Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35, 209 238 (1999) Article ID jesp.1999.1383, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Winning Isn t Everything: Competition, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation John M. Tauer and Judith M. Harackiewicz University of Wisconsin Madison Received June 4, 1998; revised January 22, 1999; accepted February 3, 1999 To test Harackiewicz and Sansone s (1991) process model of intrinsic motivation in a competitive context, we examined the effects of competition and achievement orientation on intrinsic motivation. In Study 1, participants received positive or negative feedback regarding their performance in competitive and noncompetitive conditions, and we found that achievement orientation moderated the effects of competition. Individuals high in achievement orientation enjoyed a word game more in competition than those low in achievement orientation across conditions of positive and negative feedback. We also examined the effects of performance feedback and found positive effects of interpersonal (outcome) and intrapersonal feedback that were independent of competitive context. In Study 2, we found that achievement orientation moderated the effects of competition, even in the absence of outcome feedback. Mediational analyses identified competence valuation, perceived challenge, eagerness, and positive affect as mediators of competition and feedback effects on intrinsic motivation. 1999 Academic Press We strive to be Number One... But win or lose, it is the competition which gives us pleasure. Joe Paterno, Coach of Pennsylvania State University s football team (Tutko & Bruns, 1976, p. 205) Defined as the desire to take part in an activity for its own sake (Deci & Ryan, 1985), intrinsic motivation represents a unique type of motivation. Early research This study is based in part on a master s thesis completed by the first author under the direction of the second author. We thank Randy Young for his invaluable assistance on Study 1, Dacher Keltner and Tim Baker for their insightful comments throughout this project, Kenn Barron for his helpful feedback on an earlier draft, and Julie Stawicki and Sandy Kutler for their help with this article. We are also grateful to Sarah Baier, Melissa Bonnin, Rachel Dean, Nicole Denow, Peter Drobac, Michelle Lefco, Jessica Matthews, Eric Pierce, Kristin Schneider, Casey Schwab, Karina Simons, Sarah Terry, and Jeremy Welland for their assistance with data collection and for serving as our resident Boggle experts. Address correspondence and reprint requests to John Tauer or Judith Harackiewicz, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, 1202 West Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706. E-mail: jmtauer@ students.wisc.edu or jmh@macc.wisc.edu. 209 0022-1031/99 $30.00 Copyright 1999 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
210 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ on intrinsic motivation examined how external contingencies such as rewards could undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Harackiewicz, 1979; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). The external focus of the rewards was presumed to shift people s attention away from the task itself and cause the behavior to be perceived as externally controlled. Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed Cognitive Evaluation Theory and argued that intrinsic motivation would be hindered by controlling external factors, but could be enhanced by feedback that promotes perceived competence. This analysis is clearly applicable to competition, a pervasive phenomenon in our society. Whether competing for grades in classrooms, trophies in athletic contests, or financial rewards in sales contests, individuals may view their behavior as externally controlled and experience pressure to win. On the other hand, competition can lead individuals to view activities as challenging and opportunities for feedback, making competition attractive to some individuals. Moreover, individuals may actually receive positive feedback during the course of competition, which can promote perceived competence. Thus competition can be a double-edged sword with the potential to both undermine intrinsic motivation by being perceived as controlling and enhance intrinsic motivation by providing challenge and positive feedback. Early research revealed that competition can undermine intrinsic motivation. For example, Deci, Betley, Kahle, Abrams, and Porac (1981) found that participants who played an enjoyable activity under competitive conditions were less likely to return to the activity during a free-choice period than those who had played under noncompetitive conditions. Reeve and Deci (1996) found that when participants were told to focus all of their attention on winning, competition reduced intrinsic motivation relative to a less controlling competition (in which participants were told to try to solve puzzles faster than another participant) even though all participants in these conditions won. They also varied outcome feedback within the less controlling competition, and found that winning enhanced intrinsic motivation relative to losing, replicating earlier findings (McAuley & Tammen, 1989; Reeve, Olson, & Cole, 1985, 1987; Vallerand & Reid, 1984; Weinberg & Ragan, 1979). Finally, they compared two additional conditions in which they did not provide any outcome feedback, a less controlling competition and a noncompetitive control, and found no difference in intrinsic motivation. Harackiewicz and Sansone (1991) argued that individual differences might moderate the effects of competition and predicted that individuals high in achievement motivation (HAMs) should respond positively to competition. Murray (1938) defined HAMs as those who seek challenge, desire to attain competence, and strive to outdo others. Those low in achievement motivation (LAMs) dislike evaluation and avoid achievement situations. Epstein and Harackiewicz (1992) compared competitive and noncompetitive conditions in which all participants outperformed another participant (thereby winning in the competition conditions) and found that competition undermined task enjoyment for LAMs but
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 211 actually enhanced task enjoyment for HAMs. However, these results are silent as to why HAMs enjoyed the activity. Because all participants received positive outcome feedback, it is impossible to know whether the competitive context or the experience of winning promoted intrinsic motivation for HAMs. In sum, researchers have contrasted competition with noncompetitive controls, compared different kinds of competition, and examined the effects of winning versus losing in competition. Considered together, the results suggest that competition can have negative effects on intrinsic motivation, but that under certain circumstances (e.g., winning, less controlling competitions) and for some individuals (e.g., HAMs) competition may actually increase intrinsic motivation. However, no study has examined positive and negative feedback in both competitive and noncompetitive contexts, and this makes it difficult to determine whether competition effects are due to the context established at the outset of task engagement or due to the feedback provided. A Process Model of Intrinsic Motivation Harackiewicz and Sansone (1991; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996) proposed a process model that accounts for the effects of contextual and personality factors on intrinsic motivation (see Fig. 1). They argued that it is important to consider individuals goals as they approach activities and identified external contingencies (e.g., competition) and individual difference variables (e.g., achievement orientation) that may affect these goals. In Fig. 1, these effects are represented by solid paths to perceived goals. Harackiewicz and Sansone also noted that individuals might adopt different goals under the same external contingencies, and the dashed path in Fig. 1 shows that personality variables can moderate the effects of contextual variables on goals. In turn, these goals should influence how people approach and experience activities. Furthermore, the model identifies motivational processes that should mediate the effects of external contingencies on intrinsic motivation (e.g., competence valuation). The model also predicts that outcome feedback, which comes much later in the process of task engagement, can influence intrinsic motivation through separate processes (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996). This model therefore suggests that competition can influence intrinsic motivation in two different ways: it can affect how individuals approach an activity and it can provide informative feedback. Although the effects of context and outcome feedback can be separated, it is also possible that they might interact such that competition accentuates reactions to feedback. In other words, the effects of motivational processes initiated by the competitive context may differ as a function of the outcome feedback eventually received. Similarly, reactions to outcome feedback may differ as a function of competitive context. It is therefore essential to evaluate the independent and interactive effects of context and outcome in a crossed design.
212 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ FIG. 1. motivation. This figure is based on Harackiewicz and Sansone s (1991) process model of intrinsic Examining Differential Reactions to Competition This model does not make a main effect prediction for an overall effect of competition, but rather identifies individuals who should respond differently to competition. By considering the processes initiated at the outset of task engagement as well as those initiated by outcome feedback, we can evaluate three possible explanations for the differential reactions of HAMs and LAMs. One possibility is that HAMs enter competitive situations with a stronger desire to
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 213 achieve competence. Harackiewicz and colleagues identified competence valuation, or the importance of doing well, as a key variable in the intrinsic motivation process (Harackiewicz, 1989). Competence valuation may be enhanced by external contingencies such as rewards and competition (Harackiewicz, Abrahams, & Wageman, 1987; Harackiewicz & Manderlink, 1984; Reeve & Deci, 1996), and HAMs are particularly likely to value competence across situations. In turn, competence valuation may affect intrinsic motivation differently depending on the outcome feedback received. When HAMs receive positive outcome feedback, as in the Epstein and Harackiewicz (1992) study, they may respond more positively than LAMs because the feedback is more important to them. Thus competence valuation may amplify emotional reactions to feedback. However, in the face of negative feedback, we might see an opposite pattern of results, in which competence valuation exacerbates negative reactions. A second possibility is that HAMs respond to the challenge inherent in competition, become eager and excited, and approach the activity with enthusiasm. Many theorists have written about the importance of optimal challenge in stimulating intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1981; White, 1959), and competition may make activities more challenging for some individuals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Reeve & Deci, 1996). Although perceived challenge has not been previously included in the Harackiewicz and Sansone (1991) model, it seems to be an affective process particularly relevant to the experience of performing a task under competition. If HAMs, but not LAMs, view competition as challenging, we should see differential reactions at the beginning of competition, and this may make the task more enjoyable regardless of whether HAMs eventually win or lose the competition. This possibility is consistent with Murray s (1938) and Jackson s (1974) theorizing about achievement-oriented individuals as well as with Joe Paterno s belief about himself and his players: although they want to feel competent, win or lose, they will enjoy the activity more when they are competing. A final possibility is that HAMs and LAMs respond differently to outcome feedback. In this case, we would expect differential reactions to be mediated by processes initiated by outcome feedback. For example, HAMs may feel especially competent or experience more positive affect after receiving positive feedback in competition, whereas this may not be as true for LAMs. It is important to note that the three possibilities outlined here are not mutually exclusive, but rather represent three aspects of the intrinsic motivation process that can be explored with Harackiewicz and Sansone s (1991) model. The Present Research In this article, we (a) examine how competition and feedback affect intrinsic motivation, (b) determine whether certain individuals respond differently to competition and the feedback it provides, and (c) explore the mechanisms underlying these relationships. In Study 1 we test the effects of competition and outcome feedback on intrinsic motivation. We extend previous research by
214 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ examining whether achievement orientation moderates the effects of competition across winning and losing. In Study 2, we test this same relationship in the absence of outcome feedback to explore differential reactions to the competitive context. To examine the motivational processes underlying these effects, we measure competence valuation, perceived challenge, perceived competence, and positive affect as mediators. Another objective of this research is to examine how different types of performance feedback affect intrinsic motivation in both competitive and noncompetitive contexts. People who receive positive outcome feedback should show higher levels of intrinsic motivation than those who receive negative feedback, whether they are in a competition or not, and these effects should be mediated by perceived competence and affective reactions. It is important to note, however, that outcome feedback (whether one outperforms another participant or not) is not the only type of performance feedback available in competitions. For example, competitors can also monitor their performance and gauge their progress and improvement over the course of a competition. McAuley and Tammen (1989) found that subjective perceptions of competence predicted intrinsic motivation in a competition and, consistent with this analysis, we hypothesize that positive intrapersonal feedback can also enhance perceived competence and positive affect, independent of outcome feedback. Thus we will test the independent effects of two types of feedback (outcome and intrapersonal) and examine whether their effects are moderated by competitive context. In sum, we predict that achievement orientation will moderate the effects of competition on intrinsic motivation across feedback conditions and in the absence of outcome feedback. By definition, HAMs are people who thrive under the types of conditions created by a competition, regardless of the feedback they ultimately receive. As a result, we hypothesize that HAMs will find competition challenging, value competence, and experience positive affect while engaged in the task. In turn, these feelings should promote intrinsic motivation. We also predict that positive feedback, both outcome and intrapersonal, will lead all individuals to feel more competent and experience more positive affect and that this will also have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation. By examining the separate effects of competitive context and feedback and the processes they elicit, we hope to further our understanding of why competition may be challenging and enjoyable for some individuals, but rather aversive for others. STUDY 1 Method Participants Two hundred and sixty participants were blocked by achievement orientation and gender (males 1; females 1) and randomly assigned to one of eight conditions. A competition by performance pattern by outcome 2 2 2 design [competition ( 1) vs noncompetitive control ( 1); ascending ( 1) vs descend-
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 215 ing ( 1) performance pattern; positive outcome feedback ( 1) vs negative outcome feedback ( 1)] was employed. Introductory psychology students were recruited by phone and received extra credit in their course for participation. Procedure Participants reported to a waiting room where they encountered a same-gender confederate who played the role of a second participant. The participant and confederate were escorted to the experimental room where they were seated face-to-face at a long table with a divider that allowed them to see each other s face, but not each other s paper. They heard instructions from the experimenter on the rules and scoring system for the paper-and-pencil word game based on Boggle. The object of the game is to construct as many words as possible in 2 min from contiguous letters in a 4 4 letter matrix. Pilot testing and previous research indicated that participants find this activity interesting (Manderlink & Harackiewicz, 1984). Competition manipulation. Next, participants listened to taped instructions that explained the object of the session. In the competition condition, participants heard, The object of today s session is to get a higher total score than your opponent. Participants in the noncompetition condition heard, The object of today s session is to find words in each of two puzzles, and it was clearly stated that although both participants would be working on the same puzzles, the session was not a competition. Before playing Boggle, participants responded to a questionnaire that included manipulation checks and measured competence valuation and perceived challenge. Performance pattern manipulation. The instructions also explained that participants would work on the same pair of Boggle puzzles and switch puzzles after the first game. The puzzles had been extensively pretested so that one puzzle (the hard puzzle) was significantly more difficult than the other (the easy puzzle). Performance pattern was manipulated by counterbalancing the order in which participants did the puzzles. Participants in ascending conditions received the hard puzzle first and therefore improved over the two puzzles. Participants in descending conditions received the easy puzzle first and therefore saw their score deteriorate over the two puzzles. 1 Outcome manipulation. Participants worked on each puzzle for 2 min and then received feedback about their performance. Total scores were calculated by the experimenter and were written on a single Official Scoring Record for both 1 All participants correctly reported their score for each puzzle as well as their total score and the amount by which their performance improved or deteriorated from the first puzzle to the second. They also completed a brief measure of perceived competence after each puzzle, and participants who received the easy puzzle first rated themselves as more competent (M 4.49) than those who did the hard puzzle first (M 3.57). On the measure of perceived competence taken after puzzle 2, however, the performance pattern effect was reversed: participants whose performance had improved (M 5.43) perceived themselves as more competent than those whose performance had deteriorated on the second puzzle (M 3.09).
216 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ participants. The scoring record was presented in such a way that the participant would also see the confederate s score. The confederate s score was randomly assigned to be either 8 points higher (negative outcome feedback) or lower (positive outcome feedback) than the participant s actual score. 2 This provided all participants with outcome feedback regarding their performance, and this was how people in a competition learned whether they had won or lost the competition. 3 After receiving this feedback, participants filled out a questionnaire that measured their perceived competence as well as their affective reactions to the feedback. Next, the experimenter asked the confederate to come to another room for an individual debriefing and asked the participant to wait in the experimental room. Participants were unobtrusively observed for 5 min. Magazines and extra Boggle puzzles were left in the experimental room and the amount of time participants played with Boggle puzzles was surreptitiously recorded. This served as our behavioral measure of intrinsic motivation (free-time play). When the experimenter returned, participants completed a final questionnaire measuring task enjoyment. Measures Achievement orientation. The 16-item Achievement Orientation scale of the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1974) was administered in a mass testing before participants were recruited for the study. The PRF, based on Murray s (1938) theory of needs, is a particularly well-developed personality scale (Anastasi, 1982) and has proven reliable (Jackson, 1974) and valid (Fiske, 1973). Pregame process measures. Over the course of the experiment, participants were asked to answer several questions measured on 7-point scales. After the instructions for Boggle, participants were asked to rate how enjoyable the Boggle puzzles were. This has been used in previous research to control for individual differences in initial interest in the activity (e.g., Epstein & Harackiewicz, 1992). Participants also rated how challenging they thought the game would be (perceived challenge). Finally, a measure of competence valuation was constructed 2 To make this normative feedback more plausible, the confederate wrote a different number of words depending on whether the participant was assigned to outperform the confederate or be outperformed by the confederate. If the participant was in the outperform the confederate condition, the confederate wrote 6 words per puzzle. In the outperformed by the confederate condition, the confederate wrote 12 words per puzzle. Thus, there was a rough correspondence between the confederate s behavior and the eventual interpersonal feedback. 3 We included manipulation checks for competitive condition and competitive outcome. Before playing Boggle, all participants correctly reported whether they were in a competition. In addition, participants in the competition condition were asked whether they won or lost, and all participants correctly reported the outcome of the competition. On the final questionnaire, participants rated the competitiveness of the session. Participants in the competition condition (M 3.94) found the session significantly more competitive than participants in the noncompetitive condition (M 3.17), F(1, 258) 16.98,.25, p.001. Therefore, we can be confident that all three experimental manipulations were effective and that all participants understood the instructions and feedback that they were given.
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 217 combining two items (e.g., How important is it for you to do well on the Boggle games? ; r(260).59, p.001). Performance and process measures. Although the confederate s performance was artificially constrained, the participant s performance, assessed by the total number of points earned on the two puzzles, was free to vary (M 27.37, SD 8.64). After receiving outcome feedback, participants completed a Postgame Questionnaire which measured reactions to feedback and included two items to measure perceived competence, r(260).79, p.001, and six items to measure participants affect (happy, proud, excited, upset, frustrated, sad; last three reverse coded;.73). Task enjoyment. Five items from the final questionnaire were combined (interesting, not a waste of time, fun, not boring, enjoyable;.89). These items referred to participants feelings about Boggle (e.g., Boggle is a very interesting game, I think Boggle is a boring activity ) and made no reference to the particular experimental situation or even to playing the game in competition with others. Thus the measure reflects enjoyment of the game itself rather than enjoyment of competition. Similar scales have been used in previous research (Epstein & Harackiewicz, 1992; Harackiewicz & Manderlink, 1984). Results Overview of Analyses Regression analyses were used to test the effects of the independent variables on enjoyment, free-time play, performance, and process variables. The regression model included five independent variables, all standardized: three orthogonal contrasts to test the effects of the manipulated factors in a 2 2 2 experimental design (competition, performance pattern, and outcome), one dichotomous variable (gender), and one continuous variable (achievement orientation). We computed multiplicative interaction terms to test all two-way and three-way interactions between these factors and included the main effect of pretest enjoyment to control for initial individual differences. We trimmed interaction terms involving gender that were not significant on any measure, but retained any two-way interaction representing a subset of a three-way interaction regardless of significance level (Judd & Kenny, 1981a, 1981b). 4 To interpret significant effects involving continuous variables, we computed predicted values (Ŷ) for individuals one standard deviation above or below the mean from the regression equations. The intercorrelations of the process and outcome measures are presented in Table 1. Performance Analyses We first regressed performance (total puzzle scores) on the independent variables to determine whether it was affected by competition or performance 4 The only gender terms retained in the basic regression model were the main effect of gender, two two-way interactions of gender with achievement orientation and outcome, and the three-way interaction among these three terms.
218 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ TABLE 1 Study 1: Intercorrelations of Process and Outcome Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Perceived challenge 2. Competence valuation.15* 3. Performance.05.14* 4. Perceived performance.03.07.17** 5. Positive affect.02.06.10.62** 6. Task enjoyment.19**.28**.27**.21**.40** 7. Free-time play.13*.18**.18**.04.07.21** * p.05. ** p.01. pattern. Because performance was measured before outcome was manipulated, outcome terms were not included in this model, which was significant, F(10, 249) 4.76, p.001 (R 2.16). Competition significantly enhanced performance, F(1, 249) 7.18, p.01,.16 (competition, M 28.44; noncompetition, M 26.25). In addition, a two-way interaction between competition and performance pattern, F(1, 249) 7.55, p.01,.16, showed that participants in a competition in the ascending condition (M 30.33) performed better than people in a competition in the descending condition (M 26.41) or people in either pattern condition (ascending, M 25.69; descending, M 26.84). A significant effect of gender, F(1, 249) 9.36, p.01,.18, showed that females (M 29.42) outperformed males (M 25.36). Because we could not experimentally control performance and because there were significant effects of competition, performance pattern, and gender on performance, we added terms to the basic regression model to statistically control for performance effects. We tested all two-way and three-way interactions between performance and the independent variables and then trimmed nonsignificant performance terms. The resultant regression model included the basic model and four new terms: the main effect of performance, two two-way interactions of performance with achievement orientation and outcome, and a three-way interaction between performance, outcome, and achievement orientation. The final regression model therefore included 23 terms: pretest enjoyment, the main effects of the three experimental factors (competition, performance pattern, and outcome), achievement orientation, and gender; eight two-way interactions between competition, performance pattern, outcome, achievement orientation, and gender; five three-way interactions between these same variables; and, finally, the four performance terms. 5 5 The direct effects found on task enjoyment were obtained whether performance was controlled or not.
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 219 TABLE 2 Study 1: Predicted Values for Enjoyment as a Function of Outcome, Achievement Orientation, and Performance Positive outcome feedback ( win ) Negative outcome feedback ( lose ) Achievement orientation Low performance High performance Low performance High performance Low 4.89 5.22 4.83 4.98 High 5.34 5.06 4.43 5.28 Note. High and low scores on achievement orientation and performance represent scores one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. Task Enjoyment: Direct Effects When enjoyment was regressed on the final model, the overall model was significant, F(23, 236) 10.35, p.001 (R 2.50). Consistent with our predictions, the interaction between competition and achievement orientation was significant, F(1, 236) 4.48, p.05,.10, indicating that HAMs (Ŷ 5.05) enjoyed the activity more than LAMs (Ŷ 4.80) in a competition, whereas LAMs (Ŷ 5.15) enjoyed the activity more than HAMs (Ŷ 5.00) in a noncompetitive setting. There was also a significant effect of outcome, F(1, 236) 7.51, p.01,.13, indicating that across competitive and noncompetitive conditions, positive outcome feedback (outperforming the confederate) (M 5.10) increased enjoyment compared to negative outcome feedback (being outperformed by the confederate) (M 4.92). As expected, pretest enjoyment was a significant predictor of enjoyment, F(1, 236) 142.31, p.001,.60, showing that those participants who thought Boggle was enjoyable before playing found Boggle more enjoyable after the experimental session. There was also a significant effect of performance, F(1, 236) 6.91, p.01,.13, indicating that participants who performed well reported more enjoyment than people who did not perform well. This was qualified by an interaction between performance and outcome, F(1, 236) 5.94, p.05,.12, which indicated that people who performed poorly and received negative outcome feedback (Ŷ 4.63) reported lower levels of enjoyment than people who performed well but were outperformed by the confederate (Ŷ 5.13) and those who did better than the confederate and performed well (Ŷ 5.14) or performed poorly (Ŷ 5.11). The three-way interaction between performance, achievement, and outcome was also significant, F(1, 236) 9.48, p.01,.16, and indicated that LAMs who outperformed the confederate enjoyed Boggle more when they performed well than when they performed poorly. In contrast, HAMs enjoyment depended on their own performance most in the conditions in which they were outperformed by the confederate. Predicted values are shown in Table 2.
220 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ Process Analysis After identifying the direct effects on enjoyment, we set out to explore potential mediators of these effects. These included the following process measures: perceived challenge, competence valuation, perceived competence, and participants affective reactions to feedback. This mediational analysis followed the guidelines set forth by Judd and Kenny (1981b). In order to document mediation, three criteria must be met: (a) the independent variables affect the outcome variable, (b) the independent variables affect the mediating variable, and (c) the independent variables have no significant effect on the outcome variable when controlling for the mediating variable(s), which are significant predictors of the outcome variable. Because the experimental manipulations occurred at different points during the experimental session, regression models for different process variables contained different terms. For example, perceived challenge and competence valuation were measured after competition had been manipulated but before performance pattern and outcome were manipulated. As a result, the regression model for these variables did not include the 17 terms involving performance pattern, outcome, and performance. All three manipulations were in place only for participants reactions to feedback (perceived competence and affect). Direct Effects on Process Variables Perceived challenge. The overall model was significant, F(6, 253) 2.62, p.05 (R 2.06), and the interaction between competition and achievement orientation was significant, F(1, 253) 8.98, p.01,.18. HAMs believed Boggle would be more challenging in competition (Ŷ 4.91) than in noncompetition (Ŷ 4.60). In contrast, LAMs viewed Boggle as more challenging in a noncompetitive (Ŷ 4.97) than in a competitive context (Ŷ 4.70). A significant interaction between achievement and gender, F(1, 253) 4.27, p.05,.13, showed that among males, HAMs (Ŷ 4.67) perceived the puzzles as less challenging than LAMs (Ŷ 4.96), whereas among females, HAMs (Ŷ 4.84) tended to perceive the puzzles as more challenging than LAMs (Ŷ 4.71). Competence valuation. The model was significant, F(6, 253) 4.40, p.001 (R 2.09). A main effect showed that participants in a competition (M 4.49) valued competence more than those in a noncompetition (M 4.17), F(1, 253) 7.40, p.01,.16. Direct Effects on Participants Reactions to Feedback Perceived competence. The model was significant, F(23, 236) 6.52, p.001 (R 2.39), and a significant effect of performance, F(1, 236) 9.42, p.01,.17), indicated that people who performed well on the Boggle puzzles felt more competent. A significant effect of performance pattern, F(1, 236) 27.73, p.001,.27, showed that participants in the ascending condition (M 4.57) perceived themselves as more competent than those in the descending condition (M 3.78).
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 221 A significant effect of outcome, F(1, 236) 69.56, p.001,.43, showed that those who outperformed the confederate (M 4.81) felt more competent than those who were outperformed (M 3.62). This was qualified by a two-way interaction between competition and outcome, F(1, 236) 9.02, p.01,.16. Participants who won in a competition (M 4.94) felt more competent than those who outperformed the confederate in a noncompetition (M 4.66). However, people who had lost in a competition (M 3.44) felt less competent than those who had been outperformed in a noncompetition (M 3.80). Finally, a three-way interaction between outcome, gender, and achievement, F(1, 236) 7.51, p.01,.15, showed that female HAMs felt most competent when they outperformed the confederate. 6 Positive affect. The model was significant, F(23, 236) 6.08, p.001 (R 2.37), and there was a significant effect of performance pattern, F(1, 236) 6.14, p.05,.13. Participants in the ascending condition (M 4.93) reported more positive affect than those in the descending condition (M 4.68). There was also a significant effect of outcome, F(1, 236) 69.55, p.001,.44. Participants who outperformed the confederate (M 5.22) reported more positive affect than those who had been outperformed (M 4.43). This main effect was qualified by a two-way interaction between competition and outcome, F(1, 236) 11.62, p.001,.18. People who won in a competition (M 5.29) reported higher levels of positive affect than those who outperformed the confederate in a noncompetition (M 5.14). However, people who lost in a competition (M 4.21) reported lower levels of positive affect than people who were outperformed in a noncompetition (M 4.65). A significant interaction of outcome, achievement and gender, F(1, 236) 6.69, p.05,.15, showed that female HAMs showed the most positive affect after outperforming the confederate. 6 Finally, there was a significant interaction between competition and achievement orientation, F(1, 236) 6.33, p.05,.14, indicating that in competition, HAMs (Ŷ 4.82) reported more positive affect than LAMs (Ŷ 4.62), whereas in a noncompetition LAMs (Ŷ 5.03) reported more positive affect than HAMs (Ŷ 4.75). Final Process Model Because perceived challenge, competence valuation, perceived competence, and positive affect were all significantly affected by the independent variables, we tested them as potential mediators of enjoyment. Although perceived competence and positive affect were necessarily measured late in the course of the experiment (after outcome feedback was manipulated), they preceded the task enjoyment measure by more than 5 min and represent conceptually distinct constructs. Each mediator was tested individually and in conjunction with the other mediators, and 6 Due to space limitations, we have not tabled the predicted values for three-way interactions with gender. Please contact the authors for additional details.
222 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ TABLE 3 Study 1: Predicted Values for Positive Affect as a Function of Outcome and Competence Valuation Competence valuation Positive outcome feedback ( win ) Negative outcome feedback ( lose ) Low 5.19 4.66 High 5.20 4.17 Note. High and low scores on competence valuation represent scores one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. we tested whether the mediators interacted with each other or with independent variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Judd & Kenny, 1981a, 1981b). Preliminary testing revealed that perceived competence did not mediate intrinsic motivation and that only one interaction with a mediator was significant. 7 The final mediation model for enjoyment therefore included our final regression model with the addition of the main effects of perceived challenge, competence valuation, and positive affect and the interaction between competence valuation and outcome. Effects of perceived challenge and competence valuation on positive affect. The model was significant, F(26, 233) 6.16, p.001 (R 2.41). This represents a significant increase in the variance accounted for in the direct effects model reported earlier (increment in R 2.04, p.01). In this model, the main effect of competence valuation was significant, F(1, 233) 6.06, p.05,.13, and was qualified by a significant interaction with outcome, F(1, 233) 7.36, p.01,.14. Predicted values for this effect are shown in Table 3 and suggest that the effect of competence valuation was negative when participants received negative outcome feedback. Perceived challenge did not significantly affect positive affect. All of the direct effects on positive affect reported earlier remained significant in this model. Effects of the mediators on task enjoyment. The final mediation model was highly significant, F(27, 232) 12.57, p.001 (R 2.59), representing a significant increase in the variance accounted for (increment in R 2.09, p.001). The main effect of perceived challenge, F(1, 232) 8.82, p.01,.13, showed that people who thought the puzzles would be challenging reported higher levels of task enjoyment. In addition, the main effect of competence valuation, F(1, 232) 8.49, p.01,.13, indicated that participants who valued competence at the outset of task engagement had higher levels of task enjoyment, and this effect was not qualified by outcome. Finally, a main effect of positive affect, F(1, 232) 37.73, p.001,.33, showed that participants 7 When tested individually, perceived competence did mediate the positive effect of outcome feedback on task enjoyment, but when tested in conjunction with positive affect, the mediating effect of perceived competence became nonsignificant.
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 223 who expressed more positive affect at task conclusion reported more task enjoyment. Evidence for mediation of task enjoyment. Perceived challenge, competence valuation, and positive affect each had significant effects on enjoyment when they were simultaneously included in the final regression model. The two-way interaction between competition and achievement orientation, which had been significant in the direct effects model ( p.05,.10), was reduced in effect size and nonsignificant in the mediation model, F(1, 232) 1.70,.03. In addition, the main effect of outcome, which had also been significant in the direct effects model ( p.01,.13), was reduced in effect size (.02) and not significant in the mediation model, F 1. These results meet the final condition for mediation and indicate that perceived challenge, competence valuation, and positive affect can be considered joint mediators of the competition by achievement orientation interaction and the outcome feedback effect. Direct effects in the final mediation model. Several direct effects remained significant in the final mediation model. The effect of pretest enjoyment was still highly significant, F(1, 232) 104.22, p.001,.50. Two of the three performance effects also remained significant. People who performed well on the puzzles reported more enjoyment, F(1, 232) 5.15, p.05,.11. The three-way interaction between performance, outcome, and achievement orientation also remained significant, F(1, 232) 7.27, p.01,.13. The final path model for Study 1 is shown in Fig. 2. Free-Time Play Free-time play was significantly correlated with task enjoyment, r(260).21, p.001. However, when free-time play was regressed on the final model, the overall regression model was not significant, F(23, 236) 1.25, p.20 (R 2.11). There was considerable variability in the free-time play of participants (M 75.95 s, SD 117.08). Thirty-eight percent of our participants (100 of 260) played with the Boggle puzzles for some amount of time. Among this group, free-time behavior was also quite heterogeneous (M 197.47 s, SD 107.82), and this may partially explain the nonsignificance of the overall model. Moreover, Ryan, Koestner, and Deci (1991) have cautioned that free-time play does not always reflect intrinsic motivation and can sometimes be better characterized as internally controlled persistence, especially when people have received negative feedback. Whereas in conditions of positive outcome feedback, free-time behavior and ratings of enjoyment may be correlated, these variables may be uncorrelated in conditions of negative outcome feedback. For example, people who receive negative outcome feedback may return to an activity not because they enjoyed the activity, but because they want to improve their performance or because of frustration. Given that half of our participants received negative outcome feedback, it is possible the variability in free-time behavior we observed may reflect these different reasons for returning to the activity. We therefore conducted some exploratory analyses within feedback conditions.
224 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ FIG. 2. Standardized regression coefficients for the final path model in Study 1. Paths with two coefficients represent effects that vary as a function of significant interactions. The independent variables (all capitals) were coded as follows: competition: noncompetition ( 1), competition ( 1); performance pattern: descending ( 1), ascending ( 1); outcome: negative ( 1), positive ( 1). The main effect of outcome on positive affect (.44) was qualified by an interaction with competition. The main effect of competence valuation on positive affect (.13) was qualified by an interaction with outcome. For purposes of presentation, this diagram does not show the effects of pretest enjoyment, performance, or gender. All effects presented are significant ( p.05). First, we considered the possibility that free-time behavior reflects different underlying processes by examining zero-order correlations between free-time play, task enjoyment, competence valuation, perceived challenge, performance, perceived competence, and positive affect within conditions of positive and negative outcome feedback. The correlations suggested that there was actually a stronger relationship between free-time play and task enjoyment in conditions of negative outcome feedback, whereas in conditions of positive outcome feedback, free-time play was more strongly correlated with competence valuation (see Table 4). Based on these suggestive findings, we conducted separate regression analyses, one for participants who received positive outcome feedback and one for those who received negative outcome feedback. For participants who received positive outcome feedback, the overall model was not significant, F(10, 113).91, p.50 (R 2.07). Because competence valuation was significantly correlated with free-time play, we added competence valuation to the model, and this was a significant predictor of free-time play, F(1, 112) 5.98, p.02,.23. Next, we conducted a regression analysis for those individuals who received negative outcome feedback. Here, the overall model was significant, F(10,
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 225 TABLE 4 Study 1: Intercorrelations of Process and Outcome Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Positive Outcome Feedback Conditions (n 124) 1. Perceived challenge 2. Competence valuation.28** 3. Performance.02.02 4. Perceived performance.07.01.15 5. Positive affect.05.09.11.40** 6. Task enjoyment.11.28**.21*.14.42** 7. Free-time play.07.24**.12.06.03.14 In Negative Outcome Feedback Conditions (n 136) 1. Perceived challenge 2. Competence valuation.03 3. Performance.08.24** 4. Perceived performance.03.13.28** 5. Positive affect.02.18*.16.59** 6. Task enjoyment.25**.28**.34**.21*.40** 7. Free-time play.18*.14.23**.14.12.27** * p.05. ** p.01. 125) 2.04, p.04 (R 2.14). There was a significant interaction between competition and achievement orientation, F(1, 125) 4.59, p.05,.18, indicating that HAMs played more during free-time after being in a competition (Ŷ 77.57) compared to a noncompetition (Ŷ 49.07), whereas LAMs played more during free-time after being in a noncompetition (Ŷ 122.59) compared to a competition (Ŷ 65.33). It is interesting to note that this is the same interaction we obtained on our self-report measure of task enjoyment. In addition, there was a main effect of performance, F(1, 125) 4.37, p.05,.19, indicating that people who performed well were more likely to return to the activity than those who performed poorly. When we added competence valuation to this model, it was not a significant predictor of free-time play, and the interaction between competition and achievement orientation remained significant. Finally, we conducted an internal analysis of the 100 participants who actually played with the Boggle puzzles during free-time. Although the overall model was not significant, we did find a marginally significant effect of competition, F(1, 80) 3.42, p.07,.21, indicating that among those participants who did play with the Boggle puzzles during free-time, participants actually played longer if they had been in a competition (M 215.53) compared to a noncompetition (M 180.12). Discussion In support of Harackiewicz and Sansone s (1991) process model, our findings indicate that competition can have both positive and negative effects and that
226 TAUER AND HARACKIEWICZ certain individuals may respond particularly favorably to competitive settings. The central focus of this study was to explore the conditions under which, and why, HAMs enjoy activities more than LAMs when competing, as first documented by Epstein and Harackiewicz (1992). We replicated and extended Epstein and Harackiewicz s (1992) finding by demonstrating that the effects of competition were moderated by achievement orientation across conditions of positive and negative outcome feedback. Of course, this does not mean that positive feedback is not beneficial, but rather that certain individuals may enjoy activities in competition regardless of the feedback they eventually receive. In fact, positive feedback led to numerous desirable outcomes. This was true for three types of feedback (outcome, intrapersonal, and actual performance) on three different outcomes (task enjoyment, positive affect, and perceived competence) in both competitive and noncompetitive contexts. Replicating previous research (Reeve & Deci, 1996; Reeve, Olson, & Cole, 1985, 1987; Vallerand & Reid, 1984), we found that participants who outperformed the confederate reported higher levels of task enjoyment, positive affect, and perceived competence than those who were outperformed. Interestingly, this was true across competitive and noncompetitive conditions, indicating that the benefits of positive outcome feedback are not limited to explicitly competitive situations. Previous research has found perceived competence to mediate the relationship between outcome feedback and intrinsic motivation (Reeve & Deci, 1996; Vallerand & Reid, 1984), and we replicated this finding in both competitive and noncompetitive conditions. However, we also found that positive affect mediated the effect of outcome feedback on task enjoyment. Moreover, when perceived competence and affect were tested simultaneously, positive affect emerged as the only significant predictor of enjoyment. The benefits of positive feedback were not limited to outcome feedback. Those who received positive intrapersonal feedback (ascending conditions) reported higher levels of perceived competence and positive affect. Again, these findings were not dependent on the competitive condition. In addition, actual performance on the puzzles was a third type of feedback that proved beneficial. Participants who obtained higher scores on the puzzles reported higher levels of perceived competence and enjoyment, suggesting that they had a good sense of their overall performance level. Although the feedback results described thus far were obtained in both competitive and noncompetitive conditions, reactions to feedback were also accentuated by competition. Specifically, positive outcome feedback was especially helpful in promoting positive affect and perceived competence in competition. Although all participants felt more competent and reported more positive affect after outperforming the confederate, this effect was even stronger in a competition. Those who lost in a competition felt less competent and experienced less positive affect than those who were outperformed in the noncompetitive context. In other words, receiving negative outcome feedback was especially
COMPETITION AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 227 detrimental in competitive situations, highlighting some negative effects of competition. In addition, the interaction of outcome feedback with competence valuation on positive affect suggests another negative effect of competition. Specifically, participants who cared about doing well but were outperformed by the confederate experienced less positive affect than those who were outperformed but didn t initially value competence. Given that competition raised competence valuation for all participants and that competence valuation appears to intensify negative reactions to being outperformed, we can see how competition can have some negative consequences when people lose. Our behavioral measure of intrinsic motivation reflected a large degree of variability, and the overall regression model was not significant. Given the multitude of reasons for returning to a task after negative feedback documented by Ryan et al. (1991), we have the most confidence in our self-report measure of task enjoyment. Nonetheless, we conducted some exploratory analyses of freetime behavior. A closer look at our data suggested some interesting patterns, although we interpret these internal analyses with caution. Free-time behavior and task enjoyment were significantly correlated, and among participants who received negative outcome feedback, we obtained an interaction between competition and achievement orientation that replicated our results on task enjoyment. Participants who received positive outcome feedback did not demonstrate this pattern. Rather, competence valuation was predictive of free-time behavior in these conditions. This is consistent with the idea that people might return to an activity if they valued competence and subsequently received positive performance feedback (Harackiewicz et al., 1987). Finally, among participants who did play with the puzzles during free-time, those who had been in a competition played longer than those who had not been in a competition. These behavioral results demonstrate the importance of considering people s characteristic orientations as well as the potential benefits of competition and competence valuation for intrinsic motivation. In sum, our findings highlight the fact that competitive context and outcome feedback have independent effects that should be considered separately. Of course, competition may intensify reactions to some feedback, and we found some evidence of accentuated reactions to feedback. However, most of the feedback effects observed in this study were independent of competitive context. Thus it appears that the unique effects of competition are due more to the context established at the outset of task engagement than the feedback it provides. Moreover, the differential reactions of HAMs and LAMs were apparent from the outset of the session. We considered three possibilities for why HAMs may enjoy activities more in competition than LAMs and found support for two of them. First, HAMs and LAMs did respond differently to competition from the outset, with HAMs perceiving competition as more challenging than LAMs, and these responses mediated the competition by achievement orientation interaction. Second, we also found evidence that competence valuation is another process