Competitive Versus Non-Competitive Goals in Group Decision-Making

Abstract

This study presents results from a group decision task in which groups were assigned either a competitive or a non-competitive goal. A total of 20 groups were tasked with putting together a relay team either with the goal to maximize the chance to win or with the goal to maximize the sense of community. Interaction process analysis revealed that there were more positive reactions in groups with the non-competitive goal. Analysis of the content of the conversations showed all groups to go beyond information given about the target persons. Attributes associated with the stereotype dimensions of competence and warmth were used to characterize the persons who were to be included or excluded on the relay teams. Groups with a competitive goal applied both positive and negative attributes, whereas groups with a non-competitive goal applied only positive attributes. The results suggest that stereotypes are applied to legitimize decisions about inclusion and exclusion.

Group decision quality, conscientiousness and competition

“…Meanwhile, there is no interaction between conscientiousness and non-competitive situation in influencing group decision quality. Previously, Löfstrand and Zakrisson (2014) found that the atmosphere of equality, warmth, and a sense of community that exists between groups in noncompetitive situations are associated with the group performance. When linked with the results of this present study, such an atmosphere makes no difference in the quality of decision outcomes between high-conscientiousness groups and low-conscientiousness groups.…”

Looking to the Middle of the Qualitative-Quantitative Spectrum for Integrated Mixed Methods

“…Due to the reliance on participants’ experiences and self-described cognition, as well as the statistical results, we consider interaction analysis an integrated mixed method. To date, seven previous studies published in Small Group Research have used interaction analysis (Beck & Keyton, 2009; Hare, 2010; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Keyton & Beck, 2010; Klonek et al, 2020; Löfstrand & Zakrisson, 2014; Paskewitz & Beck, 2018).…”

The Task and Relational Dimensions of Online Social Support

“…For example, Peña and Hancock (2006) found that in video game groups, members used more relational messages than task, indicating a more relational purpose to the group. In other groups, the opposite ratio was found, suggesting differing fundamental purposes Löfstrand & Zakrisson, 2014). Third, certain types of messages have been associated with positive and negative group outcomes.…”