Accessibility navigation


Further clarifying the competition–performance relation: reply to D. W. Johnson et al. (2012)

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

Full text not archived in this repository.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item 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).

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Faculty of Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Psychology
Faculty of Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Development
Faculty of Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Social
ID Code:34838
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

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation