Competition Improves Performance: Only when Competition Form matches Goal Orientation

Competition improves Performance:Only when competition context matches goal orientation

1

Competition

Most studies have examined:

Competition vs. No-Competition

Competition vs. Cooperation

Current study examines Direct vs. Indirect competition

Direct Competition Indirect Competition

Competition against others Competition against standards or norms

Zero-sum situation with only one winner

Competition against one’s previous best performance

2

Competition & Individual Differences

Competition led to enhanced interest and enjoyment1

Only for high achievement motivation individuals

High achievement motivation individuals looked forward to starting the competition more2

Also had higher levels of competence valuation

1Epstein, J. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1992). Winning is Not Enough: The Effects of Competition and Achievement Orientation on Intrinsic Interest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(2), 128-138.2Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1999). Winning isn't everything: Competition, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 209-238.

3

Goal Orientation

Organizes beliefs regarding achievement

Affects how the situation is perceived

Influences decision making and behavior

Thus, may moderate motivation and performance in competitive situations

4

Goal Orientation

Ego-orientation1

To establish superiority over others

Any gain in understanding or skill is not an end, but a means to trump over others

1Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290-299.1Nicholls, J. G., Cheung, P. C., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. (1989). Individual differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values. Learning and Individual Differences, 1(1), 63-84.

Task-orientation1

Success is self-referenced

Increasing one’s understanding, achieving something new, or improving one’s performance

5

Learning goals1

Concerned with increasing competence, understanding and mastering something new

Goal Orientation

Performance goals1

Concerned with gaining favourable judgements or avoiding negative judgements

1Dweck, C. S., & Elliot, E. L. (1983). Achievement motivation. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4: Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.

6

Goal Orientation

Performance-orientation Mastery-orientation

Ego-orientation: emphasis on social comparison and establishing superiority

Task-orientation: emphasis on increasing understanding and performance

Performance goal: emphasis on gaining favourable judgements of competence

Learning goal: emphasis on learning, increasing competence and mastery

Orthogonal and independent of each other

7

Objective Task Difficulty

Performance-orientation increases performance on simple, easy tasks1

Mastery-orientation increases performance on difficult, complex tasks1

Difficult tasks may require more attention, motivation and effort

Mastery-oriented individuals more suited due to emphasis on learning and mastery

As opposed to performance and evaluation

1Gerhardt, M. W., & Luzadis, R. A. (2009). The importance of perceived task difficulty in goal orientation‚Assigned goal alignment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 167-174.

8

Objective & Perceived Task Difficulty

Objective task difficulty and subjective perceived task difficulty are different1

Individuals may work on the same task but perceive it differently

Thus, it is essential to operationalize both separately

1Maynard, D. C., & Hakel, M. D. (1997). Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on performance. Human Performance, 10, 303-330.

9

Perceived difficulty and self-efficacy

Perceived behavioral control1

Consists of perceived control, perceived difficulty and perceived confidence (self-efficacy)

High degree of interrelationship2

Similar effect sizes on behavioral intention and behavior

Meta-analysis revealed self-efficacy to be superior as predictor

1Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(453-474).2Rodgers, W. M., Conner, M., & Murray, T. C. (2008). Distinguishing among perceived control, perceived difficulty, and self-efficacy as determinants of intentions and behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 607-630.

10

Regulatory Focus Theory1

Promotion focus: advancement and accomplishment

Presence of positive outcomes

Motivated by incentives seen as accomplishment

Prevention focus: safety and responsibility

Absence of negative outcomes

Motivated by incentives seen as safety

1Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.

11

Regulatory Fit

When the goal pursued fits the situational context of the activity

E.g., Promotion focused individuals in a task framed in terms of accomplishments

Regulatory fit leads to increased performance

One explanation for increased performance is increased motivational strength1

1Foster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the 'goal looms larger' effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1115-1131.1Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you'd feel: The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 926-937.

12

Regulatory Fit

Participants’ predisposed promotion focus and prevention focus measured

Anagram task with goal of identify 90% of words

Promotion frame: $4 reward, extra $1 by finding >90% of words

Prevention frame: $5 reward, lose $1 if missed >10% of words

Individuals in regulatory fit found to perform better

Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285-293.

13

Competition/Goal orientation Fit

Performance-orientation & direct competition

Allows for establishment of superiority

Satisfies need for social comparison and to trump over competitors

Mastery-orientation & indirect competition

Allows autonomy, where locus of control not externalized

Satisfies need to learn and achieve task mastery, with a standard to measure against

14

The Present Research


Direct Competition

Increase in performance

No change or reduced performance

Indirect Competition



15


Moderated by task difficulty and perceived task difficulty

Performance-oriented individuals to perform better in easier tasks

Mastery-oriented individuals to perform better in more difficult tasks

16


Moderated by self-efficacy

Higher self-efficacy would lead to greater positive effects of a match

Belief that one’s ability sufficient to achieve positive outcomes

17


Possible motivation pathway which could explain performance increase due to match

Competition/goal orientation match

Increase inperformance

Increase inmotivation

18

Study 1 Methods

Participants: 43 males, 98 females, mean age = 21.65

Measures used:

Goal orientation questionnaire (GOQ)

Perceived difficulty scale (PDS)

Secondary variables

Motivation, needs satisfaction, task satisfaction and ego-involvement

Manipulation check

19

Study 1 Methods

Demographic info and GOQ

Filler task

Indirect CompetitionDirect Competition

Easy task Difficult task Easy task Difficult task

PDS and Secondary dependent variables

Manipulation check

Debriefing

20

Study 1 Methods

Direct Competition manipulation

“Your objective in the math problem task is to compete against the other participants to be the best performer in

this task. It is important to try your best to solve the most math problems compared to other participants in this session. Once again, the goal in this task is to beat

the other participants by having the highest score in solving the most math problems.

When the study ends, you will receive your own score as well as the anonymous scores of the other participants.”

21

Study 1 Methods

Indirect Competition manipulation

“Your objective in this math problem task is to solve a target number of math problems that you set for yourself.

Before you begin on the task, set a standard that you wantto achieve in this task (i.e., the number of math problems

you aim to solve). It is important to try your best to achieve the standard you have set for yourself. Once again, the aim

is to learn as much as you can about the task, improve your performance, and reach your set target.

When the study ends, you will receive your own score as well as the anonymous scores of the other participants.”

22

Study 1 Results

Manipulation check across competition conditions

Manipulation check

Direct competition

Indirect competition F η2

Perceived direct

competition

4.64(1.54)

3.79(1.59) 10.32* 0.07

Perceived indirect

competition

4.32(1.31)

5.34(0.83) 31.04** 0.18

Note: * = p ≤ .01, ** = p ≤ .001. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means

23

Study 1 Results

Dependent variables across difficulty conditions

Difficult task Easy task F η2

Math performance

6.69(2.82)

33.56(10.09) 461.19** 0.77

Motivation 3.61(1.30)

4.23(0.96) 10.44* 0.07

Perceived difficulty

4.42(1.62)

3.54(1.30) 12.63** 0.08

Task satisfaction

3.48(1.44)

4.09(1.30) 7.05* 0.5

Perceived competence

3.34(1.39)

4.21(1.09) 17.02** 0.11

Note: * = p ≤ .01, ** = p ≤ .001. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means

24

Study 1 Results

Regression model: Competition X Performance-orientation X Mastery-orientation X Perceived difficulty

F(9,69) = 3.86, p < .01, f2 = .58

Interaction: Competition X Mastery-orientation X Perceived difficulty

β = -1.13, SE = .50, t = -2.27, p = .03

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"

Direct"Compe;;on""

low"PDS"high"PDS"

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Performance"Orienta9on"

Direct"Compe99on""

low"PDS"high"PDS"

25

Study 1 Results

Simple slope analysis for higher perceived difficulty (1 SD above the mean)

Mastery-orientation: β = -1.82, SE = .76, t = -2.40, p = .02

Performance-orientation : β = 1.11, SE = .87, t = 1.28, p = .21

No statistically significant main effect of Competition or Goal-orientation

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"

Direct"Compe;;on""

low"PDS"high"PDS"

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Direct"Compe99on""

low"PDS"high"PDS"

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"

Direct"Compe;;on""

high"PDS"

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Direct"Compe99on""

high"PDS"

26

Study 1 Discussion

Trend of Competition X Goal orientation X Perceived Difficulty

Preliminary support for competition/goal orientation mismatch

Trend only emerged in difficult condition

Hints that match/mismatch effect only apparent at higher difficulty

27

Study 2: Changes made

Control condition added

Easy math task removed and anagram task added

Time allocated increased from 7 to 10 minutes, number of questions reduced from 60 to 30

Self-efficacy was measured instead of perceived difficulty

28

Perceived difficulty and self-efficacy

High degree of interrelationship1

Similar effect sizes on behavioral intention and behavior

Meta-analysis revealed self-efficacy to be superior as predictor

1Rodgers, W. M., Conner, M., & Murray, T. C. (2008). Distinguishing among perceived control, perceived difficulty, and self-efficacy as determinants of intentions and behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 607-630.

29

Study 2 Methods

Participants: 35 males, 108 females, mean age = 20.90

Measures used:

Goal orientation questionnaire (GOQ)

Self-efficacy Scale (SES)

Secondary variables

Motivation, needs satisfaction, task satisfaction and ego-involvement

Manipulation check

30

Secondary dependent variablesPDS and

Study 1 Methods


Filler task


Easy task Difficult task Easy task Difficult task

Manipulation check

Debriefing

31

Study 2 Methods


Filler task


Manipulation check

Debriefing

Anagram and math task (counterbalanced)

Control

Secondary dependent variablesSES and

32

Study 2 Methods

Control condition

“Your objective in this anagram task is to try to solve as many anagrams as possible.

When the study ends, you will receive your own scores as well as the anonymous scores of the other participants.”

33

Study 2 Results

Manipulation check across competition conditions

Manipulation check

Direct competition Control Indirect

competition F η2

Perceived direct

competition

4.97a(1.56)

4.16b(1.15)

3.83c(1.19) 9.55** 0.12

Perceived indirect

competition

5.29(1.05)

5.31(1.06)

5.42(0.97) 0.21 0.00

Note: * = p ≤ .01, ** = p ≤ .001. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means. Mean with differing subscripts within rows are significantly different at p ≤ .05 based on Bonferroni post hoc paired comparisons.

34

Study 2 Results

Condition X Performance-orientation interaction marginally significant for math performance:

F(2,142) = 2.90, p = .06, η2 = 0.04

No significant main effect of competition, performance -orientation, or mastery-orientation on performance

35

Study 2 Results

Regression model: Competition X Performance-orientation X Self-efficacy

Math Performance

Interaction: Competition X Performance-orientation X Self-efficacy

β = 1.37 , SE = .70, t = 1.97, p = .05

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Control" low"SE"high"SE"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Direct"Compe99on""

low"SE"high"SE"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Indirect"Compe99on""

low"SE"high"SE"

36

Study 2 Results

Simple slope analysis for higher self-efficacy (1 SD above the mean)

Performance-orientation: β = .91, SE = .80, t = 1.14, p = .26

Simple slope analysis for lower self-efficacy (1 SD below the mean)

Performance-orientation: β = -1.39 SE = .86, t = -1.63, p = .11

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"



6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Direct"Compe99on""

low"SE"high"SE"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Indirect"Compe99on""

low"SE"high"SE"

37

10#

12#

14#

16#

18#

(1SD# 1SD#

Anagram#Perform

ance#

Performance#Orienta9on#

Indirect#Compe99on##

low#SE#high#SE#

10#

12#

14#

16#

18#

(1SD# 1SD#

Anagram#Perform

ance#


Direct#Compe99on##

low#SE#high#SE#

10#

12#

14#

16#

18#

(1SD# 1SD#

Anagram#Perform

ance#


Control# low#SE#high#SE#

Study 2 Results


Anagram Performance

Interaction: Competition X Performance-orientation X Self-efficacy

β = 2.14 , SE = .96, t = 2.24, p = .03

38

10#

12#

14#

16#

18#

(1SD# 1SD#

Anagram#Perform

ance#


Indirect#Compe99on##

low#SE#high#SE#

10#

12#

14#

16#

18#

(1SD# 1SD#

Anagram#Perform

ance#


Direct#Compe99on##

low#SE#high#SE#

10#

12#

14#

16#

18#

(1SD# 1SD#

Anagram#Perform

ance#


Control# low#SE#high#SE#

Study 2 Results


Performance-orientation: β = 2.19, SE = 1.06 t = 2.08, p = .04


Performance-orientation: β = -1.40, SE = 1.14, t = -1.23, p = .23

39

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"


6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"

Direct"Compe;;on""

low"SE"high"SE"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"

Indirect"Compe;;on""

low"SE"high"SE"

Study 2 Results

Regression model: Competition X Mastery-orientation X Self-efficacy

Math Performance

F(10,142) = 1.82, p = .08, f2 = .14

Interaction: Competition X Mastery-orientation X Self-efficacy

β = 3.22 , SE = 1.58, t = 2.04, p = .04

40

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"


6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"

Direct"Compe;;on""

low"SE"high"SE"

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"

Mastery"Orienta;on"

Indirect"Compe;;on""

low"SE"high"SE"

Study 2 Results


Mastery-orientation: β = 4.45, SE = 1.69, t = 2.64, p = .01


Mastery-orientation: β = -0.94, SE = 1.10, t = -.86, p = .40

41

3"

3.5"

4"

4.5"

5"

&1SD" 1SD"

Mo,

va,o

n"

Performance"Orienta,on"


3"

3.5"

4"

4.5"

5"

&1SD" 1SD"

Mo,

va,o

n"


Direct"Compe,,on""

low"SE"high"SE"

3"

3.5"

4"

4.5"

5"

&1SD" 1SD"

Mo,

va,o

n"


Indirect"Compe,,on""

low"SE"high"SE"

Study 2 Results


Motivation

F(10,142) = 1.01, p = .44, f2 = .08

42

Study 2 Discussion

Replicated findings from Study 1

Stronger evidence of competition/goal orientation match

Preliminary evidence of match on motivation

43

General Discussion

Evidence that goal orientation affects how individuals perform differently in competition


Direct Competition



Indirect Competition



44

General Discussion

Task difficulty not shown to interact with goal orientation like in the study by Ford et al. (1998)

1Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218-233.

Ford et al.’s study Current study

12 practice trials and a final transfer task Single trial on each domain

Option of choosing difficulty level of trials

Effect of learning and feedback was greater

45

The Motivational Pathway

Exploring the motivational pathway




46


Trend found for competition/goal orientation leading to increased motivational strength, though ns.

3"

3.5"

4"

4.5"

5"

&1SD" 1SD"

Mo,

va,o

n"


Direct"Compe,,on""

low"SE"high"SE"

3"

3.5"

4"

4.5"

5"

&1SD" 1SD"

Mo,

va,o

n"



3"

3.5"

4"

4.5"

5"

&1SD" 1SD"

Mo,

va,o

n"


Indirect"Compe,,on""

low"SE"high"SE"



47


Motivation positively correlated with performance

Anagram task Math task Motivation

Anagram task -

Math task .168* -

Motivation .289** .175*

Note: * = p ≤ .01, ** = p ≤ .001. N = 143 for all analyses

Increase in motivation


48


Exploring the motivational pathway



Increase inmotivationTrend in

expected directionPositive

correlation

49


Why was it not statistically significant?

Explicit measures used might not picked up implicit changes in motivation

Lack of incentive for winning the competition, thus little increase in motivation



50


Competition/goal orientation match and higher motivation independently lead to increased performance




51


Competition/goal orientation match and higher motivation independently lead to increased performance



Higher Motivation

52

Does higher self-efficacy itself lead to better performance?

Self-efficacy not significantly correlated with performance

Self-efficacy

Anagram task Math task Self-efficacy

Anagram task -

Math task .168* -

Self-efficacy 0.024 -0.001

Note: * = p ≤ .01, ** = p ≤ .001. N = 143 for all analyses

53

Self-efficacy

Did being in a match lead to increased self-efficacy?

Regression model was not significant (F < .56, ns.)

Regression analyses showed no Competition X Goal orientation interaction effects (t < .09, ns.)

54

Self-efficacy

Theory of Planned Behavior and Perceived behavioral control 1

Higher self-efficacy: more inclined to focus and put in greater effort, thus positive effects of a match

Lower self-efficacy: may tend to give up and reduce effort, thus no effect of a match

1Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

55

Self-efficacy

Lower self-efficacy and maladaptive effects of performance orientation

Could explain the negative effects of performance-orientation

6"

8"

10"

12"

14"

(1SD" 1SD"

Math"Pe

rformance"


Direct"Compe99on""

low"SE"high"SE"

56

Implications

Goal orientation should be taken into account

When deciding an individual’s fit with an organization

When deciding on motivation methods

E.g. Interpersonal competition with a prize vs. self-set goals (goal setting theory)

57

Implications

Positive effects of a match among individuals with higher self-efficacy

Both individuals and organizations should ensure sufficient training and confidence

To allow the greatest gain from a competition/goal orientation match

58

Future Directions

Incorporate rewards into competition manipulation

Competition is commonly associated with a reward

Increase experimental realism

Have multiple trials and provide feedback

Observe how a competition/goal orientation match or mismatch affects performance over trials

Further explore underlying mechanism explaining a match or a mismatch

59

Conclusion

A competition/goal orientation match leads to greater performance than either alone

Individuals with higher self-efficacy more likely to gain from a match

Essential to recognize a match or a mismatch

Sustain a match or reframe a mismatch

60

Q & A

61

Science

Competition Improves Performance: Only when Competition Form matches Goal Orientation