The purpose of this study was to investigate potential negative outcomes of succeeding under competitive conditions. Highly gifted young adolescents (N = 67) were asked to respond to a scenario in which a student was successful in either a competitive or a non-competitive, individualistic situation. Responses indicated that the subjects perceived greater continuing motivation, attribution of success to effort, and learning for the student in the individualistic scenario. It is concluded that a competitive goal structure may have negative effects even for students who consistently succeed within competition, effects which may be incompatible with important, long-range educational goals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmabileT. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
2.
AmesC.AmesR. (1981). Competitive versus individualistic structures: the salience of past performance information for causal attributions and affect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 411–418.
3.
CondryJ.ChambersJ. (1978). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning. In LepperM. R.GreeneD. (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward (pp. 61–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
CovingtonM.BeeryR. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
5.
DavisG.RimmS. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
DeciE.BetleyG.KahleJ.AbramsL.PoracJ. (1981). When trying to win: competition and intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 79–83.
7.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
GoodladJ. (1982). An agenda for improving our schools. The Executive Review, 2 (8), 2–7. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 217 576).
9.
GourleyT. (1981). Adapting the varsity sports model to nonpsychomotor gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 164–166.
10.
JagacinskiC.NichollsJ. (1982, April). Conceptions of ability. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
11.
JohnsonD.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR.NelsonD.SkonL. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
12.
MaehrM. (1976). Continuing motivation: an analysis of a seldom considered educational outcome. Review of Educational Research, 46, 443–462.
13.
MaehrM.WilligA. (1982). Expecting too much or too little: student freedom and responsibility in the classroom. In WalbergH.LuckieR. (Eds.), Improving educational productivity; the research basis of school standards. Chicago: NSSE Series in Contemporary Issues in Education.
14.
MichaelsJ. (1977). Classroom reward structure and academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 47, 87–98.
15.
NichollsJ. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation: a theory and its implications for education. In ParisS. G.OlsonG. M.StevensonH. W. (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 211–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
RenzulliJ. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
17.
RogersB. (1985). Cognitive evaluation theory: the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation of gifted students. Roeper Review, 7, 257–260.
18.
RyanR. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
19.
SassenG. (1980). Success anxiety in women: a constructivist interpretation of its source and its significance. Harvard Educational Review, 50, 13–24.
20.
StipekD. (1988). Motivation to learn: from theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
ThomasJ. (1980). Agency and achievement: self-management and self-regard. Review of Educational Research, 50, 213–240.
