Murayama, K. and Elliot, A. J. (2012) Further clarifying the competition–performance relation: reply to D. W. Johnson et al. (2012). Psychological bulletin, 138 (6). pp. 1079-1084. ISSN 1939-1455 doi: 10.1037/a0029606
Abstract/Summary
In their commentary, D. W. Johnson, Johnson, and Roseth (2012) provided some laudatory statements about our article, but they also expressed a number of concerns. The concerns focus on the following issues: types and definitions of competition, our choice of control group, the nature of performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, the comprehensiveness of the opposing processes model, and performance-approach goals and constructive competition. We respond to each of these issues in turn and conclude with a statement regarding working to build an integrative model of the competition–performance relation (and beyond).
Altmetric Badge
| Item Type | Article |
| URI | https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/34838 |
| Identification Number/DOI | 10.1037/a0029606 |
| Refereed | Yes |
| Divisions | Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Psychology Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Development Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Social |
| Uncontrolled Keywords | achievement goals competition performance performance-approach performance-avoidance cooperation attainment goal structure productivity reward structure rivalry Human Goals Approach Behavior Avoidance Goal Orientation Rewards Achievement article 2300:Human Experimental Psychology 3020:Group & Interpersonal Processes |
| Publisher | American Psychological Association |
| Download/View statistics | View download statistics for this item |
University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record
Download
Download