions over which motivational systems they indulge in and act upon. I believe this strengthened awareness of how value placement and motivational indulgence can affect well-being may help individuals begin to place more emphasis on intrinsic motives rather than extrinsic leading to an overall increased well-being.

Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2006). The evolution of aggression. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 263–286). Psychology Press.

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1997). Theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 1–75). Oxford University Press.

Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223006

Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford University Press.

Nicol, A. (2025). Altruistic reward systems and cooperative motivational structures in human psychology. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Ohio University.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. MIT Press.