Rivals without a cause? Relative performance feedback creates destructive competition despite aligned incentives

Whether people compete or cooperate with each other has consequences for their own performance and that of organizations. To explain why people compete or cooperate, previous research has focused on two main factors: situational outcome structures and personality types. Here, we propose that—above and beyond these two factors—situational cues, such as the format in which people receive feedback, strongly affect whether they act competitively, cooperatively, or individualistically. Results of a laboratory experiment support our theorizing: After receiving ranking feedback, both students and experienced managers treated group situations with cooperative outcome structures as competitive and were in consequence willing to forgo guaranteed financial gains to pursue a—financially irrelevant—better rank. Conversely, in dilemma situations, feedback based on the joint group outcome led to more cooperation than ranking feedback. Our study contributes to research on competition, cooperation, interdependence theory, forced ranking, and the design of information environments.     

Syntactic context and lexical access

Recent studies demonstrating that multiple meanings of an ambiguous word are initially accessed even when only one reading is syntactically appropriate with the preceding context can be criticized on at least two grounds. First, many of the syntactic contexts used were not truly restrictive, and, secondly, subjects may not have had time to integrate the context before processing the ambiguous word. In the present study, subjects listened to a sentence ending in an ambiguous word and then made a lexical decision to a target related to either the appropriate or inappropriate reading. Contexts were completely restrictive, and a pause was introduced between the context and the ambiguous word. Multiple access still obtained, providing further support for the claim that lexical access is not guided by syntactic context.     

When a Lot of Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing The Debilitating Effects of Plan Complexity on Verbal Fluency

Three experiments examined the relationships among plan complexity, access to planned actions, and verbal fluency while pursuing a persuasion goal. Consistent with theoretical expectations, complex planners were less fluent than less complex planners under high access conditions. Persons whose access was raised were less fluent than those whose access was not raised. A second experiment showed that reduced fluency was not induced by lowering of self-confidence. The third experiment replicated the findings of the second experiment and demonstrated that the questioning procedure used to raise access in the first two experiments produced increases in plan complexity as suggested by theory. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the study of strategic communication.