6 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2019
  2. psycnet-apa-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu psycnet-apa-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu
    When individual goal pursuit turns competitive: How we sabotage and coast.
    6
    1. brittney_gusentine 27 Aug 2019
      In Version 1 (sabotage game), their own expectedoutcome under Algorithm A would range between 0 and 5 points,with an average of 2.5 points, whereas the other student’s expectedoutcome (under Algorithm B) would range from5 to 0 pointswith an average of2.5 points. In Version 2, their own expectedoutcome under Algorithm A would range between 5 and 10 points,with an average of 7.5 points, whereas that of the other student’sexpected outcome (under Algorithm B) would be between 10 and15 points, with an average of 12.5 points.

      Again, does giving the potential points gain about the opponent automatically lead to sabotage? What would of happened if the study was changed to pick between two versions that were worded differently? Such as, "in version one, you can increase your changes of winning by decreasing the points earned by your competition. IN version two, you will both compete fairly.

    2. brittney_gusentine 27 Aug 2019
      which told themtheir score (35 or 85 points), and that the other student had pointssimilar to theirs, earning either 31 points (low progress) or 81points (high progress), respectively.

      Points were already disclosed about the other participants, even though the reporting wasnt true. Since the other persons score is lower, does it give one the disposition to chose sabotage?

    3. brittney_gusentine 27 Aug 2019
      Participants started the game session by entering a card-cuttingpage; they clicked the Next button to reveal the cards and receivedthe first card in the deck (the one on top) while the computer gotthe second card in the deck; whoever got the larger number wouldwin the round. We manipulated the card display and score progressso that all participants proceeded in the same way: Participants inthe low-progress condition won the first round and earned 24points, tied the second round, and then won the third round andreached 35 points; those in the high-progress condition addition-ally won the fourth round with a total of 54 points, lost the fifthround, won the sixth round with 77 points, and won the seventhround and reached 85 points. Standardizing the card display andscore progression further helped us ensure that all participants inthe same condition would have a similar experience

      All scores were kept the same among contestants to ensure that one would not have a predisposition to choosing sabatoge.

    4. brittney_gusentine 27 Aug 2019
      They read that ifthey made 100 points in the five rounds, they would win a $5Amazon gift card.

      Would a higher incentive lead to different results? The economic background of each participant could alter the results and lead to different conclusions. For example, a financially stable college student may not work as hard for the small incentive as a poor college student might.

    5. brittney_gusentine 27 Aug 2019
      A total of 201undergraduate and graduate students (52 men,Mage26.22,SD7.63, Median24) participated in this study described asa “word creativity task” in exchange for $5 compensation

      While women are typically under-represented in studies, this study contained 74% women

    6. brittney_gusentine 27 Aug 2019
      Theyindicated their gender, age, and initials,

      Race is not adequately represented. Since they study is discussing sabotage, race should be disclosed and should be matched adequately among partners to eliminate social bias

    Visit annotations in context

    Annotators

    URL

    psycnet-apa-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/fulltext/2019-02010-001.pdf