Emily Greenwood, Jeremy Jamieson, & Andrew Elliot University of Rochester Competition and risk-taking behavior: The differential effects of competition on physiological reactivity Introduction Methods and Procedure Results Conclusions Physiological Measures PEP: Sympathetic arousal CO: Cardiac efficiency TPR: vasoconstriction/dilation Profiling Stress Responses 3 Both decrease Opposite Changes Challenge PEP CO TPR Threat PEP CO TPR Participants N = 115 undergraduates; 59% female; 44% Caucasian Columbia Card Task 5 • 50 trials • Display 32 face-down cards • Loss and Gain Cards • 3 randomized parameters: 1. Gain amount 2. Loss amount 3. Number of Loss cards • More cards chosen = Riskier • Competition is pervasive! It is found in sports, school, and our economic system. • However, instead of single effect, competition has been shown to lead to opposing effects on performance 1 • The present study examines competition’s differential effects (i.e. the Opposing Processes Model) on risk-taking via stress states from the Biopsychosocial Model. Biopsychosocial Model of Stress(BPS) 2 Challenge and Threat are both high arousal states, but have different appraisal processes and downstream physiological effects. Challenge • Approach-oriented • Resources>task demands • Improved cardiac efficiency • Vasodilatation Threat • Avoidance-oriented • Resources<task demands • Decreased cardiac efficiency • Vasoconstriction 12 25 14 7 40 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Threat Indeterminate Challenge Competition Control More stress states in Competition than Control.Relation between condition and stress states was significant, X 2 (5, N=99) =15.97, p<0.01. More Challenge and Threat states in Competition compared to Control Number of Participants • Participants assigned to Competition demonstrated greater sympathetic arousal (shorter PEP; M=-5.7) than Control (M=-0.52). t(95)=4.55, p<0.001. •As hypothesized from the OPM, Competition exhibited two opposing responses: approach motivation as identified by Challenge response and avoidance motivation as identified by Threat response (from the BPS model of stress). • Additionally, risky-behavior during competition was significantly predicted by Challenge or Threat stress states. Thus, findings provide empirical support for the OPM of competition on risk-taking via stress states. Future Directions: • Replicate with more powerful competition manipulation (to avoid having participants of indeterminate stress states). • Develop methods to promote challenge-type responses during competition. Competition Performance- Approach Goals Performance- Avoidance Goals Enhanced Performance Worsened Performance Opposing Processes Model (OPM) 1 Competition has TWO opposing effects on performance R 2 = 0.11, β=0.33, t(49)=2.11, p<0.05 *Two outliers windsorized, replaced with adjacent values from remaining subgroup data 6 . Before outliers were treated original data showed same pattern, β=0.27, t(49)=2.00, p=0.52. Risk-taking predicted by Challenge and Threat Average Number of Cards Selected Threat Indeterminate Challenge 25 20 15 10 5 0 Physiological baseline Competition Instructions Competitive Risk Task and Physiological Reactivity Competition Increased risk behavior Reduced risk behavior Current Hypotheses References 1. Murayam, 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. 2. Jamieson, J.P., Koslov, K.R., Nock, M.K., & Mendes, W.B. (2013). Experiencing discrimination increases risk taking. Psychological Science, 24, 131-139. 3. Mendes, W. B., Reis, H., Seery, M.D., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Cardiovascular correlates of emotional expression and suppression: Do content and gender context matter? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 771-792. 4. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080 –1094. 5. Figner, B., Mackinlay, R. J., Wilkening, F., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: Age differences in risk taking in the Columbia Card Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 709–730. 6. Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994).Outliers in statistical data (3 rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Manipulation Instructions Prior to instructions all participants interacted with a confederate in an abbreviated Fast Friends Task 4 Competition: Participants instructed to compete with confederate. Control: Participants instructed to play as best they can— unassociated with previous interaction with confederate. Positive or negative changes from baseline Challenge responses lead to greater risk-taking than threat responses 2 Approach orientation (Challenge) Avoidance orientation (Threat)