Interindividual differences in incentive sensitivity moderate motivational effects of competition and cooperation on motor performance

Abstract

Established research has documented the pervasive influence of incentives (i.e., food, sex, money) on animal and human behavior. Additionally, motivational theories postulating intra-individually stable preferences for specific types of incentives (i.e., motives) highlight that effects of a given incentive are highly dependent on the motive disposition of the individual. Indeed, also research on motor performance has documented the interactive effects of motives and motive-specific incentives on motor outcomes. However, the majority of this research has relied on correlational designs focusing on the effects of the achievement motive, with few studies addressing the role of the affiliation and power motive. In order to extend findings in this domain, we tested whether a fit between individuals' power (affiliation) motive and incentives of competition (cooperation) would improve motor performance. Following baseline measures, participants performed a dart-throwing task as part of a dyadic performance (i.e., cooperative) or a one-on-one competition scenario. In the dyadic performance scenario, a stronger affiliation motive did not translate to better performance. However, in the one-on-one competition scenario a stronger power motive was associated with better performance. Results highlight the role of the power motive in predicting motor performance, particularly in competitive situations.

On the relationship between individual differences in motives and motor performance

“…In addition, a recent study from our own lab indicated that manipulating the presence of power incentives (i.e., one-on-one competition with an ostensible opponent) moderated the relationship of participants' power motive to their performance in dart throwing: If power incentives were present, a stronger power motive was related to less variable errors in dart throws (i.e., better performance). 36 In a number of aspects, the current findings go above and beyond this established line of research. First, to the best of our knowledge, the present study represents the first instance documenting the impact of the power motive on motor performance in a field (i.e., classroom) setting, highlighting that findings previously established in the lab [56][57][58]36 also translate to more applied, real world settings.…”

“…36 In a number of aspects, the current findings go above and beyond this established line of research. First, to the best of our knowledge, the present study represents the first instance documenting the impact of the power motive on motor performance in a field (i.e., classroom) setting, highlighting that findings previously established in the lab [56][57][58]36 also translate to more applied, real world settings. This is especially noteworthy, as such settings lack the advantage of rigorously controlling sources of unwanted error variance that render relationships that emerge in controlled lab settings harder to detect.…”

“…In addition, a recent study from our own lab indicated that manipulating the presence of power incentives (i.e., one-on-one competition with an ostensible opponent) moderated the relationship of participants’ power motive to their performance in dart throwing: If power incentives were present, a stronger power motive was related to less variable errors in dart throws (i.e., better performance). 36…”

“…Second, one could adopt an experimental approach that manipulates the presence of motive specific incentives, as has been employed in previous laboratory studies. 66,36,67…”

“…To arrive at an appropriate sample size to detect relationships of the power motive with motor performance with a power of at least .8 ( α = .05), we drew on previous findings 36 reporting a relationship of r = .46. Power analysis using G*Power (t-tests false→ correlation false→ α = .05 / 1 − β = .8) 37 indicated a minimum sample size of N = 32 (25 one-tailed).…”