Meta-analytic methods are designed to bring order to diverse and complex literatures by summarizing and synthesizing the findings of empirical studies. This article examines how meta-analytic methods were applied to the literature relating cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures to achievement. In this instance, meta-analytic techniques revealed clear patterns in the findings favoring cooperative goal structures. A more important question is "Did the meta-analysis findings affect the way researchers and practitioners think about the literature?" The present article summarizes the findings from a meta-analysis of that literature, reviews substantive and methodological issues surrounding that meta-analysis, and examines how the meta-analysis affected the literature relating goal structures and achievement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Carlberg, C. C. ,Johnson, D. W.,Johnson, R. T., Maruyama, G., Kavale, K., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., Lysakowski, R. S., Pflaum, S. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1984). Meta-analysis in education: A reply to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 13(8), 16-23.
2.
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Cotton, J. L. , & Cook, M. A. (1982). Meta-analyses and the effects of various reward systems: Some different conclusions from Johnson et al. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 176-183.
4.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
5.
Glass, G. V. , McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
Hayes, L. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628-648.
7.
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
8.
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Coopertion and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
9.
Johnson, D. W. , Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5-54.
10.
Johnson, D. W. , Maruyama, G., & Johnson, R. T. (1982). Separating ideology from currently available data: A reply to Cotton and Cook and McGlynn. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 186-192.
11.
Johnson, D. W. , Maruyama, G., Johnson, R. T., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
12.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
McGlynn, R. P. (1982). A comment on the meta-analysis of goalstructures. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 184-185.
14.
Michaels, J. (1977). Classroom reward structures and academic perfor-mance. Review of Educational Research, 47, 87-99.
15.
Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: Analytical and prac-tical review. Review of Educational Research, 47, 633-650.
16.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Meta-analysis in education: How has it been used?Educational, Researcher, 13(8), 6-15, 24-27.
17.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5-11.
18.
Swim,J. , Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989).Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409-429.
