Autonomy promotes important psychological outcomes. Although cooperation and competition are the building blocks of social interactions, little is known about how they shape feelings of autonomy in dyads, teams, and work organizations. We hypothesize that cooperation liberates relative to competition and situations that are neither cooperative nor competitive. We theorize that this effect emerges because cooperation facilitates social support and psychological safety, whereas competition promotes social threat and stress. We found support for this hypothesis in nine studies (Ntotal = 16,669) that used survey, archival, and experimental methods, diverse samples, and different operationalizations of cooperative and competitive environments, as well as two kinds of environments that are neither cooperative nor competitive (i.e., independence and unknown interdependence). Studies 1 to 3 found that perceived situational cooperation correlated positively with feelings of autonomy among varsity athletes and employees. Study 3 also provided initial evidence for the proposed mechanisms. To provide causal evidence, Study 4 used an incentivized decision-making task in which we experimentally created cooperative, competitive, and independent situations. Participants felt greater autonomy under cooperative vs. competitive and independent incentive structures. Study 5 found evidence for our hypothesized mechanisms in an experiment conducted in the context of negotiation. Four supplemental studies replicated our experimental findings, extended them to another incentivized decision-making task, and established the causal effect of social threat and stress on autonomy. Overall, our findings underscore the liberating effects of cooperative situations relative to competitive situations and situations that are neither cooperative nor competitive, with consequences for people’s feelings, motivation, and well-being.

Rivalries motivate competitive performance but can also increase unethical intentions. Although extant theorizing treats this moral-motivational trade-off as inevitable, we show that rivalry’s effect on unethical intentions depends on the tenor of the rivalry. Colder competitive relationships (hostile rivalries) exhibit the competitive profile documented in the literature: stronger motivation and increased unethical intentions. But warmer competitive relationships (amicable rivalries) involve a different competitive profile: stronger motivation without increased unethical intentions. Study 1 supported the assumption that participants could identify both amicable and hostile rivalries in their lives. These different rivalries evoked different judgments of warmth, but they did not differ in relationship duration, importance, or competitive domain. Study 2 demonstrated that amicable and hostile rivalries involve higher motivation compared to nonrival competition, but only hostile rivalries provoked stronger unethical intentions. This divergence can be partly explained by individuals’ relative focus on the outcome of winning versus the process of competing against hostile (relative to amicable) rivals (Studies 2 and 3). Prompting participants to reflect on the value they derive from the process of competing against their hostile rival significantly reduced unethical intentions (Study 3). These findings encourage more nuanced theorizing about rivalry and identify pathways for organizations to leverage the motivational benefits of rivalry without the ethical trade-offs.