Motivated information processing during intergroup competition

Wittchen, Marion; Dick, Rolf van; Hertel, Guido

doi:10.1177/2041386611398166

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, we again expected that group work (or intergroup competition; cf. Wittchen, van Dick, & Hertel, 2011) alone would not be sufficient to evoke motivating effects as compared with individual work. Instead, on the basis of the CEM and the social indispensability approach, we expected that group members would increase their efforts in groups as compared with individual work only if they perceived a strong contingency between their personal performance and the resulting group performance.…”

Section: Effort In Groupsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“Don't let the group down”: Facets of instrumentality moderate the motivating effects of groups in a field experiment

Hüffmeier

Krumm

Kanthak

et al. 2012

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The motivating effects of group work as compared with individual work are not restricted to the research laboratory but have recently been documented in existing groups performing meaningful tasks. Freestyle swimmers at the 2008 Olympics were shown to swim faster in relay groups than in the individual competitions when their contribution was highly instrumental for the relay group (i.e., indispensable) because of their serial position in the group. The present study replicated and extended this work, aggregating a larger sample from major sports events (N = 199 freestyle swimmers) that also allowed for a competitive test between the instrumentality approach and explanations based on differences in the starting procedures of relay and individual competitions. Consistent with expectancy value models of effort expenditure in groups, swimmers were faster in the relay groups as compared with individual competitions only when (i) a swimmer's performance was highly instrumental for the group's performance (i.e., later serial position in the relay) and (ii) the group's performance was highly instrumental for a positive group outcome (i.e., the relay group had a good chance of winning a medal). The data were not consistent with an explanation of performance differences merely as a result of different starting procedures. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Effort In Groupsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“Don't let the group down”: Facets of instrumentality moderate the motivating effects of groups in a field experiment

Hüffmeier

Krumm

Kanthak

et al. 2012

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the present findings suggest that competition effects on effort may always involve some competitive arousal, aversive competition might be particularly prone to lead to stress and strain. Equal chances, fair rules, a positive relationship between the competitors, and reasonable, nonescalated incentives can help establish constructive intergroup competition (Tjosvold, Johnson, & Johnson, 2003), and thereby promote effort gains associated with less strain (Wittchen, van Dick, & Hertel, 2011).…”

Section: Implications For Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The two sides of competition: Competition‐induced effort and affect during intergroup versus interindividual competition

Wittchen

Krimmel

Kohler

et al. 2012

British J of Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition strongly affects individual effort and performance for both individuals and groups. Especially in work settings, these effort gains might come at the cost of individual well-being. The present study tested whether competition increases both effort (as indicated by task performance) and stress (in terms of cardiovascular reactivity and affective response), and whether this effect is further qualified by the type of competition (interindividual vs. intergroup), using a cognitive computer-based task and a 2 (Group: Yes, No) × 2 (Competition: Yes, No) × 2 (Gender) factorial design (N = 147). All participants either worked as a representative of a group or as an individual, and were offered performance-related incentives distributed in a lottery. In the competition conditions, participants were informed that they competed with someone else, and that only the winning person/team would take part in the lottery. Consistent with expectations, competition increased both individual effort and cardiovascular reactivity compared to non-competitive work. Moreover, for female participants, intergroup competition triggered increased effort and more positive affect than interindividual competition. Aside from documenting costly side-effects of competition in terms of stress, this study provides evidence for a stress-related explanation of effort gains during intergroup competition as compared to interindividual competition.

show abstract

“…Aside from task conflict, another contextual factor that may mediate the effect of constructive competition on team performance is the degree to which a team is collectively or individualistically oriented. Due to the emphasis of constructive competition on fairness and equal chances of winning, the output of effort invested in a task should not be associated with a comparable amount of strain (Wittchen et al, 2011). However, individualistic teams that prioritize self-interest are likely driven by aversive competition (i.e., desire not to lose) as they anticipate the potential social consequences of losing; hence, they are more susceptible to strain when in competition (Wittchen et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the emphasis of constructive competition on fairness and equal chances of winning, the output of effort invested in a task should not be associated with a comparable amount of strain (Wittchen et al, 2011). However, individualistic teams that prioritize self-interest are likely driven by aversive competition (i.e., desire not to lose) as they anticipate the potential social consequences of losing; hence, they are more susceptible to strain when in competition (Wittchen et al, 2011). On the other hand, members in collectivistic teams who identify more strongly as a team than as separate individuals are likely to prioritize advancing the team.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, competitive interactions in this context can lead to constructive outcomes to the team such as more positive relationships and desire to participate in the team (Tjosvold et al, 2003). There is still incentive to invest efforts in a task, but without the negative strain that is associated with competing solely to win (Wittchen et al, 2011). Additionally, when there is an unambiguous competitive climate, individuals can clearly assess their progress relative to others while knowing the nature of competition and what is needed to achieve their goal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competing Conversations: An Examination of Competition as Intrateam Interactions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intrateam competition is an inherently social and interactional process, yet it is not often studied as such. Research on competition is mostly limited to studying it as an individual state and assumes that the resulting team outcomes are equivalent across different competition types. Often overlooked in competition research are the means through which competition can lead to constructive outcomes for the team. Constructive competition occurs when the primary motivation is not to win at the expense of others, but rather to make social comparisons and gain knowledge of relative competence. This study furthers insight into constructive competition by studying its interpersonal characteristics as it develops within a team, and its impact on task conflict, perceived performance, and team satisfaction. The conversations of 24 student project teams were recorded over 4 weeks and analyzed, operationalizing competition as an attempt to exert control and influence on the team. Each individual then provided sociometric ratings of perceived performance of each team member, and rated the level of task conflict and satisfaction of the team. The effects of competition on perceived performance and team satisfaction, both directly and indirectly through task conflict, were examined. Findings demonstrated a negative direct effect of competition on the range of perceived performance ratings, and a positive indirect effect of competition on team satisfaction as mediated through task conflict. The study broadens understanding on the construct of competition and underscores the positive implications competition can bring to the teams.

show abstract

Motivated information processing during intergroup competition

Cited by 16 publications

References 68 publications

“Don't let the group down”: Facets of instrumentality moderate the motivating effects of groups in a field experiment

“Don't let the group down”: Facets of instrumentality moderate the motivating effects of groups in a field experiment

The two sides of competition: Competition‐induced effort and affect during intergroup versus interindividual competition

Competing Conversations: An Examination of Competition as Intrateam Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About