The N-Effect: More Competitors, Less Competition

1. The N-Effect: More Competitors, Less Competition Stephen Garcia Avishalom Tor University of Michigan University of Haifa

2. A Social Comparison Perspective • Self-Other Discrepancies ➔ Compete • “competitive behaviors are…manifestations in the social process” (Festinger, 1954) • “Internal Levers” of Competition • I. Relevance of Dimension (Festinger, 1954; Tesser, 1988) • II. Commensurability of Person (Festinger, 1954; Goethals & Darley, 1977) • III. Closeness of Person (Tesser, 1988)

3. “Contextual” Levers of Competition • I. Social Category Lines(e.g., Garcia, Tor, Bazerman, & Miller, 2005; Garcia & Miller, 2007; Garcia & Ybarra, 2007; Garcia, Meyle, & Provins, in press) • Profit maximization is more difficult between two groups from different social categories, such as Americans vs. French, than two groups from same social category • II. Proximity to a Standard(Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006; Garcia & Tor, 2007; Garcia, Song, & Tesser, 2008; Tor & Garcia, 2008) • Rivals become more competitive near a standard, such being ranked #4 and #5 vs. #204 and #205, and less willing to enter lucrative joint ventures • III. Number of Competitors?

4. III. Number of Competitors • Social comparison processes fuel the motivation to compete(Festinger, 1954; Garcia, et al, 2006; Garcia & Tor, 2007; Johnson & Stapel, 2007) • The number of competitors may well have an independent effect on competitive behavior, even when controlling for expected payoffs, diffusing social comparison concerns

5. Core Idea… • When N is large, social comparison concerns – which are, after all, an interpersonal, information-based process (Festinger, 1954) – become diffused by the sheer number of competitors. • While Actors can experience or anticipate social comparisons between themselves and a few others, it becomes less viable and informative to compare oneself, or anticipate comparisons, with a great multitude of Targets. • For this reason, in large N environments social comparison becomes less important and competitive motivation diminishes.

6. Number and Motivation • Social Loafing Effect (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979) • Among many team members increases, motivation to contribute toward a collective taskdecreases • Only when you provide individual feedback, social loafing subsides (Williams, Harkins & Latané, 1981) • Social Facilitation (Zajonc, 1965) • Motivation to compete on a well-learned individual task increases when amongst a few others versus being alone, whether through “co-action” or “audience” effects.

7. “The N-Effect” When comparing competition with a few versus many others on individual competitive tasks – where social loafing and related phenomena are irrelevant while social facilitation and social comparison already are present – an increase in N would reduce social comparison concerns and thereby diminish the motivation to compete

8. Overview • Study 1: real world data • Study 2: field experiment • Study 3-5: social comparison mechanism

9. Study 1a: SAT Panel Data • Panel data on real competitive behavior • The SAT • Prediction: • The denser the test-taking environment, or the more test-takers present in general, the less competitive individual test-takers become, and ergo the lower the average SAT score

10. Method • 2005 SAT for all 50 states • Combined SAT score (SCORE) • Test-taker density variable (DENSITY) • for each state by dividing the total number of test-takers for 2005 in each state by the total number of test-taking opportunities in that state • Control variables • % of high school students who take the SAT • 10-year trend for performance on the SAT • % of test-takers with parents with a college degree or higher • % of test-takers ethnic minority • % who take the ACT Test • average score of ACT test-takers • state and local funding for elementary and secondary education • per capital income by state • state population density

11. Test-taking Density and Score: r= -.68, p<.05, N=50 • Partial correlation with control variables: r= -.35, p<.05, N=50, df=39 College Board…

12. Study 1b: CRT Scores • Cognitive Reflect Test (Frederick, 2005) • University of Michigan sample • 22 test-taking opportunities • Example: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?____

13. Results • NUMBER and CRT scores (N=22, r= -.56, p<.01) • Inverse correlation remained, controlling for gender: (N=50, df=19, r=-.48, p<.05).

14. Study 2: Actual Performance • Purpose: • Real competition • A quiz context • Prediction: • Participants in the 10-person condition would be more competitive and complete the quiz significantly faster than participants in the 100-person condition • 74 undergraduates, between-subjects

15. The Quiz • You will be competing with 10 [100] other people and that those scoring in the top 20 percent in completion times, without compromising accuracy, will receive $5 • Easy Quiz • Four general knowledge multiple-choice questions • 1. Who is the President of the University of Michigan? • 2. Who is the Secretary General of the UN? • 3. In which county is Ann Arbor? • 4. How many states are in the Union? • True / False • 5. There are 26 letters in the alphabet • 6. My father’s brother’s son is my nephew • 7. When it is winter in North America, it is summer in South America • 8. Michigan is shaped like a shoe

16. Results Post-Test: Social comparison concerns were significantly greater in the 10 (M=4.93, SD=1.78) versus 100 (M=4.14, SD=1.68) conditions (paired-samples t(58)=3.44, p<.01). F(1,73) = 4.09, p< .05

17. Study 3: Social Comparison Orientation & N-Effect • Prediction: As N goes up, motivation to compete goes down BUT social comparison orientation matters: • High SCO: N-Effect • Low SCO: no N-Effect • 115 undergraduates, within-subjects • Few Competitors (50) • Many Competitors (500)

18. The Marathon • Imagine you are in a marathon with 50 [500] people of similar running ability as yours. You have been told at the start of the race that all those who finish in the top 10% will get a $1,000 prize. • DV: To what extent would you run faster than normal? (1=Faster than normal, 7 =Fastest in my life) • EVERYONE COMPLETED SCO Scale….

19. Results “NUMBER” and SCO covariate (F(1,45)=5.41, p<.05.

20. Study 4: Social Comparison or Ratio-Bias? • Purpose • Link to social comparision • Address “ratio-bias” • Prediction: • As N increases, • competitive feelings linearly decrease • social comparison concerns linearly decrease • 45 undergraduates, within-subjects

21. “Job Interview” • Imagine going for a job interview with a company that is only extending offers to 20% of the equally qualified Michigan students who were invited to interview. Alone in the waiting room, you notice one other Michigan student exiting their interview... • DV: • If a total of 10 [30] [50] [100] Michigan students had been invited to interview… • …to what degree would you harbor competitive feelings toward the exiting interviewee?” 1=Not At All, 6=Very Much • …to what degree would you feel inclined to compare yourself to the exiting interviewee?” 1=Not at all, 6=Very Much

22. Competitive Feelings F(1,53)=29.6, p<.0001 no significant interaction with ratio-bias

23. Social Comparison F(1,47)=42.2, p<.0001 no significant interaction with ratio-bias

24. Study 5 - The Mechanism • Purpose • Social comparison concerns • Other Possibility: • People amongst many competitors might think they are better than average and lower their effort to win, whereas people amongst few competitors might think they are worse than average and and increase their effort (e.g., Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007) • Ratio-Bias (e.g., Epstein & colleagues) • Prediction • The motivation to compete is mediated by social comparison brought about by the number of other competitors in the competition, even when controlling for the perceived easiness of the task

25. Facebook… • In a competition pool of 10 [10,000] students from around the country, imagine you were given one week to produce as many brand-spanking-new ‘friends’ to your Facebook account as possible. You would be competing in a pool of 10 [10,000], and those finishing in the top 20% would get a $100 cash prize. • To what extent would you feel motivated to compete to win the cash prize?(1=not at all, 7=very much) • To what extent would you be inclined to compare your own progress to your competitors' progress? • To what extent do you feel it would be easy to win the cash prize?

26. Results

27. Mediation Analysis COMPARISON (β=-.30*) (β=.75***) NUMBER (β=-.34*) MOTIVATION [controlling for Comparison, p=.16, Sobel*] controlling for perceived easiness and gender

28. Theoretical Implications • N appears to have independent impact on social comparison processes, beyond the traditional “internal” levers • Covers important gap in social facilitation literature - comparing few to many others. Zajonc quote…

29. Quote • “If one were to draw one practical suggestion from the review of the social-facilitation effects . . . he would advise his student . . . to arrange to take his examinations in the company of many other students, on stage, and in the presence of a large audience. The results of his examination would be beyond his wildest expectations…” (p. 274, Zajonc, 1965).

30. Limitations • The inflection point of N? Where does “few” become “many” competitors?

31. Implications? • Class Size Debate • Mere presence of other students may weaken motivation to perform well on individual-tasks • Raises questions about fairness of test-taking environment on important exams like SAT

32. Implications? • Organizational Design: • Social loafing - a hallmark theory of employee performance and perennial concern of HRM - may have important implications beyond group-based tasks; even individual-based tasks are vulnerable to loafing-like effects.