Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

State of the Art in Competition Research

Media

Part of State of the Art in Competition Research

Title

State of the Art in Competition Research

extracted text

State of the Art in Competition
Research
MÁRTA FÜLÖP and GÁBOR OROSZ

Abstract
Until the 1990s in psychology, competition was conceived as a unidimensional
concept which is opposed to cooperation. Since then, the competition–cooperation
dichotomy has shifted and competition is conceptualized as a multifaceted concept
that is not in mutually exclusive relationship with cooperation. Constructive and
destructive forms of competition have been distinguished regarding their motivational, strategic, and behavioral consequences. Personality psychologists identified
different competitive attitudes and research on the psychology of winning and
losing, and differentiated specific patterns of emotional and behavioral coping with
winning and losing. More recently, psychophysiological, genetic, and neuroimaging
studies enrich the understanding of competition. The warrior and worrier genes,
the psychology and physiology of challenge and threat, and the neurohormonal
changes open up new dimensions of interpretation of competitive encounters
and winning and losing. The new challenge of the field is the integration of the
accumulated knowledge in a new bio-psycho-socio-cultural model of competition.

INTRODUCTION
Competition is an interdisciplinary concept; it is used in evolutionary
biology, anthropology, sociology, economics, sport sciences, psychology,
educational sciences, management, political science, and so on (Fülöp, 2004).
Competition is present in many arenas of human life, in all groups that have
dominance hierarchies, for instance, in the family, school and work settings,
in the academia, leisure activities, play groups and peer groups, in friendships, romantic relationships, in civic organizations, political and economic
life, in intergroup and interethnic relationships as well as in international
relationships. In psychological and educational sciences, competition has
been a debated and controversial phenomenon. This chapter focuses on
the concept of competition and its changes in the field of psychology and
the numerous still open issues related to the research of interpersonal
competition.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
COMPETITION IN SYMBIOSIS AND DICHOTOMY WITH COOPERATION: THE “BEAUTY AND THE
BEAST” PARADIGM
Competition as one main form of social interaction—maybe almost without other example in the history of psychology—was for more than four
decades symbiotically handled with cooperation in social and educational
psychology. Since Morton Deutsch’s seminal research on competitive and
cooperative goal structures (Deutsch, 1949), these forms of social interaction
were conceptualized as two extremes of a single behavioral dimension or
polar opposites (Chen, 2008; Fülöp, 2004; Van de Vliert, 1999). Competition
was characterized by negative interdependence, that is, one side attaining
its goal decreases the probability of the other side successfully attaining it and
cooperation by positive interdependence, that is, one side attaining its goal is
increased by the probability of the other side successfully attaining it. Related
to the tendency to dichotomize competition and cooperation, there was the
assumption in most of the literature of psychology that cooperation is all beneficial; however, competition is an inherently detrimental force that should be
eliminated as much as possible from the environments in which children and
adolescents grow and also from adult social life (Johnson & Johnson, 1991;
Kohn, 1986). This has established what Fülöp (2008) called the Beauty and
Beast paradigm. Cooperation was meant to lead to effective communication,
trust, friendliness and helpfulness, no obstruction of the other’s ideas, coordination of effort, division of labor, mutual enhancement and high productivity. Cooperative goal structures were believed to facilitate learning, lead
to greater group productivity, more favorable interpersonal relations, better
psychological health, and higher self-esteem. In contrast, competition was
seen as a factor that decreases creativity, leads to production loss, destroys
relationships, is opposite to pro-social behaviors (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson &
Johnson, 1991). Because the goals of the competitors were conceptualized as
mutually exclusive, their relationship was characterized by distrust, aggression, manipulation, exploitation, and strong negative emotions. In addition,
competition was supposed to cause distress, anxiety, energy loss, exhaustion,
loss of motivation, depression and cardiovascular diseases (e.g., Thornton,
Ryckman, & Gold, 2011).
COMPETITION AS A UNIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPT
The symbiotic handling of competition with cooperation has caused serious
theoretical and conceptual disadvantages and prevented the multifaceted
understanding of competition. Before the paradigm change, psychologists
and educationalists for the most part focused on cooperation and studied

State of the Art in Competition Research

3

competition only in relation to cooperation in order to identify those
variables that govern an individual’s choice to compete or to cooperate.
This has caused some serious theoretical disadvantages because the multidimensional nature of competition eluded researchers as qualitatively
different processes and patterns got lumped together within a single and
one-dimensional construct of competition (Schneider, Benenson, Fülöp,
Berkics, & Sándor, 2010).
BEYOND DICHOTOMIES
Because competition and cooperation had been conceptualized as mutually
exclusive, it was implied that only one of the two can operate at a given time
or in a given context. This presumption has masked their complex interrelationships and prevented researchers from fully exploring them and left
unrevealed the richness of competition–cooperation interplays (Schneider
et al., 2010).
From the beginning of the 1990s, however, there has been a paradigm
change toward a less dichotomic concept of competition and cooperation,
and they have been no longer conceptualized as mutually exclusive (Fülöp
& Takács, 2013). Research results increasingly indicated that competition
and cooperation should not be viewed as mutually inconsistent, but rather
seen as partners (Van de Vliert, 1999). Dichotomization is now seen as
irreconcilable with biosocial theories of human behavior that emphasize the
subtle interweaving of cooperation and competition as strategies used by
individual primates and humans. These theories conceptualize cooperation
as the most successful competitive strategy. Actors will choose to cooperate
with those who reciprocate cooperation. Therefore, those who defect will
be excluded from mutually beneficial exchanges. This is a special kind of
social selection and those who are competitive in being cooperative, that
is, compete to be selected as partners in cooperation, are in the winning
position (Charlesworth, 1996). According to Hawley’s “resource control
theory,” the most successful resource control strategy that leads to social
dominance is the double one that applies both pro-social and coercive means
(Hawley, 2010). Competition and cooperation are no longer considered
mutually exclusive in the business world either. A new term was created:
“coopetition” to refer to their simultaneous and intertwined presence
between firms (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1998).
Each human group and each society is a complex system of cooperative and
competitive relationships. The current view is that competition and cooperation are neither mutually exclusive nor inverse motivational and behavioral
constructs but they can be simultaneous and their interrelationships cannot
be described with simple regularities (Chen, 2008; Fülöp, 2004, 2008).

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE OF COMPETITION: CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITIVE PROCESSES
Since the 1990s, there have been several studies that aimed at revealing those
constituents of a competition that lead to qualitatively different competitive
processes. The differentiation between constructive and destructive competitive processes started in the 1990s; however, more extensive research into the
nature of these competitive processes appeared only in the 2000s (e.g., Sheridan, & Williams, 2011; Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2006). In terms of
the construct of competition, the focus of present day research is to determine the dimensions along which competition can be constructive or when
it turns to be destructive, moreover, what constitutes healthy and unhealthy
competition.
A number of factors along which qualitatively different competitive
processes can be identified were identified. For example, competitive
processes can be characterized by their goals (e.g., winning/outperforming
the other, self-improvement or learning/gaining mastery, etc.), their function
(e.g., motivation, improvement, self-evaluation, goal attainment, selection),
their focus (e.g., the self, the goal, the opponent as an enemy to defeat, the
competitive parties as a joint unit to be improved) (Fülöp, 2004, 2009). The
focus can also be the process (improvement) or the outcome (winning)
(Shields & Bredemeier, 2009). These different goals, functions, and foci
determine qualitatively different competitive processes.
Constructive and destructive competitive processes differ also in the relationship among the rivals as well, that is, how the competitors conceptualize
each other; for example, a friend and an active partner with whom they mutually and actively improve and facilitate each other; a motivator who is a kind
of impersonal agent to help the self-improvement process and enables one to
seek excellence; a comparative other who serves as a yardstick for evaluating
one’s own performance; an opponent to win over in order to reach a goal; an
enemy who is an obstacle to be surmounted or to be defeated. The conceptualization of the rival shapes the opponents’ emotions toward each other
(e.g., love, respect, aggression, hostility, hate, etc.) (Fülöp, 2004, 2009; Shields
& Bredemeier, 2009).
The characteristics of the competitive situation also form the competitive
process. Fairness of the process has turned out to be one of the most important
determinants of the constructive or destructive nature of competition.
Competition is destructive if the competing parties break the rules, apply
immoral means, cheat, lie, mislead, falsify results, bribe, and so on, in
order to win over their rival. When rules are clear and just, the criteria of
evaluation are transparent and known by all participating parties; when

State of the Art in Competition Research

5

the rules are fairly enforced, the probability of a constructive competitive
process increases. Other situational factors that proved to be decisive are
chances (equal/unequal), size of the reward and the reward structure,
perceived resources (limited versus unlimited), time perspective (short
or long term). Constructive and destructive competitive processes can be
differentiated also by the emotions they evoke in the competitors (e.g.,
excitement, joy, anxiety, or stress) or by the intensity (high, medium, or low)
of the competition that takes place between the competing parties (Fülöp,
1992; Fülöp & Takács, 2013; Shields & Bredemeier, 2009; Tjosvold et al., 2006).
Constructive and destructive competitive processes can be characterized
by their consequences as well; for instance, mobilized energy or exhaustion
improved or destroyed the relationship between the rivals, task effectiveness
and performance improved or impaired, better or worse, psychological and
somatic health (e.g., Murayama & Elliot, 2012; Thornton et al., 2011).
Recent research came to the conclusion that constructive competition does
exist in the real world and that this type of competition contributes to task
efficiency, creative workplace climate, strong positive relationships, the
enjoyment of the experience, the desire to participate and the confidence
in working collaboratively with competitors in the future (Fülöp & Takács,
2013; Lauter, Polner, & Orosz, 2012; Orosz, Salamon, Makkai, & Turcsik,
2012; Shields & Bredemeier, 2009; Tjosvold et al., 2006).
INTERACTIONS AMONG THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS
The above-described various conditions, characteristics, and consequences
of competitive processes are interconnected; they do not function in solitaire.
Research now focuses on the nature and complexity of these interrelations
and how one element may mobilize other elements and builds up to a particular competitive pattern.
For example, high intensity increases negative stress and the possibility that
rivals break the rules; furthermore, their attention becomes narrowed and they
focus only on defeating their rival (Fülöp & Takács, 2013). High intensity may
also lead to better performance and a new and higher level of activity (Shields
& Bredemeier, 2009). The intensity of competition changes with the rank and
the commensurability of the competing parties, high rankings relative to intermediate ones intensify competition. In contrast, with increasing the number of
competitors, the intensity of the competitive motivation decreases. The magnitude of the reward, the prize spread, that is, the incentive scheme (as economists
call it) are also associated with the intensity of competition (e.g., Garcia & Tor,
2009).

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

COOPERATIVE COMPETITION
By deconstructing the different constituents of a competitive process it
became possible to identify what makes cooperative competition possible, a
competitive process that involves a high degree of cooperation among the
competitive parties. The constituents mainly overlap with the factors that
characterize the constructive competitive processes (Fülöp & Takács, 2013).
THE CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF COMPETITION
In harmony with the dichotomist conceptualization of competition and
cooperation, these constructs were interpreted along the individualism and
collectivism cultural dimension. Competition together with independence,
autonomy, self-reliance, uniqueness, and achievement orientation had been
associated with individualism. Being cooperative, however, has been associated with collectivism, higher interdependence with others, conformity
with group norms, and low competitive desire. However, the assumption
that high competitiveness is a distinctive characteristic of individualism has
been questioned in recent research, indicating that competitiveness can be
associated with individualism as well as with collectivism. For example,
the distinction between horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism connected competition with those constructs that emphasize status
differences in both, that is, vertical individualism and vertical collectivism)
(Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). The evidence of the constructs of self-reliant
competition and interdependent competition (Green, Deschamps, & Paez,
2005) also demonstrate that competition is present in both individualistic
and collectivistic societies.
Being competitive in an individualistic or a collectivistic society, however,
requires different competitive behavior. In parallel with the multifaceted
concept of competition research has been focusing on the qualitatively
different constructs of competition depending on culture (Fülöp, 2004). The
attributed function of competing, the focus of the competitive process, the
concept of the rival, the ability to combine competition and cooperation
proved to demonstrate cultural differences. For example, the Japanese
construct of the meaning of competition makes it possible to combine it with
high level of cooperation. According to this concept, competition leads to
closer relationships and higher cohesion in the group because competitors
consider each other as partners who share the same goal of self-improvement
and motivation and by competing they mutually develop and motivate each
other (Fülöp, 2004, 2009).

State of the Art in Competition Research

7

THE ROLE OF CULTURE AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN COMPETITIVE PROCESSES
The rapid societal changes from Socialism to a democratic political regime
and a market economy in the former Socialist countries of East-Central
Europe provided some unique insight into the role of societal context in the
formation of attitudes toward competition. As the structural introduction of
competition was a key element of the economic and political changes from
state-controlled economy to market economy and from the one-party system
to democratic elections, it became a unique opportunity to investigate how
the concept of competition and competitive attitudes change. The effects of
social change did not apply uniformly to an entire population but proved to
vary as a function of the individual’s age, life course, or developmental status
at the time of the social transformation. The “omega-alpha” generation of the
transitions, the last children of the old system and the first adults of the new
one, proved to establish a more positive and comfortable attitude toward
competition and market economy than middle-aged adults and teachers.
However, when these post-Socialist adolescents were compared to their
Japanese, American, and English counterparts who were born in a society
with long-term market economy and democratic traditions, they proved to
be alarmingly negative about the competition that actually characterizes
their Capitalist society. Adaptation to a new competitive societal context
was not only mediated by age and social status but also by personality
characteristics. For example, those who were characterized by a higher
agency could switch more easily from a dependency and security culture to
a competitive enterprise and opportunity culture (Fülöp, 2002, 2005).
DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMPETITIVE ATTITUDES AS PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS
By leaving behind the unidimensional concept of competition, the concept
of competitiveness as an attitude or personality trait has also changed considerably. The major work in this field has been done by Ryckman and his
colleagues who over more than two decades (see in Thornton et al., 2011)
deconstructed the notion of competitiveness and differentiated three competitive orientations: hypercompetitiveness, personal development competitiveness, and competition avoidance, while they also studied their correlates
with psychological health. These competitive characteristics have different
psychological health correlates. Competition avoidance has a similar “unhealthy” profile as hypercompetitiveness, while personal development competitiveness was shown to be associated with higher subjective well-being
and fewer health problems (Thornton et al., 2011).

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETITION AND MOTIVATION
Competition and cooperation had been connected to other classic
dichotomies such as extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation. Motivation
theory stated that competition is a kind of extrinsic motivation and if competition is introduced into tasks that destroy intrinsic motivation. Achievement
motivation was built on the same type of dichotomy, distinguishing between
mastery (learning) and performance (ego, competitive) motivation. Mastery
goals, in contrast to performance goals, were shown to be leading to better
affective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences and increased learning
(Murayama & Elliot, 2012).
However, these constructs have also turned out not to be mutually
exclusive, as thought originally. Cooperation combined with competition
was found to lead to the highest level of task enjoyment and also to a
higher level of performance than pure cooperation or competition (Tauer &
Harackiewicz, 2004). The theory of multiple goals that have emerged and
related research findings demonstrated that individuals can have various
simultaneous goals and that performance goals can be adaptive, leading to
positive outcomes in case they are approach goals (trying to perform well
compared to others) and not avoidance goals (trying to avoid performing
poorly relative to others). It was found that trying to excel, to be the best
(approach), in fact, leads to efficient learning and high-level performance
and is also associated with intrinsic motivation. Performance avoidance
goals, however, undermine performance (Murayama & Elliot, 2012).
PATTERNS OF COPING WITH WINNING AND LOSING
It is also in the past decade that the psychological consequences of the outcome of competition, that is, winning and losing, have been systematically
investigated and analyzed. Recent research revealed that the emotional
and behavioral consequences of victory and defeat are not independent
but interrelated, that is, how one responds to win is highly predictive of
how one responds to loss, and they form qualitatively different coping
patterns. Three major patterns have been identified: the balanced; the
narcissistic-dominant-aggressive; and the avoidant-giving up coping.
The most adaptive is considered to be the balanced coping one. This pattern
involves in case of winning positive emotions of joy and pride and seeking
new challenges. In case of losing, sadness, and frustration, a mixture of deactivating but also activating emotions are present and they are associated with
not giving up but standing up and continuing after defeat.
Narcissistic-dominant-aggressive coping is considered to be less adaptive. In
case of winning, the reaction is narcissistic self-enhancement and feeling of

State of the Art in Competition Research

9

superiority, while in case of losing, hatred and aggression toward the winner
dominate the emotional and behavioral response.
The avoidant-giving up pattern involves in case of winning a paradox reaction of embarrassment and instead of trying to win next time, the avoidance
of competitive situations and of new challenges. In case of losing, the leading
emotional response is self-devaluation, withdrawal and giving up (Bronson &
Merryman, 2013; Fülöp & Berkics, 2007).
THE PHYSIOLOGY OF COMPETITION
While reactions to winning and losing are deconstructed at the psychological
level, there is a growing literature on the neuroendocrinology of competitive behavior, winning and losing (Salvador, 2005). Owing to the progress in
measurement methods, now several hormones can be measured in an easy
and nonintrusive way using saliva samples, removing the need for blood
samples. Most of the research so far has concentrated on testosterone and cortisol as they are directly related to dominance behavior and stress responses
accompanying competition. The level of basal testosterone and the level of
cortisol and their interaction proved to be predictors of the success of the
competitive process and to be associated with the psychological reactions of
the winner and the loser, for instance, being ready for a new competition after
losing, that is, approach or giving up, for instance, avoidance. Economists
researching entrepreneurial skills and competitiveness have found that these
skills are associated with higher level of fetal testosterone in the mother’s
blood stream and the higher level of prenatal testosterone results in higher
focus on winning in competition (Liening, Mehta, & Josephs, 2012).
The differentiation between the psychology of threat and challenge has also
proved fruitful in understanding, for example, approach and avoidance performance goals and the different patterns of coping with winning and losing.
Challenge appraisals focus on success and winning (promotion), while threat
appraisals focus on threat and not losing (prevention). Recent research identified the cardiovascular markers of these two distinct processes and also the
different brain activity that accompany them. For example, on the basis of
physiological arousal indexed by heart rate after the instruction to compete
it was possible to predict who would win in a competitive game (Blascovich
& Tomaka, 1996).
COMPETITION AND GENETIC RESEARCH
There is a growing body of research that investigates how key gene variants
can alter the neuronal activity and influence particular cognitive-affective
reactions to competitive situations and also to winning and losing. The

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene regulates the production of
neurotransmitters that enable one to perform under competitive pressure.
The gene has two variants: the “warrior” gene variant, which is associated
with an advantage in the processing of aversive stimuli and the “worrier”
gene variant, which is associated with worse performance under stress.
On the basis of these genes, it is possible to identify those who suffer from
competition and easily become overwhelmed by the intensity of it, and
therefore emotionally tend to withdraw, and those who need stress, for
example, in the form of intensive competition in order to perform optimally
(Stein, Newman, Savitz, & Ramesar, 2006).
NEUROIMAGING STUDIES OF COMPETITION AND COOPERATION
Owing to a rapid development of neuroimaging, researchers are now able
to locate the cerebral substrates of competing and also of cooperating. These
studies typically employ an experimental design in which participants play
a computer game (e.g., Ultimatum Game, Prisoner’s Dilemma, gambling
tasks) under different experimental conditions (e.g., a human or a computer
as a partner; outcome winning or losing; reward conditions) while scanning
their brain activation. Studies show that both cooperative and competitive
behaviors are linked to executive functions and mentalizing abilities,
but they involve specific psychological and cortical mechanisms (Decety,
Jackson, Sommerville, Chaminade, & Meltzoff, 2004).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Research on interpersonal competition takes place in different disciplines
and carried out by different professionals. The communication and especially the collaboration among these professionals is however not systematic.
Consequently, there are a great number of unanswered questions, especially
about the interaction of the different causes and constituents of the competitive behavior.
THE INTERACTION OF BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS
Neurobiological research often has the assumption that the neurobiological
milieu shapes and influences behavioral responses. Conceptual shifts, however, have moved research from biological determinism to biosocial models
in which the social environment plays a key role in the understanding of
behavior–hormone associations. While, for instance, genetic research shows
that genes have an effect on how one approaches a competitive situation,

State of the Art in Competition Research

11

there is growing evidence on the role of parental practices in socializing competitive attitudes and behavior. An example is the rough and tumble play
between parents and kids that has a role in regulation of competitiveness and
in getting comfortable with the emotional intensity of competition (Bronson
& Merryman, 2013). Therefore, future research should be directed to explore
how experience and environmental/cultural influences are able to modify
the underlying biological structure, thus highlighting the bidirectional nature
of experiences and biological disposition.
PERSONALITY AND SITUATION INTERACTIONS
The construct of personality rests on the assumption that individuals are
characterized by distinctive qualities that are relatively invariant across situations and over time. Personality has a decisive role in how the individual
selects, constructs, and processes social information.
Competitiveness as a trait mediates between the characteristics of the situation and the behavior. However, the exact nature of this mediation is still
unknown. In case of the hypercompetitive person, competitive behavior may
appear even if the situation lacks any obvious competitive element. In the
case of a competition avoidant person, it may not appear even if the situation
is strictly competitively structured. There are no extensive studies, however,
on the opposite effect. If there is a different effect of the situation, that is,
reward structure, the rules, the norms, the relationship among the rivals etc.
on people with different competitive attitudes etc. Research studying the
association between the situational variables and competitive behavior so far
has not taken into serious consideration the mediating role of the personality.
INTERRELATIONS AMONG THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS
There is an accumulated knowledge about the qualitatively different patterns
of competition, about their constituents and correlates, but it is still a question to be answered how these different constituents relate to each other in
their complexity and how changing one condition (e.g., goal of competition,
focus of competition, amount of resources, clarity of rules) affects the others. The understanding of the role of each constituent and their combination
has high significance in intervention, that is, to avoid destructive competitive
processes and promote constructive ones.
ECOLOGICALLY VALID RESEARCH ON COMPETITION
Most of the research on the neurophysiology of competition is experimental
and related to structured competitions, that is, contests. There are relatively

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

few studies that attempt to determine, for example, what kind of hormonal
changes occur in the body in real-life competitions. It is methodologically difficult to examine what happens during not institutionalized, informal, spontaneous competitions that are many times extended in time and take place
within long-term relationships.
Neuroimaging studies place the competing person among unusual and
artificial circumstances that lack face-to-face encounter with the competitor.
It remains a question how much the results gained among these circumstances can be generalized to real-life competitive social interactions. Also,
the games that are generally used in these experiments are structured
according to the “either compete or cooperate” dichotomy, which is already
abandoned in other areas of competition research.
TOWARD A BIO-PSYCHO-SOCIAL-CULTURAL MODEL OF COMPETITION AND COPING WITH
WINNING AND LOSING
It is increasingly difficult to accumulate research findings into a coherent body of knowledge. Researchers of competition represent different
disciplines from the biological sciences to social sciences and typically concentrate on the level of explanation that their scientific field represents. For
example, researchers of genetics do not have a systematic collaboration with
cultural psychologists, economists studying, for example, the relationship
between incentive structure and competition just scarcely refer to research
on competitive attitudes or motivational styles or to the role of culture.
Scientific evidence is mainly discipline based and not integrated into a
bio-psycho-social-cultural model of interpersonal competition.
The fact that a person competes in a given situation at a given point of
time has multiple (proximate and distal, micro and macro level) determinants and the degree of their influence and the way they interact with each
other changes dynamically from person to person and situation to situation.
Biological factors, that is, the evolutionary inheritance, genetics, neuroendocrine and neuronal processes function together with sociocultural factors,
that is, the political-economical system, the history and the cultural characteristics of a society, gender role stereotypes and expectations, and so on, which
in turn shape family socialization practices, family norms and values, and
also institutional practices in educational institutions (from nursery to higher
education) and in the workplace and also the media. More proximate factors
in determining the competitive behavior are, for example, the competitors’
personal characteristics (e.g., age, sex, socioeconomic status and social status
in the given group, competitiveness as a trait, coping with winning and losing, motivational type, self-esteem, concept of competition, perception of the
rival, etc.) and the structural characteristics of the situation (e.g., resources,

State of the Art in Competition Research

13

rules, reward structure, hierarchical structure, etc.). These components contribute in interaction to the actual competitive behavior.
A comprehensive explanatory model would be able to prevent debates
over the “true” cause of competitive behavior because of highlighting and
acknowledging that the same behavior can be explained at different levels
and that every unit of analysis is at the very same time both a whole and
a part and they dynamically constitute each other. Such a model would
also provide a general framework to guide future theoretical and empirical
exploration.

REFERENCES
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 1–51).
New York, NY: Academic.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1998). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Currency
Doubleday.
Charlesworth, W. R. (1996). Co-operation and competition: Contributions to an evolutionary and developmental model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 25–38. doi:10.1080/016502596385910
Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2004).
The neural bases of cooperation and competition: An fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 23, 744–751.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2,
129–152. doi:10.1177/001872674900200204
Fülöp, M. (1992). Teacher’s concepts on competition. Didaktisk Tydskrift, 9, 46–57.
Fülöp, M. (2002). Intergenerational differences and social transition: Teachers’ and
students perception of competition in Hungary. In E. Nasman & A. Ross (Eds.),
Children’s understanding in the new Europe (pp. 63–89). Stoke-onTrent, England:
Trentham Books.
Fülöp, M. (2005). The development of social, economical, political identity among
adolescents in the post-socialist countries of Europe. In M. Fülöp & A. Ross (Eds.),
Growing up in Europe today: Developing identities among adolescents (pp. 11–39).
Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books, New York, NY: Sterling.
Fülöp, M. (2008). Paradigmaváltás a versengéskutatásban (Paradigm change in competition research). Pszichológia (Psychology), 28(2), 113–140.
Fülöp, M. (2009). Happy and unhappy competitors. What makes the difference? Psychological Topics, 18(2), 345–367.
Fülöp, M., & Berkics, M. (2007). A gy˝ozelemmel és a vesztéssel való megküzdés
mintázatai serdül˝okorban (Patterns of coping with winning and losing in adolescence). Pszichológia (Psychology), 27(3), 194–220.
Fülöp, M., & Takács, S. (2013). The cooperative competitive citizen: what does it take?
Citizenship, Teaching. Learning, 8(2), 131–156.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Garcia, S. M., & Tor, A. (2009). The N-effect: More competitors, Less Competition.
Psychological Science, 20(7), 871–877.
Green, E. G. T., Deschamps, J. C., & Paez, D. (2005). Variation of individualism and
collectivism within and between 20 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
36(3), 321–339. doi:10.1177/0022022104273654
Hawley, P. H. (2010). The role of competition and cooperation in shaping personality: An evolutionary perspective on social dominance, Machiavellianism, and
children’s social development. In D. M. Buss & P. H. Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences (pp. 61–86). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372090.003.0003
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest. The case against competition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Lauter, A., Polner, B., & Orosz, G. (2012). Organizational creativity from the perspective of constructive and destructive competition. Hungarian Applied Psychology, 4,
5–30.
Orosz, G., Salamon, J., Makkai, A., & Turcsik, Á. B. (2012). Constructive competition
in car market organizations. Hungarian Applied Psychology, 3, 5–32.
Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2011). Developing individual goals, shared goals, and
the goals of others: Dimensions of constructive competition in learning contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 145–164. doi:10.1080/
00313831.2011.554694
Stein, D. J., Newman, T. K., Savitz, J., & Ramesar, R. (2006). Warriors versus worriers:
The role of COMT gene variants. CNS Spectrums, 11(10), 745–748.
Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition
on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 849–861.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Sun, H. (2006). Competitive motives
and strategies in organizations: Understanding constructive interpersonal competition. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 10(2), 87–99. doi:10.1037/
1089-2699.10.2.87
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(1), 118–128.
Van de Vliert, E. (1999). Cooperation and competition as partners. European Review
of Social Psychology, 10, 231–257. doi:10.1080/14792779943000071

FURTHER READING
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2013). Top dog: The science of winning and losing. New
York, NY: Twelve, Hachette Book Group.
Chen, M. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship:
A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.
doi:10.1177/1056492607312577

State of the Art in Competition Research

15

Fülöp, M. (2004). Competition as a culturally constructed concept. In C. Baillie, E.
Dunn & Y. Zheng (Eds.), Travelling facts. The social construction, distribution, and
accumulation of knowledge (pp. 124–148). Frankfurt, Germany/New York, NY: Campus.
Liening, S. H., Mehta, P. H., & Josephs, R. A. (2012). Competition. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 556–562). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The competition–performance relation: A
meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model of competition and
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1035–1070. doi:10.1037/a0028324
Salvador, A. (2005). Coping with competitive situations in humans. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 195–205.
Schneider, B. H., Benenson, J., Fülöp, M., Berkics, M., & Sándor, M. (2010). Cooperation and competition. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
Handbook of Childhood Social Development (pp. 472–490). London, England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Shields, D. L., & Bredemeier, B. L. (2009). True competition: A guide to pursuing excellence in sport and society. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Thornton, B., Ryckman, R. M., & Gold, J. A. (2011). Competitive orientations and the
type A behavior pattern. Psychology, 5(2), 411–415. doi:10.4236/psych.2011.25064

MÁRTA FÜLÖP SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Márta Fülöp is a social and cross-cultural psychologist (Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and
Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary). Her
main research interest is the psychology of competition. She has studied
the constituents of constructive and destructive competitive processes,
cooperative competition, the cultural construction of competition and
attitudes toward competition among different generations in a transitional
post-socialist context. She has done extensive research in Japan and China.
Currently she works on a bio-psycho-social-cultural model of coping with
winning and losing.

GÁBOR OROSZ SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Gábor Orosz is an Assistant Professor in Psychology, at the Eötvös Lóránd
University and at the Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre of Natural Sciences in Hungary. He teaches social
psychology. His main theoretical keywords are competition, academic
cheating, social representations, time perspective, mood, enthusiasm, and
scale validation.

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

RELATED ESSAYS
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
Kin-Directed Behavior in Primates (Anthropology), Carol M. Berman
The impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
A Social Psychological Approach to Racializing Wealth Inequality (Sociology), Joey Brown
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Global Income Inequality (Sociology), Glenn Firebaugh
Labor Market Instability, Labor Market Entry and Early Career Development
(Sociology), Michael Gebel
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Food Sharing (Anthropology), Michael Gurven and Adrian V. Jaeggi
Normal Negative Emotions and Mental Disorders (Sociology), Allan V.
Horwitz
Multitasking (Communications & Media), Matthew Irwin and Zheng Wang
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Social, Psychological, and Physiological Reactions to Stress (Psychology),
Bruce S. McEwen and Craig A. McEwen
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Psychology), Chandra Muller
Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
Social Neuroendocrine Approaches to Relationships (Anthropology), Sari M.
van Anders and Peter B. Gray
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem



State of the Art in Competition
Research
MÁRTA FÜLÖP and GÁBOR OROSZ

Abstract
Until the 1990s in psychology, competition was conceived as a unidimensional
concept which is opposed to cooperation. Since then, the competition–cooperation
dichotomy has shifted and competition is conceptualized as a multifaceted concept
that is not in mutually exclusive relationship with cooperation. Constructive and
destructive forms of competition have been distinguished regarding their motivational, strategic, and behavioral consequences. Personality psychologists identified
different competitive attitudes and research on the psychology of winning and
losing, and differentiated specific patterns of emotional and behavioral coping with
winning and losing. More recently, psychophysiological, genetic, and neuroimaging
studies enrich the understanding of competition. The warrior and worrier genes,
the psychology and physiology of challenge and threat, and the neurohormonal
changes open up new dimensions of interpretation of competitive encounters
and winning and losing. The new challenge of the field is the integration of the
accumulated knowledge in a new bio-psycho-socio-cultural model of competition.

INTRODUCTION
Competition is an interdisciplinary concept; it is used in evolutionary
biology, anthropology, sociology, economics, sport sciences, psychology,
educational sciences, management, political science, and so on (Fülöp, 2004).
Competition is present in many arenas of human life, in all groups that have
dominance hierarchies, for instance, in the family, school and work settings,
in the academia, leisure activities, play groups and peer groups, in friendships, romantic relationships, in civic organizations, political and economic
life, in intergroup and interethnic relationships as well as in international
relationships. In psychological and educational sciences, competition has
been a debated and controversial phenomenon. This chapter focuses on
the concept of competition and its changes in the field of psychology and
the numerous still open issues related to the research of interpersonal
competition.
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
COMPETITION IN SYMBIOSIS AND DICHOTOMY WITH COOPERATION: THE “BEAUTY AND THE
BEAST” PARADIGM
Competition as one main form of social interaction—maybe almost without other example in the history of psychology—was for more than four
decades symbiotically handled with cooperation in social and educational
psychology. Since Morton Deutsch’s seminal research on competitive and
cooperative goal structures (Deutsch, 1949), these forms of social interaction
were conceptualized as two extremes of a single behavioral dimension or
polar opposites (Chen, 2008; Fülöp, 2004; Van de Vliert, 1999). Competition
was characterized by negative interdependence, that is, one side attaining
its goal decreases the probability of the other side successfully attaining it and
cooperation by positive interdependence, that is, one side attaining its goal is
increased by the probability of the other side successfully attaining it. Related
to the tendency to dichotomize competition and cooperation, there was the
assumption in most of the literature of psychology that cooperation is all beneficial; however, competition is an inherently detrimental force that should be
eliminated as much as possible from the environments in which children and
adolescents grow and also from adult social life (Johnson & Johnson, 1991;
Kohn, 1986). This has established what Fülöp (2008) called the Beauty and
Beast paradigm. Cooperation was meant to lead to effective communication,
trust, friendliness and helpfulness, no obstruction of the other’s ideas, coordination of effort, division of labor, mutual enhancement and high productivity. Cooperative goal structures were believed to facilitate learning, lead
to greater group productivity, more favorable interpersonal relations, better
psychological health, and higher self-esteem. In contrast, competition was
seen as a factor that decreases creativity, leads to production loss, destroys
relationships, is opposite to pro-social behaviors (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson &
Johnson, 1991). Because the goals of the competitors were conceptualized as
mutually exclusive, their relationship was characterized by distrust, aggression, manipulation, exploitation, and strong negative emotions. In addition,
competition was supposed to cause distress, anxiety, energy loss, exhaustion,
loss of motivation, depression and cardiovascular diseases (e.g., Thornton,
Ryckman, & Gold, 2011).
COMPETITION AS A UNIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPT
The symbiotic handling of competition with cooperation has caused serious
theoretical and conceptual disadvantages and prevented the multifaceted
understanding of competition. Before the paradigm change, psychologists
and educationalists for the most part focused on cooperation and studied

State of the Art in Competition Research

3

competition only in relation to cooperation in order to identify those
variables that govern an individual’s choice to compete or to cooperate.
This has caused some serious theoretical disadvantages because the multidimensional nature of competition eluded researchers as qualitatively
different processes and patterns got lumped together within a single and
one-dimensional construct of competition (Schneider, Benenson, Fülöp,
Berkics, & Sándor, 2010).
BEYOND DICHOTOMIES
Because competition and cooperation had been conceptualized as mutually
exclusive, it was implied that only one of the two can operate at a given time
or in a given context. This presumption has masked their complex interrelationships and prevented researchers from fully exploring them and left
unrevealed the richness of competition–cooperation interplays (Schneider
et al., 2010).
From the beginning of the 1990s, however, there has been a paradigm
change toward a less dichotomic concept of competition and cooperation,
and they have been no longer conceptualized as mutually exclusive (Fülöp
& Takács, 2013). Research results increasingly indicated that competition
and cooperation should not be viewed as mutually inconsistent, but rather
seen as partners (Van de Vliert, 1999). Dichotomization is now seen as
irreconcilable with biosocial theories of human behavior that emphasize the
subtle interweaving of cooperation and competition as strategies used by
individual primates and humans. These theories conceptualize cooperation
as the most successful competitive strategy. Actors will choose to cooperate
with those who reciprocate cooperation. Therefore, those who defect will
be excluded from mutually beneficial exchanges. This is a special kind of
social selection and those who are competitive in being cooperative, that
is, compete to be selected as partners in cooperation, are in the winning
position (Charlesworth, 1996). According to Hawley’s “resource control
theory,” the most successful resource control strategy that leads to social
dominance is the double one that applies both pro-social and coercive means
(Hawley, 2010). Competition and cooperation are no longer considered
mutually exclusive in the business world either. A new term was created:
“coopetition” to refer to their simultaneous and intertwined presence
between firms (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1998).
Each human group and each society is a complex system of cooperative and
competitive relationships. The current view is that competition and cooperation are neither mutually exclusive nor inverse motivational and behavioral
constructs but they can be simultaneous and their interrelationships cannot
be described with simple regularities (Chen, 2008; Fülöp, 2004, 2008).

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE OF COMPETITION: CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITIVE PROCESSES
Since the 1990s, there have been several studies that aimed at revealing those
constituents of a competition that lead to qualitatively different competitive
processes. The differentiation between constructive and destructive competitive processes started in the 1990s; however, more extensive research into the
nature of these competitive processes appeared only in the 2000s (e.g., Sheridan, & Williams, 2011; Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2006). In terms of
the construct of competition, the focus of present day research is to determine the dimensions along which competition can be constructive or when
it turns to be destructive, moreover, what constitutes healthy and unhealthy
competition.
A number of factors along which qualitatively different competitive
processes can be identified were identified. For example, competitive
processes can be characterized by their goals (e.g., winning/outperforming
the other, self-improvement or learning/gaining mastery, etc.), their function
(e.g., motivation, improvement, self-evaluation, goal attainment, selection),
their focus (e.g., the self, the goal, the opponent as an enemy to defeat, the
competitive parties as a joint unit to be improved) (Fülöp, 2004, 2009). The
focus can also be the process (improvement) or the outcome (winning)
(Shields & Bredemeier, 2009). These different goals, functions, and foci
determine qualitatively different competitive processes.
Constructive and destructive competitive processes differ also in the relationship among the rivals as well, that is, how the competitors conceptualize
each other; for example, a friend and an active partner with whom they mutually and actively improve and facilitate each other; a motivator who is a kind
of impersonal agent to help the self-improvement process and enables one to
seek excellence; a comparative other who serves as a yardstick for evaluating
one’s own performance; an opponent to win over in order to reach a goal; an
enemy who is an obstacle to be surmounted or to be defeated. The conceptualization of the rival shapes the opponents’ emotions toward each other
(e.g., love, respect, aggression, hostility, hate, etc.) (Fülöp, 2004, 2009; Shields
& Bredemeier, 2009).
The characteristics of the competitive situation also form the competitive
process. Fairness of the process has turned out to be one of the most important
determinants of the constructive or destructive nature of competition.
Competition is destructive if the competing parties break the rules, apply
immoral means, cheat, lie, mislead, falsify results, bribe, and so on, in
order to win over their rival. When rules are clear and just, the criteria of
evaluation are transparent and known by all participating parties; when

State of the Art in Competition Research

5

the rules are fairly enforced, the probability of a constructive competitive
process increases. Other situational factors that proved to be decisive are
chances (equal/unequal), size of the reward and the reward structure,
perceived resources (limited versus unlimited), time perspective (short
or long term). Constructive and destructive competitive processes can be
differentiated also by the emotions they evoke in the competitors (e.g.,
excitement, joy, anxiety, or stress) or by the intensity (high, medium, or low)
of the competition that takes place between the competing parties (Fülöp,
1992; Fülöp & Takács, 2013; Shields & Bredemeier, 2009; Tjosvold et al., 2006).
Constructive and destructive competitive processes can be characterized
by their consequences as well; for instance, mobilized energy or exhaustion
improved or destroyed the relationship between the rivals, task effectiveness
and performance improved or impaired, better or worse, psychological and
somatic health (e.g., Murayama & Elliot, 2012; Thornton et al., 2011).
Recent research came to the conclusion that constructive competition does
exist in the real world and that this type of competition contributes to task
efficiency, creative workplace climate, strong positive relationships, the
enjoyment of the experience, the desire to participate and the confidence
in working collaboratively with competitors in the future (Fülöp & Takács,
2013; Lauter, Polner, & Orosz, 2012; Orosz, Salamon, Makkai, & Turcsik,
2012; Shields & Bredemeier, 2009; Tjosvold et al., 2006).
INTERACTIONS AMONG THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS
The above-described various conditions, characteristics, and consequences
of competitive processes are interconnected; they do not function in solitaire.
Research now focuses on the nature and complexity of these interrelations
and how one element may mobilize other elements and builds up to a particular competitive pattern.
For example, high intensity increases negative stress and the possibility that
rivals break the rules; furthermore, their attention becomes narrowed and they
focus only on defeating their rival (Fülöp & Takács, 2013). High intensity may
also lead to better performance and a new and higher level of activity (Shields
& Bredemeier, 2009). The intensity of competition changes with the rank and
the commensurability of the competing parties, high rankings relative to intermediate ones intensify competition. In contrast, with increasing the number of
competitors, the intensity of the competitive motivation decreases. The magnitude of the reward, the prize spread, that is, the incentive scheme (as economists
call it) are also associated with the intensity of competition (e.g., Garcia & Tor,
2009).

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

COOPERATIVE COMPETITION
By deconstructing the different constituents of a competitive process it
became possible to identify what makes cooperative competition possible, a
competitive process that involves a high degree of cooperation among the
competitive parties. The constituents mainly overlap with the factors that
characterize the constructive competitive processes (Fülöp & Takács, 2013).
THE CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF COMPETITION
In harmony with the dichotomist conceptualization of competition and
cooperation, these constructs were interpreted along the individualism and
collectivism cultural dimension. Competition together with independence,
autonomy, self-reliance, uniqueness, and achievement orientation had been
associated with individualism. Being cooperative, however, has been associated with collectivism, higher interdependence with others, conformity
with group norms, and low competitive desire. However, the assumption
that high competitiveness is a distinctive characteristic of individualism has
been questioned in recent research, indicating that competitiveness can be
associated with individualism as well as with collectivism. For example,
the distinction between horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism connected competition with those constructs that emphasize status
differences in both, that is, vertical individualism and vertical collectivism)
(Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). The evidence of the constructs of self-reliant
competition and interdependent competition (Green, Deschamps, & Paez,
2005) also demonstrate that competition is present in both individualistic
and collectivistic societies.
Being competitive in an individualistic or a collectivistic society, however,
requires different competitive behavior. In parallel with the multifaceted
concept of competition research has been focusing on the qualitatively
different constructs of competition depending on culture (Fülöp, 2004). The
attributed function of competing, the focus of the competitive process, the
concept of the rival, the ability to combine competition and cooperation
proved to demonstrate cultural differences. For example, the Japanese
construct of the meaning of competition makes it possible to combine it with
high level of cooperation. According to this concept, competition leads to
closer relationships and higher cohesion in the group because competitors
consider each other as partners who share the same goal of self-improvement
and motivation and by competing they mutually develop and motivate each
other (Fülöp, 2004, 2009).

State of the Art in Competition Research

7

THE ROLE OF CULTURE AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN COMPETITIVE PROCESSES
The rapid societal changes from Socialism to a democratic political regime
and a market economy in the former Socialist countries of East-Central
Europe provided some unique insight into the role of societal context in the
formation of attitudes toward competition. As the structural introduction of
competition was a key element of the economic and political changes from
state-controlled economy to market economy and from the one-party system
to democratic elections, it became a unique opportunity to investigate how
the concept of competition and competitive attitudes change. The effects of
social change did not apply uniformly to an entire population but proved to
vary as a function of the individual’s age, life course, or developmental status
at the time of the social transformation. The “omega-alpha” generation of the
transitions, the last children of the old system and the first adults of the new
one, proved to establish a more positive and comfortable attitude toward
competition and market economy than middle-aged adults and teachers.
However, when these post-Socialist adolescents were compared to their
Japanese, American, and English counterparts who were born in a society
with long-term market economy and democratic traditions, they proved to
be alarmingly negative about the competition that actually characterizes
their Capitalist society. Adaptation to a new competitive societal context
was not only mediated by age and social status but also by personality
characteristics. For example, those who were characterized by a higher
agency could switch more easily from a dependency and security culture to
a competitive enterprise and opportunity culture (Fülöp, 2002, 2005).
DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMPETITIVE ATTITUDES AS PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS
By leaving behind the unidimensional concept of competition, the concept
of competitiveness as an attitude or personality trait has also changed considerably. The major work in this field has been done by Ryckman and his
colleagues who over more than two decades (see in Thornton et al., 2011)
deconstructed the notion of competitiveness and differentiated three competitive orientations: hypercompetitiveness, personal development competitiveness, and competition avoidance, while they also studied their correlates
with psychological health. These competitive characteristics have different
psychological health correlates. Competition avoidance has a similar “unhealthy” profile as hypercompetitiveness, while personal development competitiveness was shown to be associated with higher subjective well-being
and fewer health problems (Thornton et al., 2011).

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPETITION AND MOTIVATION
Competition and cooperation had been connected to other classic
dichotomies such as extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation. Motivation
theory stated that competition is a kind of extrinsic motivation and if competition is introduced into tasks that destroy intrinsic motivation. Achievement
motivation was built on the same type of dichotomy, distinguishing between
mastery (learning) and performance (ego, competitive) motivation. Mastery
goals, in contrast to performance goals, were shown to be leading to better
affective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences and increased learning
(Murayama & Elliot, 2012).
However, these constructs have also turned out not to be mutually
exclusive, as thought originally. Cooperation combined with competition
was found to lead to the highest level of task enjoyment and also to a
higher level of performance than pure cooperation or competition (Tauer &
Harackiewicz, 2004). The theory of multiple goals that have emerged and
related research findings demonstrated that individuals can have various
simultaneous goals and that performance goals can be adaptive, leading to
positive outcomes in case they are approach goals (trying to perform well
compared to others) and not avoidance goals (trying to avoid performing
poorly relative to others). It was found that trying to excel, to be the best
(approach), in fact, leads to efficient learning and high-level performance
and is also associated with intrinsic motivation. Performance avoidance
goals, however, undermine performance (Murayama & Elliot, 2012).
PATTERNS OF COPING WITH WINNING AND LOSING
It is also in the past decade that the psychological consequences of the outcome of competition, that is, winning and losing, have been systematically
investigated and analyzed. Recent research revealed that the emotional
and behavioral consequences of victory and defeat are not independent
but interrelated, that is, how one responds to win is highly predictive of
how one responds to loss, and they form qualitatively different coping
patterns. Three major patterns have been identified: the balanced; the
narcissistic-dominant-aggressive; and the avoidant-giving up coping.
The most adaptive is considered to be the balanced coping one. This pattern
involves in case of winning positive emotions of joy and pride and seeking
new challenges. In case of losing, sadness, and frustration, a mixture of deactivating but also activating emotions are present and they are associated with
not giving up but standing up and continuing after defeat.
Narcissistic-dominant-aggressive coping is considered to be less adaptive. In
case of winning, the reaction is narcissistic self-enhancement and feeling of

State of the Art in Competition Research

9

superiority, while in case of losing, hatred and aggression toward the winner
dominate the emotional and behavioral response.
The avoidant-giving up pattern involves in case of winning a paradox reaction of embarrassment and instead of trying to win next time, the avoidance
of competitive situations and of new challenges. In case of losing, the leading
emotional response is self-devaluation, withdrawal and giving up (Bronson &
Merryman, 2013; Fülöp & Berkics, 2007).
THE PHYSIOLOGY OF COMPETITION
While reactions to winning and losing are deconstructed at the psychological
level, there is a growing literature on the neuroendocrinology of competitive behavior, winning and losing (Salvador, 2005). Owing to the progress in
measurement methods, now several hormones can be measured in an easy
and nonintrusive way using saliva samples, removing the need for blood
samples. Most of the research so far has concentrated on testosterone and cortisol as they are directly related to dominance behavior and stress responses
accompanying competition. The level of basal testosterone and the level of
cortisol and their interaction proved to be predictors of the success of the
competitive process and to be associated with the psychological reactions of
the winner and the loser, for instance, being ready for a new competition after
losing, that is, approach or giving up, for instance, avoidance. Economists
researching entrepreneurial skills and competitiveness have found that these
skills are associated with higher level of fetal testosterone in the mother’s
blood stream and the higher level of prenatal testosterone results in higher
focus on winning in competition (Liening, Mehta, & Josephs, 2012).
The differentiation between the psychology of threat and challenge has also
proved fruitful in understanding, for example, approach and avoidance performance goals and the different patterns of coping with winning and losing.
Challenge appraisals focus on success and winning (promotion), while threat
appraisals focus on threat and not losing (prevention). Recent research identified the cardiovascular markers of these two distinct processes and also the
different brain activity that accompany them. For example, on the basis of
physiological arousal indexed by heart rate after the instruction to compete
it was possible to predict who would win in a competitive game (Blascovich
& Tomaka, 1996).
COMPETITION AND GENETIC RESEARCH
There is a growing body of research that investigates how key gene variants
can alter the neuronal activity and influence particular cognitive-affective
reactions to competitive situations and also to winning and losing. The

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene regulates the production of
neurotransmitters that enable one to perform under competitive pressure.
The gene has two variants: the “warrior” gene variant, which is associated
with an advantage in the processing of aversive stimuli and the “worrier”
gene variant, which is associated with worse performance under stress.
On the basis of these genes, it is possible to identify those who suffer from
competition and easily become overwhelmed by the intensity of it, and
therefore emotionally tend to withdraw, and those who need stress, for
example, in the form of intensive competition in order to perform optimally
(Stein, Newman, Savitz, & Ramesar, 2006).
NEUROIMAGING STUDIES OF COMPETITION AND COOPERATION
Owing to a rapid development of neuroimaging, researchers are now able
to locate the cerebral substrates of competing and also of cooperating. These
studies typically employ an experimental design in which participants play
a computer game (e.g., Ultimatum Game, Prisoner’s Dilemma, gambling
tasks) under different experimental conditions (e.g., a human or a computer
as a partner; outcome winning or losing; reward conditions) while scanning
their brain activation. Studies show that both cooperative and competitive
behaviors are linked to executive functions and mentalizing abilities,
but they involve specific psychological and cortical mechanisms (Decety,
Jackson, Sommerville, Chaminade, & Meltzoff, 2004).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Research on interpersonal competition takes place in different disciplines
and carried out by different professionals. The communication and especially the collaboration among these professionals is however not systematic.
Consequently, there are a great number of unanswered questions, especially
about the interaction of the different causes and constituents of the competitive behavior.
THE INTERACTION OF BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS
Neurobiological research often has the assumption that the neurobiological
milieu shapes and influences behavioral responses. Conceptual shifts, however, have moved research from biological determinism to biosocial models
in which the social environment plays a key role in the understanding of
behavior–hormone associations. While, for instance, genetic research shows
that genes have an effect on how one approaches a competitive situation,

State of the Art in Competition Research

11

there is growing evidence on the role of parental practices in socializing competitive attitudes and behavior. An example is the rough and tumble play
between parents and kids that has a role in regulation of competitiveness and
in getting comfortable with the emotional intensity of competition (Bronson
& Merryman, 2013). Therefore, future research should be directed to explore
how experience and environmental/cultural influences are able to modify
the underlying biological structure, thus highlighting the bidirectional nature
of experiences and biological disposition.
PERSONALITY AND SITUATION INTERACTIONS
The construct of personality rests on the assumption that individuals are
characterized by distinctive qualities that are relatively invariant across situations and over time. Personality has a decisive role in how the individual
selects, constructs, and processes social information.
Competitiveness as a trait mediates between the characteristics of the situation and the behavior. However, the exact nature of this mediation is still
unknown. In case of the hypercompetitive person, competitive behavior may
appear even if the situation lacks any obvious competitive element. In the
case of a competition avoidant person, it may not appear even if the situation
is strictly competitively structured. There are no extensive studies, however,
on the opposite effect. If there is a different effect of the situation, that is,
reward structure, the rules, the norms, the relationship among the rivals etc.
on people with different competitive attitudes etc. Research studying the
association between the situational variables and competitive behavior so far
has not taken into serious consideration the mediating role of the personality.
INTERRELATIONS AMONG THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS
There is an accumulated knowledge about the qualitatively different patterns
of competition, about their constituents and correlates, but it is still a question to be answered how these different constituents relate to each other in
their complexity and how changing one condition (e.g., goal of competition,
focus of competition, amount of resources, clarity of rules) affects the others. The understanding of the role of each constituent and their combination
has high significance in intervention, that is, to avoid destructive competitive
processes and promote constructive ones.
ECOLOGICALLY VALID RESEARCH ON COMPETITION
Most of the research on the neurophysiology of competition is experimental
and related to structured competitions, that is, contests. There are relatively

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

few studies that attempt to determine, for example, what kind of hormonal
changes occur in the body in real-life competitions. It is methodologically difficult to examine what happens during not institutionalized, informal, spontaneous competitions that are many times extended in time and take place
within long-term relationships.
Neuroimaging studies place the competing person among unusual and
artificial circumstances that lack face-to-face encounter with the competitor.
It remains a question how much the results gained among these circumstances can be generalized to real-life competitive social interactions. Also,
the games that are generally used in these experiments are structured
according to the “either compete or cooperate” dichotomy, which is already
abandoned in other areas of competition research.
TOWARD A BIO-PSYCHO-SOCIAL-CULTURAL MODEL OF COMPETITION AND COPING WITH
WINNING AND LOSING
It is increasingly difficult to accumulate research findings into a coherent body of knowledge. Researchers of competition represent different
disciplines from the biological sciences to social sciences and typically concentrate on the level of explanation that their scientific field represents. For
example, researchers of genetics do not have a systematic collaboration with
cultural psychologists, economists studying, for example, the relationship
between incentive structure and competition just scarcely refer to research
on competitive attitudes or motivational styles or to the role of culture.
Scientific evidence is mainly discipline based and not integrated into a
bio-psycho-social-cultural model of interpersonal competition.
The fact that a person competes in a given situation at a given point of
time has multiple (proximate and distal, micro and macro level) determinants and the degree of their influence and the way they interact with each
other changes dynamically from person to person and situation to situation.
Biological factors, that is, the evolutionary inheritance, genetics, neuroendocrine and neuronal processes function together with sociocultural factors,
that is, the political-economical system, the history and the cultural characteristics of a society, gender role stereotypes and expectations, and so on, which
in turn shape family socialization practices, family norms and values, and
also institutional practices in educational institutions (from nursery to higher
education) and in the workplace and also the media. More proximate factors
in determining the competitive behavior are, for example, the competitors’
personal characteristics (e.g., age, sex, socioeconomic status and social status
in the given group, competitiveness as a trait, coping with winning and losing, motivational type, self-esteem, concept of competition, perception of the
rival, etc.) and the structural characteristics of the situation (e.g., resources,

State of the Art in Competition Research

13

rules, reward structure, hierarchical structure, etc.). These components contribute in interaction to the actual competitive behavior.
A comprehensive explanatory model would be able to prevent debates
over the “true” cause of competitive behavior because of highlighting and
acknowledging that the same behavior can be explained at different levels
and that every unit of analysis is at the very same time both a whole and
a part and they dynamically constitute each other. Such a model would
also provide a general framework to guide future theoretical and empirical
exploration.

REFERENCES
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 1–51).
New York, NY: Academic.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1998). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Currency
Doubleday.
Charlesworth, W. R. (1996). Co-operation and competition: Contributions to an evolutionary and developmental model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 25–38. doi:10.1080/016502596385910
Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2004).
The neural bases of cooperation and competition: An fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 23, 744–751.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2,
129–152. doi:10.1177/001872674900200204
Fülöp, M. (1992). Teacher’s concepts on competition. Didaktisk Tydskrift, 9, 46–57.
Fülöp, M. (2002). Intergenerational differences and social transition: Teachers’ and
students perception of competition in Hungary. In E. Nasman & A. Ross (Eds.),
Children’s understanding in the new Europe (pp. 63–89). Stoke-onTrent, England:
Trentham Books.
Fülöp, M. (2005). The development of social, economical, political identity among
adolescents in the post-socialist countries of Europe. In M. Fülöp & A. Ross (Eds.),
Growing up in Europe today: Developing identities among adolescents (pp. 11–39).
Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books, New York, NY: Sterling.
Fülöp, M. (2008). Paradigmaváltás a versengéskutatásban (Paradigm change in competition research). Pszichológia (Psychology), 28(2), 113–140.
Fülöp, M. (2009). Happy and unhappy competitors. What makes the difference? Psychological Topics, 18(2), 345–367.
Fülöp, M., & Berkics, M. (2007). A győzelemmel és a vesztéssel való megküzdés
mintázatai serdülőkorban (Patterns of coping with winning and losing in adolescence). Pszichológia (Psychology), 27(3), 194–220.
Fülöp, M., & Takács, S. (2013). The cooperative competitive citizen: what does it take?
Citizenship, Teaching. Learning, 8(2), 131–156.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Garcia, S. M., & Tor, A. (2009). The N-effect: More competitors, Less Competition.
Psychological Science, 20(7), 871–877.
Green, E. G. T., Deschamps, J. C., & Paez, D. (2005). Variation of individualism and
collectivism within and between 20 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
36(3), 321–339. doi:10.1177/0022022104273654
Hawley, P. H. (2010). The role of competition and cooperation in shaping personality: An evolutionary perspective on social dominance, Machiavellianism, and
children’s social development. In D. M. Buss & P. H. Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences (pp. 61–86). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372090.003.0003
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest. The case against competition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Lauter, A., Polner, B., & Orosz, G. (2012). Organizational creativity from the perspective of constructive and destructive competition. Hungarian Applied Psychology, 4,
5–30.
Orosz, G., Salamon, J., Makkai, A., & Turcsik, Á. B. (2012). Constructive competition
in car market organizations. Hungarian Applied Psychology, 3, 5–32.
Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2011). Developing individual goals, shared goals, and
the goals of others: Dimensions of constructive competition in learning contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 145–164. doi:10.1080/
00313831.2011.554694
Stein, D. J., Newman, T. K., Savitz, J., & Ramesar, R. (2006). Warriors versus worriers:
The role of COMT gene variants. CNS Spectrums, 11(10), 745–748.
Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition
on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 849–861.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Sun, H. (2006). Competitive motives
and strategies in organizations: Understanding constructive interpersonal competition. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 10(2), 87–99. doi:10.1037/
1089-2699.10.2.87
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(1), 118–128.
Van de Vliert, E. (1999). Cooperation and competition as partners. European Review
of Social Psychology, 10, 231–257. doi:10.1080/14792779943000071

FURTHER READING
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2013). Top dog: The science of winning and losing. New
York, NY: Twelve, Hachette Book Group.
Chen, M. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship:
A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.
doi:10.1177/1056492607312577

State of the Art in Competition Research

15

Fülöp, M. (2004). Competition as a culturally constructed concept. In C. Baillie, E.
Dunn & Y. Zheng (Eds.), Travelling facts. The social construction, distribution, and
accumulation of knowledge (pp. 124–148). Frankfurt, Germany/New York, NY: Campus.
Liening, S. H., Mehta, P. H., & Josephs, R. A. (2012). Competition. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 556–562). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The competition–performance relation: A
meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model of competition and
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1035–1070. doi:10.1037/a0028324
Salvador, A. (2005). Coping with competitive situations in humans. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 195–205.
Schneider, B. H., Benenson, J., Fülöp, M., Berkics, M., & Sándor, M. (2010). Cooperation and competition. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
Handbook of Childhood Social Development (pp. 472–490). London, England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Shields, D. L., & Bredemeier, B. L. (2009). True competition: A guide to pursuing excellence in sport and society. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Thornton, B., Ryckman, R. M., & Gold, J. A. (2011). Competitive orientations and the
type A behavior pattern. Psychology, 5(2), 411–415. doi:10.4236/psych.2011.25064

MÁRTA FÜLÖP SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Márta Fülöp is a social and cross-cultural psychologist (Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and
Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary). Her
main research interest is the psychology of competition. She has studied
the constituents of constructive and destructive competitive processes,
cooperative competition, the cultural construction of competition and
attitudes toward competition among different generations in a transitional
post-socialist context. She has done extensive research in Japan and China.
Currently she works on a bio-psycho-social-cultural model of coping with
winning and losing.

GÁBOR OROSZ SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Gábor Orosz is an Assistant Professor in Psychology, at the Eötvös Lóránd
University and at the Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre of Natural Sciences in Hungary. He teaches social
psychology. His main theoretical keywords are competition, academic
cheating, social representations, time perspective, mood, enthusiasm, and
scale validation.

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

RELATED ESSAYS
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
Kin-Directed Behavior in Primates (Anthropology), Carol M. Berman
The impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
A Social Psychological Approach to Racializing Wealth Inequality (Sociology), Joey Brown
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Global Income Inequality (Sociology), Glenn Firebaugh
Labor Market Instability, Labor Market Entry and Early Career Development
(Sociology), Michael Gebel
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Food Sharing (Anthropology), Michael Gurven and Adrian V. Jaeggi
Normal Negative Emotions and Mental Disorders (Sociology), Allan V.
Horwitz
Multitasking (Communications & Media), Matthew Irwin and Zheng Wang
Herd Behavior (Psychology), Tatsuya Kameda and Reid Hastie
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
Emotion and Intergroup Relations (Psychology), Diane M. Mackie et al.
Social, Psychological, and Physiological Reactions to Stress (Psychology),
Bruce S. McEwen and Craig A. McEwen
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Psychology), Chandra Muller
Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
Social Neuroendocrine Approaches to Relationships (Anthropology), Sari M.
van Anders and Peter B. Gray
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem