The document discusses how competition affects performance depending on an individual's goal orientation. It examines direct competition against others versus indirect competition against standards. Performance-oriented individuals may perform better in direct competition, while mastery-oriented individuals may perform better with indirect competition when the task is difficult. Two studies examined how goal orientation, perceived task difficulty or self-efficacy, and type of competition (direct vs indirect) interact to influence task performance. The first study found a trend that mastery-oriented individuals performed worse in direct competition when the task was difficult and perceived as difficult. The second study found marginal support that performance-oriented individuals performed better in direct competition when self-efficacy was high.

1. Competition improves Performance:
Only when competition context matches goal orientation
1

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. The Present Research
Performance-orientation Mastery-orientation
Direct
Competition
Increase in
performance
No change or reduced
performance
Indirect
Competition
No change or reduced
performance
Increase in
performance
15

16. The Present Research
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

17. The Present Research
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

18. The Present Research
Possible motivation pathway which could explain
performance increase due to match
Competition/goal
orientation match
Increase in
performance
Increase in
motivation
18

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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 want
to 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Direct"Compe;;on"
"
low"PDS"
high"PDS"
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Direct"Compe99on"
"
low"PDS"
high"PDS"
25

26. 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"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Direct"Compe;;on"
"
low"PDS"
high"PDS"
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Direct"Compe99on"
"
low"PDS"
high"PDS"
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Direct"Compe;;on"
"
high"PDS"
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Direct"Compe99on"
"
high"PDS"
26

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Secondary dependent variablesPDS and
Study 1 Methods
Demographic info and GOQ
Filler task
Indirect CompetitionDirect Competition
Easy task Difficult task Easy task Difficult task
Manipulation check
Debriefing
31

32. Study 2 Methods
Demographic info and GOQ
Filler task
Indirect CompetitionDirect Competition
Manipulation check
Debriefing
Anagram and math task (counterbalanced)
Control
Secondary dependent variablesSES and
32

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Control" low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Direct"Compe99on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Indirect"Compe99on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
36

37. 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"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Control" low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Direct"Compe99on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Indirect"Compe99on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
37

38. 10#
12#
14#
16#
18#
(1SD# 1SD#
Anagram#Performance#
Performance#Orienta9on#
Indirect#Compe99on#
#
low#SE#
high#SE#
10#
12#
14#
16#
18#
(1SD# 1SD#
Anagram#Performance#
Performance#Orienta9on#
Direct#Compe99on#
#
low#SE#
high#SE#
10#
12#
14#
16#
18#
(1SD# 1SD#
Anagram#Performance#
Performance#Orienta9on#
Control# low#SE#
high#SE#
Study 2 Results
Regression model: Competition X
Performance-orientation X Self-efficacy
Anagram Performance
Interaction: Competition X Performance-
orientation X Self-efficacy
β = 2.14 , SE = .96, t = 2.24, p = .03
38

39. 10#
12#
14#
16#
18#
(1SD# 1SD#
Anagram#Performance#
Performance#Orienta9on#
Indirect#Compe99on#
#
low#SE#
high#SE#
10#
12#
14#
16#
18#
(1SD# 1SD#
Anagram#Performance#
Performance#Orienta9on#
Direct#Compe99on#
#
low#SE#
high#SE#
10#
12#
14#
16#
18#
(1SD# 1SD#
Anagram#Performance#
Performance#Orienta9on#
Control# low#SE#
high#SE#
Study 2 Results
Simple slope analysis for higher self-
efficacy (1 SD above the mean)
Performance-orientation: β = 2.19,
SE = 1.06 t = 2.08, p = .04
Simple slope analysis for lower self-
efficacy (1 SD below the mean)
Performance-orientation: β = -1.40,
SE = 1.14, t = -1.23, p = .23
39

40. 6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Control" low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Direct"Compe;;on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
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

41. 6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Control" low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Direct"Compe;;on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
(1SD" 1SD"
Math"Performance"
Mastery"Orienta;on"
Indirect"Compe;;on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
Study 2 Results
Simple slope analysis for higher self-
efficacy (1 SD above the mean)
Mastery-orientation: β = 4.45,
SE = 1.69, t = 2.64, p = .01
Simple slope analysis for lower self-
efficacy (1 SD below the mean)
Mastery-orientation: β = -0.94,
SE = 1.10, t = -.86, p = .40
41

42. 3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
5"
&1SD" 1SD"
Mo,va,on"
Performance"Orienta,on"
Control" low"SE"
high"SE"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
5"
&1SD" 1SD"
Mo,va,on"
Performance"Orienta,on"
Direct"Compe,,on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
5"
&1SD" 1SD"
Mo,va,on"
Performance"Orienta,on"
Indirect"Compe,,on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
Study 2 Results
Regression model: Competition X
Performance-orientation X Self-efficacy
Motivation
F(10,142) = 1.01, p = .44, f2 = .08
42

43. Study 2 Discussion
Replicated findings from Study 1
Stronger evidence of competition/goal orientation
match
Preliminary evidence of match on motivation
43

44. General Discussion
Evidence that goal orientation affects how individuals
perform differently in competition
Performance-orientation Mastery-orientation
Direct
Competition
Increase in
performance
No change or reduced
performance
Indirect
Competition
No change or reduced
performance
Increase in
performance
44

45. 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

46. The Motivational Pathway
Exploring the motivational pathway
Competition/goal
orientation match
Increase in
performance
Increase in
motivation
46

47. The Motivational Pathway
Trend found for competition/goal orientation leading to
increased motivational strength, though ns.
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
5"
&1SD" 1SD"
Mo,va,on"
Performance"Orienta,on"
Direct"Compe,,on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
5"
&1SD" 1SD"
Mo,va,on"
Performance"Orienta,on"
Control" low"SE"
high"SE"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
5"
&1SD" 1SD"
Mo,va,on"
Performance"Orienta,on"
Indirect"Compe,,on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
Competition/goal
orientation match
Increase in
motivation
47

48. The Motivational Pathway
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
Increase in
performance
48

49. The Motivational Pathway
Exploring the motivational pathway
Competition/goal
orientation match
Increase in
performance
Increase in
motivation
Trend in
expected direction
Positive
correlation
49

50. The Motivational Pathway
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
Competition/goal
orientation match
Increase in
motivation
50

51. The Motivational Pathway
Competition/goal orientation match and higher
motivation independently lead to increased
performance
Competition/goal
orientation match
Increase in
performance
Increase in
motivation
51

52. The Motivational Pathway
Competition/goal orientation match and higher
motivation independently lead to increased
performance
Competition/goal
orientation match
Increase in
performance
Higher
Motivation
52

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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"Performance"
Performance"Orienta9on"
Direct"Compe99on"
"
low"SE"
high"SE"
56

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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

60. 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

61. Q & A
61