Skip to main content

Danilo Díaz Granados read: How Competitiveness Leads Us To Sabotage Other People’s Personal Goals At The Expense Of Our Own

GettyImages-656568732.jpgBy Emma Young

Say you’re planning to run a marathon, and you have a target time in mind. Or you’re on a weight- loss diet, and your aim is to lose six kilos in six weeks. Or, there’s an exam coming up, and you want to score above 75 per cent. These are all individual goal pursuits. In theory, you’re not in direct competition with anybody else, though of course if you’re part of a running club, or a weight loss group, or an undergraduate class, you will be aware that others around you are striving to achieve their own goals. 

There’s plenty of evidence that sharing your own goals and hearing about other people’s can be helpful – in providing mutual encouragement, emotional support and motivation. However, a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows how, in certain circumstances, we can’t help ourselves from competing with others – an effect that can be surprisingly counterproductive. The findings suggest that when we’re paired with an individual striving for a similar goal and who is similarly able, we begin to view this other person as an opponent – leading us to sabotage their efforts, ultimately to the detriment of our own performance. 

“Pursuing individual goals together with others can at times lead to counter-productive behaviours that not only harm others but also harm oneself,” report Szu-chi Huang at Stanford University, and her colleagues. 

The researchers ran six experiments. In the first, 200 participants performed rounds of a “word creativity” task, in which they had to make make as many words as possible from a string of letters. They were told they were paired with a “partner” (in fact, a fictional person) who had done slightly better on each round. The participants were given their own personal goal: if they created enough words, they’d be rewarded with a gift card. Another detail is that participants were also able to make the tasks harder or easier for their partner – an opportunity they exploited. Even though their partner’s performance was technically irrelevant to their own goal pursuit, as participants got close to achieving their goal, they tended to choose to make the task harder for their partner – “sabotaging” their partner’s chances. What’s more, after doing this, the participants eased up on their own efforts – they “coasted”. 

Subsequent experiments, some involving other tasks (such as a card game), revealed that the pattern of getting close to a personal goal, sabotaging one’s partner, then coasting, happened whether the participants were led to believe they were slightly ahead of or slightly behind their partner. However, a further study revealed that only participants who believed their sabotaging efforts were successful eased up on their own efforts. 

The researchers write: “This study thus provided further support that the main purpose of sabotage was to ‘take the opponent down’ a notch; when this positional gain was plausibly realised, people relaxed their effort, even though their sabotaging act did nothing to advance their own individual goal.”

Huang and her colleagues said their findings suggest that when we perform alongside other people who share similar goals to us, we can’t help ourselves from becoming competitive, which shifts our focus from bettering ourselves to defeating our “opponent”, and then relaxing our own efforts. “This is unexpectedly counterproductive to the attainment of people’s own individual goals,” the researchers note. 

The work contributes to a growing field of research on the social side of goal pursuit. It seems that although we can help each other in the early stages of own parallel journeys, these relationships can become harmful when our goal comes into sight. Being aware of this may help you to understand when to stop paying attention to other people’s progress, and to focus on keeping your own efforts up. 

Emma Young (@EmmaELYoung) is Staff Writer at BPS Research Digest

—When individual goal pursuit turns competitive: How we sabotage and coast



View Source

Popular posts from this blog

Danilo Díaz Granados read: “Skunk” Cannabis Disrupts Brain Networks – But Effects Are Blocked In Other Strains

By Matthew Warren Over the past decade, neuroimaging studies have provided new insights into how psychoactive drugs alter the brain’s activity. Psilocybin – the active ingredient in magic mushrooms – has been found to reduce activity in brain regions involved in depression , for example, while MDMA seems to augment brain activity for positive memories . Now a new study sheds some light into what’s going in the brain when people smoke cannabis – and it turns out that the effects can be quite different depending on the specific strain of the drug. The research, published recently in the Journal of Psychopharmacology , suggests that cannabis disrupts particular brain networks  – but some strains can buffer against this disruption. Cannabis contains two major active ingredients: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is responsible for many of the drug’s psychoactive effects, such as the feeling of being stoned and the anxiety that people sometimes feel, as well as ...
Read more

Danilo Díaz Granados read: Beyond the invisible gorilla – inattention can also render us numb and anosmic (without smell)

By Emma Young It’s well-known that we can miss apparently obvious objects in our visual field if other events are hogging our limited attention. The same has been shown for sounds: in a nod to Daniel Simons’ and Christopher Chabris’ famous gorilla/basketball study that demonstrated “inattentional blindness”, distracted participants in the first “inattentional deafness” study failed to hear a man walking through an auditory scene for 19 seconds saying repeatedly “I am a gorilla”. Now, two new studies separately show that a very similar effect occurs in relation to touch ( inattentional numbness ) and to smell   ( inattentional anosmia ).   Sandra Murphy and Polly Dalton (a co-author on the inattentional deafness paper) at Royal Holloway, University of London report in the journal Cognition on inattentional numbness. They wanted to go beyond the way we rapidly tune out ongoing tactile stimulation, like the sensation of our clothes, and explore what happens when we’re tou...
Read more

Danilo Díaz Granados read: A New Study Has Investigated Who Watched The ISIS Beheading Videos, Why, And What Effect It Had On Them

By Emma Young In the summer of 2014, two videos were released that shocked the world. They showed the beheadings, by ISIS, of two American journalists – first, James Foley and then Steven Sotloff. Though the videos were widely discussed on TV, print and online news, most outlets did not show the full footage. However, it was not difficult to find links to the videos online. At the time, Sarah Redmond at the University of California, Irvine and her colleagues were already a year into a longitudinal study to assess psychological responses to the Boston Marathon Bombing, which happened in April 2013. They realised that they could use the same nationally representative sample of US adults to investigate what kind of person chooses to watch an ISIS beheading – and why. Their findings now appear in a paper published in American Psychologist .   By late spring 2013, the researchers had recruited 4,675 adults online, and assessed their mental health, TV-watching habits, demographics,...
Read more