The use of group rivalry as an incentive.

Abstract

R IVALRY, either group or individual, has proved to be an effective incentive to increased efficiency in the fields of industry and sport. Its value for purely mental work is somewhat doubtful, as it is generally believed to increase the quantity of the work, while at the same time decreasing the quality. Because of the lack of experimental data on the subject, the writer has attempted, in the experiment reported on the following pages, to study the value of group rivalry as an incentive to increased efficiency in school work, not only from the point of view of the effect upon the quantity and quality of the work, but in its relation to age, sex and individual differences.Before giving a detailed description of the present study, an attempt will be made to summarize briefly studies made previous to this, but which deal with the same general problem. Allport, 1 in his "Social Psychology", has summarized the studies of this sort made up to the publication of his book in 1924, and this summary will be quoted here. "We may refer again to the experiment of Triplett upon rivalry in the turning of fishing reels. Forty subjects were used in this investigation. Twenty of them gained markedly in the competitive trials over their average for solitary work. Ten were little affected by the competition. These were for the most part older children. And ten actually lost in speed under the influence of rivalry. These last showed evidences of emotional excitement and a loss of motor control. Young, nervous and excitable subjects are prone to overstimulation through rivalry, with a consequent lowering of efficiency in competitive performance. Triplett found a higher percentage of girls than of boys susceptible to increase of performance through competition."The effect of rivalry, like that of social facilitation, varies inversely with the ability of the worker. In 1914 Dr. W. Moede published an account of rivalry in speed of tapping and strength of hand grip. Seventeen boys between twelve and fourteen years

Are Competition and Extrinsic Motivation Reliable Predictors of Academic Cheating?

“…Consequently, it is important to take into account the fact that competition does not have inherently a positive impact on cheating, as, its distinct individual and situational forms can be positively, negatively linked to academic cheating or unrelated to it. Several studies (i.e., Fülöp, 2008) showed multiple facets of competition; researches have found positive forms of competition since the beginning of the twentieth century (Hurlock, 1927; Erev et al, 1993; Tassi and Schneider, 1997; Hawley, 2003, 2006; Tjosvold et al, 2006). Therefore, accusing competition as a holistic phenomenon that reliably predicts cheating can be misleading.…”

“…However, both before and after this period several articles have suggested that competition can also have positive effects on performance, interpersonal relationships, resource control, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, etc. (Hurlock, 1927; Sims, 1928; Reeve et al, 1985; Bornstein et al, 1990; Wentzel, 1991; Epstein and Harackiewicz, 1992; Erev et al, 1993; Young et al, 1993; Reeve and Deci, 1996; Ryckman et al, 1996; Tassi and Schneider, 1997; Harackiewicz et al, 1998; Fülöp, 1999, 2001, 2004; Hawley, 2003, 2006; Tjosvold et al, 2003, 2006; Tauer and Harackiewicz, 2004). For example, Erev et al (1993) found that intergroup competition lead to higher performance in an orange picking task than in individual or cooperative settings.…”

Instructional Goal Structure: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic

“…In an experiment with children, Hurlock (1927) found that members of a group that was defeated on the first of four days of competition never overcame their initial failure and attained inferior scores for the entire duration of the experiment. This result was obtained even though the groups had been matched on the basis of ability.…”

The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills a computer-based instructional simulation game

“…A great deal of research supports the positive effects of individual competition on performance (e.g., Fisher, 1976;Hurlock, 1927;Julian & Perry, 1967;Miller, 1981;Spalt, 1988;Wilkes, 1965), while others show no difference (Craig, 1967) or even negative effects (e.g., Cartmill, 1994;Keefer & Karabenick, 1998;Thompson, 1972). A great deal of research supports the positive effects of individual competition on performance (e.g., Fisher, 1976;Hurlock, 1927;Julian & Perry, 1967;Miller, 1981;Spalt, 1988;Wilkes, 1965), while others show no difference (Craig, 1967) or even negative effects (e.g., Cartmill, 1994;Keefer & Karabenick, 1998;Thompson, 1972).…”