Rankings, standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons
Rankings, standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.004
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Tor, Avishalom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Garcia, Stephen M.;Tor, Avishalom
研究表明，向上的社会比较是如何滋生竞争行为的，迄今为止，这些研究将任务表现的局部比较（例如测试分数）与更普遍的尺度（即潜在技能）上的比较混为一谈。使用排名方法（加西亚，托尔，冈萨雷斯，2006年）来分离任务和规模比较，研究1-2显示，规模上的向上比较（例如，在排名上被超越），而不仅仅是任务（例如，被超越），是在接近标准的竞争对手之间产生竞争所必需的（例如排名#3对4，接近“顶部”）;另一方面，远离标准的竞争对手（例如排名#203对204）仍然倾向于合作。研究3用美国职业棒球大联盟的球员交易来说明这一发现。研究4进一步表明，内隐规模比较，而不是通常假设的外显任务比较，可以解释那些经典的竞争结果在文献中。研究5揭示了规模排名如何在接近标准的情况下变得非常重要，导致竞争对手甚至容忍向上的规模比较，以增加他们与标准的接近程度。对日益流行的“强制排名”管理系统的影响（例如，通用电气（General Electric）也进行了讨论。(C)2006年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
Research showing how upward social comparison breeds competitive behavior has so far conflated local comparisons in task performance (e.g. a test score) with comparisons on a more general scale (i.e. an underlying skill). Using a ranking methodology (Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006) to separate task and scale comparisons, Studies 1-2 reveal that an upward comparison on the scale (e.g. being surpassed in rank), rather than in the mere task (e.g., being outperformed), is necessary to generate competition among rivals proximate to a standard (e.g. ranked #3 vs. 4, near "the top"); rivals far from a standard (e.g. ranked #203 vs. 204), on the other hand, still tend to cooperate. Study 3 illustrates this finding with player trades in Major League Baseball. Study 4 further shows how an implicit scale comparison, instead of the commonly assumed explicit task comparison, may account for those classical competition findings in the literature. Study 5 then reveals how scale ranking becomes all important in the proximity of a standard, leading rivals to tolerate even an upward scale comparison to increase their proximity to the standard. Implications for the increasingly popular "forced ranking" management systems (e.g., at General Electric) are also discussed. (C) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.