This study investigates the relationship between the groups' competitive disposition, group cohesion, learning, and economic performance within the MARKSTRAT2 simulation. To investigate the role of competitive disposition, the methodology required that the industries be created with a specific structure rather than the more commonly adopted random formation approach. The results show that individual competitive disposition is not significant in explaining the economic performance. However; a strong correlation was found between the level of group cohesion and economic performance. The impact of this factor could be detected early in the simulation, and in 80% of cases, the team leading its industry in the simulation at the halfway stage was able to maintain the advantage until the end of the simulation. A positive association was also established between levels of individual self-assessed learning and economic performance.
Anand, P.
, & Stem, L. (1985). A sociopsychological explanation for why marketing channel members relinquish control. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 365-376.
2.
Bonoma, T. V.
(1981). Market success can breed "marketing inertia."Harvard Business Review, 59, 115-121.
3.
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT LABORATORY. Jensen, R. L., & Cherrington, D. J. (1984). Plano, TX: Business.
4.
BUSINESS STRATEGY GAME
. Thompson, A. A., & Stappenbeck, G. J. (1990). BUSINESS STRATEGY GAME-A global industry simulation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
5.
Curren, M. T.
, Folkes, V S., & Steckel, J. H. (1992). Explanations for successful and unsuccessful marketing decisions: The decision maker's perspective. Journal of Marketing, 56, 18-31.
6.
Dakin, S. R.
, & Arrowood, J. (1981). The social comparison of ability. Human Relations, 34 (2), 89-109.
7.
Faria, A. J.
(1986). A test of student performance and attitudes under varying game conditions. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 13, 70-75.
8.
Faria, A. J.
, & Green, D. (1995). Are good strategies consistently good?Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 22, 31-37.
9.
Folkes, V. S.
(1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548-565.
10.
Gosenpud, J.
, Milton, C., & Larson, A. (1985). Predicting performance over the course of the simulation. In J. Gentry & A. Bums (Eds.), Developments in business simulation & experiential exercises: Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (pp. 161-165). Stillwater OK: ABSEL
11.
Greenblat, C. S.
(1973). Teaching with simulation games: A review of claims and evidence. In C. S. Greenblat & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications. New York: Halsted.
12.
Greenblat, C. S.
(1980). Group dynamics and game design: Some reflections. Simulation & Games, 11 (1), 35-58.
13.
Hirst, M.
(1991a). Personal computer software for use in marketing education: Part 1. Journal of Marketing Management, 7 (1), 77-92.
14.
Hirst, M.
(1991b). Personal computer software for use in marketing education: Part 2. Journal of Marketing Management, 7 (2), 167-188.
15.
Jaffe, E. D.
, & Nebenzahl, I. D. (1990). Group interaction and business game performance. Simulation & Gaming, 21 (2), 133-146.
16.
LAPTOP
. Faria, A. J., & Dickinson, J. R. (1987). LAPTOP: A marketing simulation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
17.
Larróchd, J.-C.
(1987). On simulations in business education and research. Journal of Business Research, 15, 559-571.
18.
Luxon, C. (1992). Competition, performance and learning: Implications for business games and simulations. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
19.
MARKSTRAT
. Larréché, J.-C., & Gatignon, H. (1977). MARKSTRAT: A marketing simulation game. Palo Alto, CA: Scientific (out of print).
20.
MARKSTRAT2
. Larréché, J.-C., & Gatignon, H. (1990). MARKSTRAT2: A marketing simulation game. Palo Alto, CA: Scientific (507 Seaport Court, Redwood City, CA 94063-2731 USA).
21.
Neal, D. J.
(1995). Competitiveness and business success: The case for realism vs fairness in a business simulation. In D. Jobber (Ed.), MEG conference proceedings (Bradford, UK, July 3-7, pp. 538-548). Bradford, UK: Marketing Education Group
22.
Norris, D. R.
, & Niebuhr, R. E. (1980). Group variables and gaming success. Simulation & Games, 11 (3), 301-312.
23.
Teach, R. D.
(1990). Profits: The false prophet in business gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 21 (1), 12-26.
24.
Teach, R. D.
(1993). Forecasting and management ability: A response to Wolfe. Simulation & Gaming, 24 (1), 63-72.
25.
Weiner, B.
(1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
Wellington, W. J.
, & Faria, A. J. (1996). Team cohesion, player attitude, and performance expectations in simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 27 (1), 23-40.
27.
Wolfe, J.
(1976). Correlates and measures of the external validity of computer-based business policy decision-making environments. Simulation & Games, 7 (4), 411-438.
28.
Wolfe, J.
(1990). The evaluation of computer-based business games: Methodology, findings, and future needs. In J. W. Gentry (Ed.), The guide to experiential learning (pp. 279-300). New York: Nichols/GP.
29.
Wolfe, J.
(1993a). Forecasting and management ability: Rebuttal to Teach's response. Simulation & Gaming, 24 (1), 73-75.
30.
Wolfe, J.
(1993b). On the propriety of forecasting accuracy as a measure of team management ability: A preliminary investigation. Simulation & Gaming, 24 (1), 47-62.
31.
Wolfe, J.
, Bowen, D. D., & Roberts, C. R. (1989). Team building effects on company performance: A business game-based study. Simulation & Games, 20 (4), 388-408.
32.
Wolfe, J.
, & Box, T. M. (1988). Team cohesion effects on business game performance. Simulation & Games, 19 (1), 82-98.
33.
Wolfe, J.
, & Chanin, M., (1993). The integration of functional and strategic management skills in a business game learning environment. Simulation & Gaming, 24 (1), 34-46.
34.
Wolfe, J.
, & Roberts, C. R., (1986). The effects of different grade weights on business game learning levels. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 14 (4), 307-316.
