THE EFFECT OF li‘iDMDUAL AM) GROUP MOTIVATION 0H PERF’SRMANCE {N AN ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENT TEST OF JUMOR HIGH SCHUGL B’LWS Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHEGAi‘iE STATE UNEVERSWY DONALD H. BAULD ' 1968 m, IlfllfiflWfMfllflWflflMflWfll I 3 93 01009 5515 l trueKonal Reso “es Cente r l ‘ckson “my. LIBRARY Michigan State Unlvordty MSU LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wil] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 9 MAY -2 353% ,V. ,. 2. t .f. ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MOTIVATION ON PERFORMANCE IN AN ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENT TEST OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BOYS by Donald Ho Bauld An available sample of eighty-nine boys from Pattengill Junior High School in Lansing, Michigan was used as subjects to determine the effects of individual and team competition on performance in a YOMOCOA. Athletic Achievement Testo The boys were in three classes each of which was tested initially with no motivational factors injectedo Scores for each subject were converted to standard scores using the Neilson-Cozens classifications and tables published by the Y.M°C°Ao One week later the classes were retestedo One class, Group A, competed individually for trophies with the six boys improving their scores the most receiving trophies. A second class, Group B, was randomly selected as the class to be divided into teams and compete for trophies on a team basis, The six boys on the team improving its score the most over test number one received trophies, The third class became the control class and was retested with no awards promised. The completion of test 2 terminated Phase I of the experiment. The hypotheses of Phase I as well as Phase II were that, (1) both individual and team motivated competition Donald H0 Bauld groups would improve their scores significantly more than the control group and (2) that the team competition group would improve its score significantly more than the individual competition groupo On completion of test two all classes were informed that they would be retested in three weeks time on the same basis as test two except that the awards in Groups A and B would be changed to an athletic achievement crest in school colors. In the ensuing three weeks twenty minutes of each daily class period were set aside for practice for all three groups, Mean scores of tests 1 and 2 (Phase I) and tests 2 and 3 (Phase II) were subjected to analysis of covarianceo Results of Phase I support the first hypothesis, However, the second hypothesis was rejected at the 90% level of confidence on the basis of the findings, Phase II, involving a three- week practice period yielded different results, In it the team motivated competition group made significantly greater progress than the control group at the 005 level of sig- nificance whereas the individual motivated competition group showed no significant gains, THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MOTIVATION ON PERFORMANCE IN AN ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENT TEST OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BOYS By Donald H” Bauld A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation 1968 PREFACE Teachers and coaches in physical education and athletics are constantly striving to improve motor per— formance in their students and athletes, Research and increased knowledge in the areas of biology, physiology and skill mechanics are leading to increased excellence and achievement of unprecedented heights in athletic performanceso There has been much less research completed on the psychological factors affecting motor learning and motor performance such as anxiety, emotion and motivationo It is the conviction of this writer that motivation is a very important factor in determining the extent to which individuals learn and perform in relation to their abilitieso This study is essentially an attempt to discover the extent to which certain types of motivation affect motor performanceo Special thanks are expressed to Dr, Arthur Stein- haus for his advice and guidance throughout the preparation of this study, Thanks are also expressed to Mr” Ron Stauffer, Mro Charles Jablonski and Mro James Walker for their co-operation and assistance throughout the testing phase of this studya The investigator also extends thanks ii to Mr. Gary Fisher, principal of Pattengill Junior High School, for the use of three physical education classes during the testing period. July, 1968 D.H.B. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION The Problem. Statement of the Problem Hypothesis Definition of Terms . Limitations of the Study Significance of the Study II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction . Scope of Motivational Studies. Individual and Group Competition. Summary III. RESEARCH PROCEDURE Description of Sample Description of the Test. Test Schedule Administration of the Test. Motivational Variables Individual Competition Group Competition. Control Group . Method of Analyzing Data IV. RESULTS Analysis of Co-Variance of Phase I Discussion of Phase I Analysis of Co-Variance of Phase II. Discussion of Phase II General Discussion iv Page ii vi vii H QWESWH 10 10 1A 20 3O 32 32 32 36 37 38 A0 A1 AA AA A8 51 53 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Analysis of co—variance of Test 1 and Test 2 means of Phase I. Two experimental and one control group are inter-compared with Test 2 means adjusted for differences in Test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . A6 2. Scheffé analysis to locate significant differences found in Test 2 of Table l . . . A6 3. Analysis of co-variance of Test 2 and Test 3 means of Phase II. Two experimental and one control group are inter—compared with Test 3 means adjusted for differences in Test 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 A. Scheffé analysis to locate significant differences found in Test 3 of Table 3 . . . 50 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Standard Scores of Boys in Group A on Tests 1, 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . 66 B. Standard Scores of Boys in Group B on Tests 1, 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . 67 C. Standard Scores of Boys in Group C on Tests 1, 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . 68 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem In attempting to discover the vital factors in improving human motor performance most researchers have concentrated on areas such as muscular strength, endurance, mechanical analysis and other physiological aspects of human performers. Recently an increased number of physical edu- cators have been concerned with the affect psychological factors have in the area of human motor performance. In fact, it is asserted by Ikai and Steinhaus that each individual has a psychological limit as well as a physio- logical limit which in part determines the limits of motor performance. Ikai and Steinhaus wrote as follows on this subject: Physiologic factors set the relatively fixed and outermost limits, psychological factors, the more proximate ones. In this sense it is appropriate to speak of a physiologic and psy- chologic limit. Capacity is the always undeter- mined measure of the former. Performance is always limited by the latter (2A, p. 157). Educators have long realized that motivation is one of the psychological factors important in improving learning and performance. Not until recently, however, have studies been done in the field of physical education to determine the effectiveness of various forms of moti- vation in pushing back the psychological barriers to increase the level of motor performance. Ulrich (5A), Hurloch (23) and Strong (A9) have all discovered that such factors as praise, verbal encouragement, level of aspiration and competition can result in increased motor performances. Educators have been slow to utilize the infor- mation on motivation as it affects learning and perfor- mance. There appear to be two main reasons for this fact, the first of which is that most of the early studies on motivation were done wth animals in relation to primary drives such as hunger, thirst and sex. The second reason is that results of the attempted studies are often confusing. For example, an investigation of twenty-four studies on the effects of individual and team competition on productivity by Miller and Hamblin in 1963 (35) revealed that in fourteen of the studies individual competition resulted in greater productivity and in ten others team competition resulted in greater productivity. It is very difficult for educators to utilize research with contradictory results. It is also highly interesting to note that the primary motivating factor in American education is indi- vidual competition for grades (7) while in Russian edu- cation the primary motivating factor is team competition in which individual reward is dependent upon the success of a group or collective (A). It is not the purpose of this paper to investigate the relative effectiveness of American and Russian education but rather to present data on American students in an attempt to determine the relative effectiveness of individual and team competition-- as motivators within our own culture. It is hOped that this study will stimulate interest in motivation on the part of physical educators and that the results will be instrumental in causing them to reassess the motivational techniques presently employed. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to investigate the affects of two motivational techniques, individual compe- tition and team competition on the performances of eighth and ninth grade boys in an Athletic Achievement test. The experiment was conducted in two phases. The first phase was designed to determine the affects of the motivational treatments when the subjects have not had the opportunity to practice. The second phase differs in that the subjects were informed that they would be retested so that they had the opportunity to practice. Hypothesis 1. Subjects in both the individual competition group and the team competition group will show significant improvement over the control group receiving no competitive motivational treatment in both Phase I and Phase II. 2. The group or team motivated group will show greater improvement than the individual motivated group in both Phase I and Phase II. Definition of Terms Motivation.--A force, either innate or learned, which initiates the behavior of an organism. Motive.--An internal function which impels the indi- vidual to strive to attain certain conditions that will satisfy it. Hunger and desire for recognition are examples. Incentive.--External objects or conditions which are striven for because they are potential satisfiers for a specific motive. Food is an incentive for the hunger motive. Individual Competition --A situation in which the successful attainment of the desired goal by one indi- vidual hinders the possibility of others attaining the same goal. Team Competition.--A situation in which all indi— viduals in the team achieve the desired goal in equal amounts. The success of the individual is dependent upon the success of his group. Limitations of the Study 1. This study was limited to eighty-nine boys from a junior high school of an essentially middle class area of a major Michigan city. 2. It was impossible to control the level of physical activity or the personal living habits of the subjects during the experiment. 3. It was necessary to use an available instead of a random sample and the situation did not permit a random assignment of subjects to treatments. Therefore, one of the assumptions of analysis of covariance used in this study, that of a random sample, was broken. A. Results cannot be applied to countries other than the United States unless they are democratic, free enterprise countries in which competition for the fruits of the culture are competed for on an individual basis. 5. Advantages would have been gained by using a more exacting measuring device. However, the reliability coefficient of the test used was found to be .960 using the Pearson—product moment method on a test and retest of the control group. 6. It is known that the achievement motivation of each individual will affect his learning and performance. This study did not measure or allow for this variable. 7. The nature of the task, an athletic achievement test, was not particularly conducive to a group situation since it does not involve a high level of co—operation on the part of group members. Significance of the Study One of the main problems confronting educators today is how to motivate students to learn and perform at levels approaching their potentialities. There are many educators such as Kelly (28, p. 69) and Knapp (30) who believe that intrinsic motivation or rewards resulting from performing the particular activity itself, is the only valuable form of motivation. They believe that teachers have invented an elaborate system of reward and punishment to get students to learn and perform. They claim that these rewards and punishments are extrinsic and lie outside the task itself and impel students to work for these rewards rather than the reward inherent in success; ful performance of the task itself. As is evidenced in the following chapter, however, there are a great many studies which clearly indicate the effectiveness of various motivating devices in getting students to perform and learn more efficiently. It is the writer's conviction that the prime factor in rendering a particular activity intrinsically satisfying for an indi- vidual is successful performance of that particular activity. There is no substitute for the satisfaction derived from successful participation. Support for this conviction can be found in Thorndike's (51) law of effect and in Allport's (2) functional autonomy theory. Quoting from Thorndike: "A satisfying after effect of a connec- tion can and generally does strengthen that connection directly, irrespective of repetitions . . . (51, p. 270)." If there is validity in Thorndike's law of effect then it would seem logical that the use of extrinsic moti- vation in the form of various incentives and rewards is defendable if it leads to increased successes in the learning and performing of motor activities. Thorndike writes the following on this subject: "The repeated occur- rence of a connection, in and of itself, does produce learn- ing in the form of increased strength of that connection but this strengthening is rather slow. It is so slow that good teachers usually seek to supplement repetition by interest and reward (51, p. 170)." Empirical observation of practicing physical education teachers shows that many forms of extrinsic motivation are utilized. In American education the basic extrinsic moti- vation is individual competition for grades. Coleman (7, p. 3A0) makes this clear when he says, in effect, that rewards in American schools are on the basis of grades and students must compete for these on the open market with fellow students. Russian education also utilizes extrinsic motivation in the form of group competition. To quote Brofenbrenner "It is the winning unit that gets rewarded by a pennant, a special privilege or by having their picture taken in parade uniforms." (A, p. 55A) A wealth of material has been written by American psychologists and sociologists on the social-psychological benefits accruing to individuals participating in groups from group inter-action and group dynamics. Accepting these findings, it is the writer's premise that if it can be proven that team competition is as effective, or more ef- fective, a motivator than individual competition perhaps a more widespread use of team competition would result in more educational benefits than the present system is yielding. In his article Coleman notes that the power of peer moti- vation is not being utilized in American education as he states that: "scholastic ability or good grades play a very unimportant part in peer acceptance." (7, p. 3A1) Empirically, it would seem advantageous to educate youth to encourage others in their efforts to learn and perform and in turn be rewarded by others for achievement resulting in gain not only for the individual but the group to which he belongs. The following quote by Warters illustrates the importance of research and experiment in the area of moti- vation, or Specifically, group motivation. It would probably not be an exaggeration to say that the principal source of human waste--in our society, at least--lies in our failure to take advantage of group resources for increased individual motivation. (56) The real significance of this investigation is to determine if team motivation, with its inherent concomi- tant value in character and social develOpment, is as effective or more effective than individual motivation. A positive answer to this question should be of great significance to those who are seeking to motivate young- sters to learn and perform at high levels and at the same time striving for character and social development in these same youngsters. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The area of motivation has beenalmost controversial one since recorded history. Great advances have been made since early periods in history when much of man's behavior was explained in terms of supernatural forces. However, even today there is confusion as to what causes man to behave as he does and there is no clear-cut, compre- hensive theory explaining man's behavior. Brown illus- trates this confusion concerning motivation when he writes: . . . depending on the particular author con— sulted, motivation can be conscious or uncon- scious, it can be the same as or different from drive; it may or may not guide behavior; and all motives can be either learned or instinctive." (5, p. 2A) By examining briefly three or four of the leading theorists in the area of motivation over the past forty years one can determine from where some of this confusion stems. Allport (2) explains behavior in infants as being motivated mainly by primary organic needs but later in life these motives become transformed into learned motives as the individual matures. To quote Allport on this topic "Theoretically all adult purposes can be traced back to 10 11 these seed forms in infancy. But as the individual matures the bond is broken. The tie is historical not functional." (2, p. 19A) Many of the theorists before, and shortly after, Allport explained man's behavior in terms of primary needs. The idea of explaining motivation in terms of unlearned viscerogenic drives such as hunger, thirst and sex remained prominent until the 1950's. Hull's theory is a drive reduction theory which concentrates on the organism's tissue needs which give rise to drives like thirst, hunger and sex and man's efforts to relieve himself of these needs. Hull writes that these primary, biological drives act like stimuli and when the drive stimulus is reduced by ingestion of food, water or the necessary satisfier we have primary reinforcement which strengthens the stim- ulus situation and the responses which have preceded the reduction of the drive stimulus. (21) The most likely reason for sustained interest in the primary drives was because most experimenters were searching for answers by studying animals rather than human beings. More modern theories of motivation are more sophis- ticated and contain an eXplanation for many of the social drives of man which are not easily explained by biological deficiencies. Maslow (3A) is a modern theorist whose theory has as Husbase the primary need theory of Hull. However, Maslow recognized a system of secondary needs which were learned, psycho-genic needs. These secondary needs were subdivided into: (1) extrinsic motivation and l2 (2) intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation was the result of needs resulting from a social deficiency such as affiliation, recognition and acceptance. These needs are essentially satisfied by the learned elements of co- operation and competition. Intrinsic motivation which were needs resulting from the organism's need to interact with its environment. These needs are satisfied by play, exploration and manipulation. Maslow placed these needs in a hierarchy with primary needs on the bottom and intrinsic, secondary needs on the top and hypothesized that until the lower needs of hunger and thirst are satisfied, man cannot advance to higher motives such as esteem and ultimately to the supreme motive of self-actualization. Maslow's theory is interesting and plausible but is diffi- cult to test scientifically. None of the above three theories have been proven in their entirety nor have attempts by other theorists to explain the concept of motivation been found entirely satis- factory. It is not the purpose of this section to try and resolve the confusion existing in theories of motivation but it is interesting to note a comment made by a modern psychologist. McClelland states that: The psychology of motivation is in its infancy. Until recently it has been dominated by the theoretical view that there are a few basic pri- mary drives on which the whole structure of the complex secondary or social motives is built. (37, p. 5) 13 Although controversy exists as to the nature of moti— vation and causes of man's behavior the importance of motivation in stimulating learning and performance seems to be widely accepted by modern educators. Johnson, Steffler and Edelfelt state that: Motivation is an educational by—word among teachers who attempt to develop an Optimum learning environ- ment, since they recognize the importance of pro- moting interest and desire to learn. (25, p. 223) Hurloch (22, p. 78) is of the opinion that although workers in the field of psychology have long since recog- nized the importance of introducing some form of incentive in order to obtain best results, educators have been slow in evaluating the effectiveness of different incentives that are used in dealing with school children. Dean Ryan wrote, "The fact that certain motive incen- tive conditions have a marked influence on learning and per- formance of verbal material has been well established." (A3) Tuttle (53, p. 38) stated that motivation is the most neglected aspect in the whole field of education and that many teachers did not utilize motivation as extensively as possible. Having introduced some theories and concepts of motivation as well as its importance in the field of education I would like to present a section on the scope of motivational studies. lA Scope of Motivational Studies This section will concentrate on completed studies in motivation and its effect on learning and performance. One of the areas of motivation in which there is general agreement is the area of knowledge of results. Martin, (33) testing eighty college women on the jump and reach test with and without knowledge of results, found that performing with knowledge of results yielded significantly superior performances. Hurloch (22) sites studies by Féré, Wright and Whiting which conclude that knowledge of results is superior to no knowledge as an incentive in learning and performance. Level of aspiration is also an area of motive in which studies indicate a positive effect on learning and performance. Clawson (6, p. 107) in one of the very few studies done in physical education on the effects of moti- vation on motor learning, found that student set level of aspiration results in increased learning of archery skills by freshmen college women. Dudley (11) confirms her findings on the level of aspiration as she reports that both teacher and student set levels of aspiration result in significantly better performances by junior high school girls on the Scott Motor Ability Test. Wilkinson (59) also finds level of aspiration to be an effective motivation on improving results on a right arm muscular endurance test by boys of ages seven to eleven. 15 Smith (A7) reports a study in which he attempts to deter- mine the effect of athletic success and failure on one's level of aspiration. He discovered that successful athletes raised their level of aspiration while unsuccessful athletes lowered theirs. He used fifty-nine football players as subjects in his study. Verbal encouragement and verbal disparagement were both found to be effective motivators in boys seven to eleven on a right arm muscular endurance test conducted by Wilkinson (59). Ulrich and Burke (5A) found similar results in a study designed to determine the "encouraging" reports of success and "discouraging" reports of failure on work out- put and mechanical efficiency. Testing nine men and nine women on a bicycle ergometer Ulrich and Burke concluded that motivational stressors (positive and negative) illicit greater work output than when no motivational stress is present (1% level of significance). They also found that mechanical efficiency is greater when motivational stresses indicating successes are used than when no moti- vational stress or motivational stress induced by failure is used. They found similar results in both men and women. Gates and Rissland (16) found similar results on a color-naming test. They found encouraging remarks more effective than discouraging remarks in increasing 16 performance but both were found more effective than making no remarks at all. Hurloch's (23, p. 78) results agree with Wilkinson in that both praise and reproof are equally effective incentives for school children. Audience is a motivational factor found to be effec- tive by Missiuro (36) who found that the mere presence of onlookers produced an increase of from ten to forty-four per cent over solitary work output on subjects lifting weights in time with a metronome. Martin's (33) results confirm Missiuro's in her study of college women on the jump and reach test. Gates (15) on the other hand, found no significant effect of small and large audiences on subjects performing psychological tests such as the three- hole test of co-ordination. Terrell (50) did a study comparing the effect of an immediate incentive, knowledge of results, with a delayed material incentive (candy) on the learning of a simple motor task by boys and girls ages four to nine. He found that immediate reward of correct responses was superior to a delayed or promised reward for correct responses. Kitson (29) found that rewards themselves are effec- tive motivators for increasing production in industry. He found that output was increased up to 78% when bonuses were offered for increases in production. 17 Three investigators, Strong, Hansen and Nelson, performed rather extensive motivational studies involving the relative effects of five or more motivational tech- niques on performance. Strong (A9) attempted to determine the effect of group competition, self—competition, compe- tition with a rival of equal ability, competition with a rival of unequal ability, striving to set a class record and level of aspiration on the results of a fitness test by sixth grade boys. He concluded that all of the moti- vational conditions are significant in increasing perfor- mance on the test and that the validity of such tests are dependent on standardizing motivational techniques. He further concluded team competition and level of aspiration were the two most effective motivators. Hansen (19) compared the relative effectiveness of team competition, competition with a rival of equal ability, immediate know- ledge of results, standardized tests and subsequent knowledge of results. Team competition and rivalry with someone of equal ability yielded significant increases in strength during the six week isometric training program at the .05 level of confidence. The other motivators were not found to be effective in this program. Nelson (39) used a total of ten motivating conditions on 250 University of Oregon students who were tested on the Kelso-Hellebrandt elbow flexion ergograph. Individual competition, ego—involvement and telling subjects that they 18 were setting standards for the United States Air Force Space Program were the most potent motivators. Also found to be effective motivators were group competition, observers presence, obtainable goal and competition with the Russians. Nelson and Johnson (A0) also did a motivational study which studied the relationship between strength development and motivation. They found that increases in strength during a training program are dependent upon some form of motivation. They concluded that in the absence of any motivation, training produced negligible increases in strength. Most studies in motivation, learning and performance report positive findings. There are a few, however, that report either neutral or negative findings. Lazarus (31) and associates contend that, although strong motivation may produce better performances, it also is capable of producing impaired performances, inasmuch as the ego defensive aspects of the situation may become too important or threatening to the individual that he ceases or reduces his attack on the task. One of the few studies which report no positive results was one in which McGeoch and Irion (38) studied the effects of electric shock, knowledge of results and constant exhortation on eighty University of California students in a test of grip strength. They found no significant positive effects from any of these motivators. 19 A final area of importance in this section on the scope of motivational studies is an examination of a concept called achievement motivation. French introduces this concept in her study when she writes, The typical level of achievement need, as well as the stimuli present designed to increase the need level, must be taken into account in pre- dicting motivational level in a given situ- ation. (13) French used ninety male students at Lockland Air Force Base in her study. Using McClelland's motivation imagery scoring system she divided them into high and low moti- vation groups. She then tested the subjects on a coding test with the addition of various incentives. She found that what is described as a typical level of achievement motivation is a significant variable affecting the degree to which a desired level of motivation can be aroused by introducing different incentives. Her findings suggest that an independent measure of motivation and a knowledge of the characteristics of the stimulus situation are both essential for predicting performance. Rosen (A2) presents material relevant to this subject in his article which claims that achievement motivation is a function of family size, position or order of birth and social class. He contends that if parents set high standards of excellence for their children in all tasks they tend to develop high achievement motivation. First born children and children in small families receive more 2O attention and greater emphasis is placed on their achieve- ment than in large families. He states that Large families create a greater degree of inter- dependence between members and an increased need for co-operative effort and consensus. The precarious equilibrium of the large family would be threatened by excessive emphasis on competition and achievement. (A2, p. 577) Concerning the effect of social class on achievement moti- vation Rosen states that "Boys from the upper and middle classes show consistently higher achievement motivation than do lower class boys." (A2, p. 58A) I have purposely omitted studies on individual and group competition from this section on the scope of motivational studies since the entire following section is devoted to such studies. Individual and Group Competition The writer feels that it is highly interesting to note that when one compares group competition with indi- vidual competition he is really touching on a comparison of the underlying motivating forces of two different political ideologies, the democratic ideology represented by the Untied States and the Communist ideology repre- sented by Russia. Bowen, writing on Russian education, noted that "with the new emphasis, the collective discipline, compe— tition and a concern on the part of each individual for the group's performance became increasingly important." 21 (3, p. 1A9) He also wrote that the underlying assumption of Russian education is "that the collective was the basic social unit and that the task of education was one of absorbing the individual into the group." (3, p. 157) No studies appear in the related literature which compare individual and group competition in increasing production in Communist youth. It can be seriously doubted if such studies will ever appear since individual interests are simply not recognized in Russia and the idea of rewarding individuals on the basis of individual achieve- ment is incompatible with Russian doctrines. As Bowen states, "Individual interest, when it is present, is sub- ordinated by the overwhelming needs of collective life." (3, p. 193) All Russian educational and social institutions direct their efforts toward increasing the strength of the collective whereas educational and social institutions in the United States direct their efforts toward producing, independent, free thinking, well rounded individuals. Considering these conflicting emphases in Russian and American cultures it appears to be a natural correlate that group competition would predominate in the former culture and individual competition in the latter. Vaughn and Diserens (55) also make the interesting observation that competition was at first a mechanism to satisfy other general motives such as self-preservation 22 sex and mastery. However, by the end of the Paleolithic period it became practically independent of any particular objective and was often practiced as an end in itself. Recent studies have indicated that competition is very effective in increasing work output. Missiuro (36) discovered that work with weights in the presence of others automatically induced competition and greatly increased work output. He also found that working in the presence of superior rivals caused reduced work output with the oppo- site effect resulting from working in the presence of inferior rivals. Triplett (52) found similar results in an experiment involving cyclers in a twenty-five mile race. He compared race against time, race against time with a pacemaker and race against competitors with a pace- maker and found the element of competition to yield superior performances. Shaw (A5), however, reported negative results from competition on a perceptual motor task. He offers the following explanation of his results: It is believed that competitive situations arouse stronger motivation to achieve than do co-Operative situations; this stronger motivation, however, results in poorer performance as measured by accuracy scores which are particularly susceptible to disruptive responses introduced by the energizing component of motivation. (A5, p. 167) He 23 admits, however, that "measures of a motor output, such as speed and strength scores, probably would indicate superior performances in a competitive situation." (A5) Also, Shaw does not differentiate between the effects of competition on subjects who have mastered a particular perceptual motor skill and those who are beginners at the skill. Vaughn (55) in studying competition found that the possibility of achieving success or attaining the desired goal was a factor in determining the extent to which persons respond to competition. He discovered this fact in an experiment on marksmanship in which he gave gold medal awards for the highest score in one situation and the same award for improvement in another situation. His highly skilled subjects did better in the former situation and did considerably worse when competing on the basis of improvement. An appropriate end to this discussion on competition would be to note conclusions made by Vaughn and Diserens on the subject: (1) Competitive conditions of one sort or another generally increase the efficiency of work and facilitate learning. (2) A particular form or type of compet- itive situation, however, does not affect all individuals in the same way. (3) Individuals display the competitive spirit and intensify their efforts to excel under those conditions that promise success. (A) Some people are inhibited by competition. 2A (5) Complex tasks seem to be less suitable than more simple tasks for competitive situ- ations. (55, p. 92) Having discussed the concept of competition, let us examine individual competition and group competition specifically. The literature often refers to these two concepts as competition and co-operation with the latter denoting group competition. Phillips and De Vault make a pertinent observation on these two concepts: Competition and co-operation pervade most aspects of our life. In the free enterprise system which dominates our economic life, business and industry operate on a competitive basis. Yet, individuals in even the most competitive businesses must work together if their companies are to survive. (Al) Deutsch (9) clarified the difference between compe- tition and co-operation or individual and group competition when he wrote, in effect, that in a co-operative situation an individual obtains a goal only if all individuals obtain it. On the other hand, in a competitive situation, if one individual reaches a goal, the other individuals will be hampered in their efforts to attain it. Turning to the actual studies done in the area of the relative effectiveness of individual and group compe- tition as motivators one finds much controversy and confusion. There are not two studies which resemble each other closely. The tasks differ markedly, the subjects vary in age, sex and education, the size of groups are not constant and the rewards vary greatly. Confusion also 25 exists because many investigators called group competition, co-operation. Julian and Perry noted this when they wrote that: Particular effects attributed to co-Operation may well have been due to the competitive inter— group relations rather than the co-operative relations which existed among the members of the group. (27, p. 80) In 1963 Miller and Hamblin (35) reviewed the liter- ature to determine the relative effect of co-operation and competition on group productivity. They found that in fourteen studies competition resulted in greater produc- tivity while in ten others co-operation resulted in greater productivity. The same authors partially resolved this conflict when they reassessed the findings, classifying the tasks used by the investigators in the studies examined into those high in inter-dependence and those low in inter-dependence. They then found that co-operation increased productivity in tasks high in inter-dependence and differential rewarding or individually striving for awards increased productivity in tasks low in inter- dependence. (35) Classic studies finding individual competition superior to group competition were done by the following investigators: Sims (A6) using one hundred college SOpho- mores as subjects, found individual competition superior to group competition on a mental substitution task. Maller (32) and Forlono (12) found similar results testing young 26 school children on mental tasks. Whittemore (58) found that individual competition tended to increase the quan— tity of production but tended to decrease the quality of performance. Miller and Hamblin (35) as well as Jones (26) divided the tasks used in their experiments into high and low interdependence tasks. They made identical conclusions that individual competition increased production on tasks of low interdependence while group competition was superior in increasing performance in tasks of high interdependence. Classic studies which find group competition to be superior to individual competition were reported by the following investigators. Deutsch (10) used two tasks, a human relations problem and a puzzle and found that group competition increased production more than individual competition on both problems. To quote Deutsch: Working as a co-operative group in comparison to working in a competitive group showed more co-ordination of effort, achievement pressure, productivity per unit time, and better quality of product and discussions. (10, p. 200) Allport (1) reported Moede's findings that both individual and group competition are superior to no competition in a strength test but the latter superior to the former. Hurloch (23) found similar results using a mental task (addition) on school children. Whittemore (58) and Hammand and Goldman (18) did experiments which 27 concluded that co-operation or group competition increased the quality but not the quantity of production. Using seventy-six graduate and under-graduate students from the Unviersity of Connecticutt, Wegner and Zeaman (57) found group competition to be superior to individual competition using a perceptual motor task (pursuit rotor). Shaw (A5), as reported earlier, reported different findings using the same task. He found that both indi- vidual and group competition produced inferior results to pure co-Operation with no competition on a complex per- ceptual motor task. Julian and Perry (27) using mental tasks, on University of New York students at Buffalo found that both individual and group competition resulted in more superior quality and quantity of performance than did a pure co-operation situation. These findings are obviously different from Shaw's, however, the tasks used by the investigators differed markedly. There have been a few studies reported by physical educators on individual and group competition as motivators. The results, however, are just as confusing as those pre- viously reported. Hesse (20) is the only investigator who isolated individual and group competition and attempted to discover which is the superior motivator. She tested female junior high school subjects on the standing broad jump and the sixty-yard dash. Her findings are not 28 consistent with the literature in that she found neither individual or group competition significantly superior to no motivation at all. Clawson (6) and Gerdes (17) found team competition to be superior to other motivators including level of aspir- ation. They did not use individual competition in their studies. Clawson tested college girls on archery skills and Gerdes tested college men on seven physical test items which included items of strength, skill and endur- ance. Nelson (A0) and Strong (A9) report conflicting results. Nelson, testing college males on arm strength found individual competition superior to team competition although both are superior to other motivators including verbal encouragement and instructor interest. Strong, testing secondary school boys and girls on selected physical tests found team competition to be superior to individual competition. He also found that strength and endurance were more affected by motivating conditions than was raw skill. Hansen (19) testing college males on a strength training program found individual and group competition to be superior to three other motivators in increasing strength performances. It seems clear that attempts to discover whether individual or group competition is superior in increasing 29 learning performances whether intellectual or motor have failed to produce conclusive results. However, the literature reveals that group compe- tition has a number of advantages over individual compe— tition in such areas as personal, social and psychological development. The power of peer motivation to not only increase performance and learning but to teach values and attitudes has been relatively untapped by modern educators. There is much evidence in support of this point of view. Johnson, Steffler and Edelfelt state that All too frequently the tremendous impact of group pressures and social dictums are overlooked by teachers, counselors and parents. The influence of the peer group is particularly great among the adolescents. Educators and parents must under- stand and accept the fact that the adolescent typically seeks approval of his peer group first, and only then does he look for the approbation of his elders. (25, p. 219) Warters states that: The inter-communication of ideas, the co- ordination of efforts, the friendliness and pride in one's group which are basic to group harmony and effectiveness appear to be disrup- tive when members see themselves to be competing for mutually exclusive goals. (56, p. 20) Deutsch (10) cites an additional goal inherent in group competition in his observation that in the co- operative situations the individual may have two goals: (a) receiving a reward for himself and (b) seeing a group with which he identifies also receive a reward. Finally, Steinhaus (A8) points up the importance of realizing that 30 adolescents change from beings motivated by individuals (mother, father, teacher) to beings who are essentially motivated or rewarded and punished by their peers. He further contends that many teachers have yet to realize this fact and many that do have not made full use of it. In light of the support for group work in the writings of psychologists and educators it is the writer's contention that if team competition can be proved to be as effective or more effective a motivation than indi- vidual competition its inherent concomitant benefits warrant more extensive use by educators in our school system and a reduced emphasis on individual competition for grades as the prime motivator. Summary of Related Literature Although an all-inclusive, comprehensive theory of motivation has not yet been formulated to explain man's behavior there are a number of theories available to enlighten those seeking to understand the why of man's behavior. Psychologists, educators and physical educators have presented conclusive evidence that motivation is of tremendous importance in increasing learning and per- formance in their respective fields. A number of investigators have concluded on the basis of careful experiments that such motivators as individual and team competition, level of aspiration, verbal encour- agement and verbal disparagement, audience incentives, ego 31 involvement and competition against standards are, in fact, effective in increasing performance and learning in a variety of tasks. Difficulty in drawing conclusions is encountered on the relative merits of each of these moti- vators becasue different types of tasks were used on dif- ferent types of subjects by the various investigators. Studies done in the area of individual and team competition in the areas of psychology, education and physical education are confusing and contradictory. The majority of studies find both individual and team compe- tition effective but neither superior to the other. How- ever, some studies find one or the other or both ineffec- tive in motivating human performance. There is some evi- dence that individual competition is superior when tasks of low inter-dependence are being performed and that team competition is superior when tasks of high inter-dependence are being performed. The evidence in this area, again, however, is not conclusive. Since but one study has been done in the field of physical education which attempts to discover the relative effectiveness of team and individual competition as moti- vators, the writer feels taht further investigation into this area would be significant and important to anyone interested in improving human motor learning and per- formance. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURE Description of the Sample A total of eighty-nine boys (with an average age of thirteen years, eleven months), were used from Pattengill Junior High School, Lansing, Michigan. These boys consti- tuted hmoeighth grade classes and one ninth grade class. One of the eighth grade classes contained thirty-one boys, the other contained thirty, and the ninth grade class had twenty—eight boys in it. The sample used was therefore an available one. There did not appear to be any inherent bias in the sample. The students had originally been randomly assigned to the respective classes by the school administration. There were three negro students in each of the three classes. The district from which the subjects were drawn is a predominantly white urban middle class community with a minority of lower and lower-middle class families. Description of the Test The Y.M.C.A. Athletic Achievement Test was the test used in this study. This particular test was developed out of work done by Dr. N. P. Neilson and Dr. F. W. Cozens 32 33 (8). These men tested more than 100,000 secondary school children in the 1930's on a series of athletic tests including push-ups, pull—ups, shuttlerum basketball throw and rope climb. They recorded the age, height and weight of each contestant and developed a set of standard scores for each of the five test items. They set up six classi- fications (A, B, C, D, E, F) on the basis of age, height and weight to allow the smaller, younger boys to compete on an equal basis with the larger, older boys. The standard scores ranged from 1 to 100 for each event on the basis of his classification and his raw score on the event. It was therefore possible to score 500 points on the total test. For example, a boy in classification A receiving raw scores of A7 (push—ups), 3.3 (rope climb), 22 (basketball throw), 21.6 shuttle run) and 17 (chin-ups) ‘would receive standard scores of 95, 90, 80, 80 and 75 IPeSpectively and a total score of A20 out of a possible 500. A complete and clear explanation of the classifi- cation system and the standard scores for each event can Abe found in the Y.M.C.A. Athletic Achievement Program lflanual (1A). The coefficient of reliability for the test ‘Was found to be .96. This was a Pearson-Product coeffi- cient of correlation of the results on a test and retest 0f the control group. 3A A description of the individual test items comprising the athletic achievement test is as follows: (1) Push-ups.--The contestant lies on the floor, face down, body straight with the hands on the floor in front of the armpits. From this position he straightens his arms until he is in a front—leaning rest position. He then lowers his body and straightens his arms as many times .rH as possible. Each raising of the body counts as one push- 1 up. It is imperative that the body remain straight or rigid. (2) ROpe Climb (15 feet).-—A suSpended rope was used 1% in. in diameter. The contestant stands grasping the rope reaching as high as possible. At the signal "GO" he starts to climb, using hands and feet if he wishes, or hands only if he so desires, the object being to reach the 15 foot mark on the rope as quickly as possible. The contestant's performance is recorded as the elapsed time from the signal of "GO" to the instant the hand touches or passes the marked distance. (3) Basketball Throw for Goal (one minute).--The contestant starts in back of the free throw line 15 feet from the back board. On the signal "GO" he shoots for the basket and each of the remaining throws is taken from the point at which the ball is recovered. The contestant's performance is recorded as the number of goals made in one minute. Shooting for the goal continues until the signal 35 "STOP" its given at the end of one minute. Contestants are permitted one step on each shot after the initial one. If the ball is in the air on the signal "STOP" the point is awarded if the ball goes into the basket. (A) Shuttle Run.--Two small blocks of wood each measuring 3" x 2" x 1%", one painted white and one painted red are placed in one foot circles whose centers are located 3A feet and A2 feet respectively from a starting line. At the starting signal "Take your mark, set, go" the contestant starts from behind the starting line, runs out and brings the blocks back, one at a time, places them in the circle behind the starting line then returns the blocks, one at a time to their original positions and finishes as he recrosses the starting line. The contestant's perfor— mance is recorded as the time elapsed from the signal "GO" to the instant he crosses the starting line at the end of the second rmmuitrip. (The overall distance traveled is 30A ft. or 101 1/3 yd.) (5) Chin-ups.--The contestant hangs onto a horizontal bar with arms and legs fully extended using the forward grip (back of hands to the face). He raises his body by his arms until his chin can be placed over the bar and lowers his body to a fully extended arms hang. The con- testant's performance is recorded as the number of pull-ups made after full extension of the arms. 36 The rope climb, shuttle run, and basketball throw were timed with a stop watch which measures in seconds and tenths of seconds. Test Schedule The testing was done during the months of April and May, 1968. On April 9 and April 10 the age, weight and height of each subject was tabulated. The investigator personally weighed and measured the students. The athletic achievement tests were conducted during class periods. It took two class periods to test each class on the Y.M.C.A. Athletic Achievement Test. On April 16 and April 17 each of the three classes was tested initially with no motivating factors employed. One of the classes subsequently was randomly selected as a control group, one, a team competition group and the other, an individual competition group, and on April 23 and April 2A each class was re-tested with the above motivational variables injected. On April 25 awards, to the winners, were presented and the classes were informed that they would be re—tested in three weeks under the same competitive conditions. The test schedule was arranged so that each class was tested and re-tested on the same day of the week and the same hour of the day on each of the three tests. The order in which the test items were administered was identical for each class on all three tests. Information 37 as to how the test was administered can be found in the following section. Administration of the Test As mentioned in the section Test Schedule it required two hours or two class periods to test one complete class (30 subjects) on the entire 5 items of the test. On the first day of testing, each class was tested on the push-ups, the basketball throw and the rope—climb, in that order. On the second day, the shuttlerun and the chin-ups were run in that order. Each class began with a warm up involving light running and calisthenics. General information concerning the test, such as scoring and standards were given to the entire class by the investi— gator. Immediately following, instructions on the push— ups were given to the whole class by the investigator. A student demonstration was used to supplement instructions. Instructions were identical to the test description given in a previous section. Following instructions the class was divided into two equal sections. One section went to one end of the gymnasium with the investigator and the other half to the opposite end with the regular physical education instructor. Subjects were tested individually by the two testers. When all subjects had been tested the two sections were reunited for instructions on the basketball throw. The same procedure was used for all five items. 38 The procedure used in the two re-tests of each class was identical to the procedure used on the original test. The same procedure was followed on all tests in all classes except the team competition class. This class was tested in teams on the two re-tests. However, the same order of testing was followed in this class as in the other classes. For each test item three teams were tested by the investi- gator and two by the regular physical education instructor. Details on the team construction for team competition are found in the next section. The standard scores for the test items were posted on the wall for all classes on all tests so that contes- tants could construct their own scores and compare them to the standard scores. Each subject's score on each indi- vidual test item and on the total achievement test was posted the day after the test was completed. Since sub- jects were aware of their scores and the standard scores were posted, the two motivational factors of knowledge of results and competition against standards were operative in all tests of all classes. Motivational Variables Individual Competition After‘theinitial test one of the classes was randomly selected as the individual competition class. This class shall be referred to as Group A. On the first re-test 39 Group A was given the same general instructions as in the initial test. In addition, however, this group was told that the six students who increased their scores the most over their previous score would receive a trophy. The trophy given was an inexpensive, four inch, silver trophy with a black plastic base. The winner's name, school, date and nature of award (Athletic Achievement) were put on the base with a dyna—label-marker machine. It is important to note that the subjects were not informed beforehand that they would be retested so that they had no opportunity to practice. Results of the retest were posted the day following the test and the awards presented. Before the awards were presented Group A was informed that they would be retested in three weeks time on the same basis as the previous retest. Group A was shown the new award at that time (an athletic achievement crest with school name on it in school colors) and informed that the six students who increased their score the most over the previous retest would receive the awards. The class was further informed that the first twenty minutes of each class for the next three weeks was available for practicing the events. They were also told that the investigator would be available to test those who wished to be tested on any particular event. AO Group Competition Succeeding the initial test one of the classes was randomly designated to be the team competition class. This class shall be referred to as Group B. Group B is a ninth grade class and Group A an eighth grade class. On the basis of the initial scores, Group B was divided into five teams of six boys per team. The investigator picked the teams so that the average score of each team would be as equal as possible. On the day of the first retest, following the warm up and general instructions, students were placed in their respective teams. They were given their team average from the first test and a chance to become familiar with their team mates. They were then instructed that the retest would be on the basis of teams and that the members of the team that increased its average score the most over the initial test would receive trophies. The trophies were the same as those given to Group A. Group B had not been informed earlier that they would be retested so thay had no opportunity to practice. Awards were presented to the winning team the day following the test. The team results were posted on the gymnasium bulletin board. Prior to handing out the awards Group B was also shown the Athletic Achievement Crests and informed that they would be retested in three weeks time. They were informed that they would be competing in the same teams and that awards would be won by members of the team A1 that improved the most over test two and they were given the same information as Group A regarding the twenty minute practice period. Control Group The class which was randomly selected to be the control group was an eighth grade class. This class was called Group C. Group C was retested on the same basis as the initial test except they were told that the object of the test was to determine how much they would improve and that their scores would be improvement rather than absolute scores. The day after the retest their scores were posted and Group C was informed that in three weeks they would be retested again and that the object of this retest was to determine how much they could improve with practice. They were given the same information as Groups A and B regarding the twenty minute practice period. Method of Analyzing Data The method of analyzing data is relatively straight- forward. For each Group (A, B, C) a mean score was deter- mined for the original test and the retest with experimental conditions added. Analysis of co-variance was applied to the test and retest scores to arrive at means adjusted for initial differences, both within and among groups. If a signifi- cant F resulted from this analysis, indicating that A2 differences among the three groups are present, then the Scheffé method of comparing adjusted means was run to determine exactly where the significance lies. A t-test of significance was applied to determine whether the adjusted mean scores are significantly different from each other in the following situations: (1) A t-test of significance to determine if the adjusted mean score of Group A is significantly greater than that of Group C. (2) A t-test of significance to determine if the adjusted mean score of Group B is significantly greater than that of Group C. (3) A t-test of significance to determine if the adjusted mean score of Group B is significantly greater than that of Group A. The above procedure was used to analyze both Phase I and Phase II. To analyze Phase II the mean scores for each group on the final test were compared to the mean scores on test 2 to determine if differences between group means on the final test were significant. The investigator will accept significance at the .95 level of confidence. In situations where significance is achieved at the .05 level the test will be extended to determine if the difference found is also significant at the .01 level. Also, setting alpha at .05, beta at .10 and delta at one standard deviation and calculating n (number A3 of subjects) it was found that an n of 30 is a necessary and sufficient sample size. Therefore, in cases where the null-hypothesis is accepted and the difference between means is not significant, conclusions to this effect can be made at the l-beta (90%) level of confidence. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The statistical technique used to analyze the data in both Phase I and Phase II was analysis of co-variance and the Scheffé method of analyzing means adjusted by co- variance. Co-variance was used to account for initial differences in the groups studied. Alpha was set at .05, beta at .01 and delta atl.standard deviation and an n of 30 was found to be a necessary and sufficient sample size. One of the assumptions of analysis of co—variance was broken in this study. The test assumes a random sample and the sample used was an available one and subjects were not randomly assigned to treatment groups. However, the investigator could find no reason to believe that the groups used would bias the study in any way. Subjects were originally assigned to the three classes randomly and all classes contained the same ratio of negroes to whites. Analysis of Co-Variance of Phase I Phase I involved testing all three groups on the athletic achievement test with no motivational factors present and retesting them one week later with the motiva- tional factors injected. Since the subjects did not know that they would be retested it was felt that differences AA A5 occurring should be due to the motivational factors of individual and team competition. A control group was used to account for possible training effects as a result of repeating the same test in the short span of one week. An analysis of co-variance of individual competition, team competition and control groups produced an F value of 16.5 (see Table 1). This value was significant at the .001 level and showed that significant differences among the three groups were present somewhere. The Scheffé method of comparing the differences between test 1 and test 2 means adjusted was used to determine which of the three groups showed significant improvement between test 1 and test 2. It was hypothesized that both individual and team competition would produce significantly greater improvement in test scores than no competition. A t-test of the dif— ference between test 2 score means adjusted revealed this hypothesis to be true at the .01 level of significance. The t values were 13.9 when comparing the individual competition group and the control group and 12.32 when comparing the team competition group and the control group (see Table 2). A t value of 2.6A was necessary to obtain significance at the .01 level. A comparison of individual competition and team competition groups produced a t value of 1.66 which was not significant. Since a t value of 1.99 was necessary for significance at the .05 level the hypothesis that team A6 competition would produce greater improvement than indi- vidual competition was rejected at the l-beta or the 90 per cent level of confidence. TABLE l.--Analysis of covariance of Test 1 and Test 2 means of Phase I. Two experimental and one control group are inter-compared with Test 2 means adjusted for differences in Test 1. Indiv. Group Signif. of Means Compet. Compet. Control F Diff. Test 1 237.A 263.1 281.A6 2.A6 N.S. Test 2 300.6 295.3 256.0 16.5 >.001 (adjusted) TABLE 2.--Scheffe analysis to locate significant differences found in Test 2 of Table 1. Y Test 2 Variable N adjusted Diff. S.E. Diff. t-value Individual competition 31 300.6 Control 30 256.0 AA.6 3°19 13°9** Team competition 28 295.3 Control 30 256.0 3903 3.19 12.32** Individual competition 31 300.6 Team 5.3 3.19 1.66 competition 28 295.3 **Significant at .01 level (t = 2.6A) A7 Discussion of Phase I Individual competition and team competition proved to be highly effective motivators in increasing scores on the Athletic Achievement test. These increases are especially significant since interest was extremely high on the original test. The fact that the investigator was new to the students seemed to stimulate them to try and make a favorable impression. Also, tests of physical ability have been hypothesized to stimulate boys of junior high school age to excel since success in athletic and physical activ— ities is more influential in determining popularity than other abilities among boys in their early teens. Wilkinson (59, p. 96) cites observations by Jesse, Williams and F. L. Goodenough in his study which present evidence to this effect. Furthermore, the fact that the first time the subjects were tested was the only time that the testing situation was a novel one also seemed to result in high interest. The results of the study require that the second hypothesis be rejected since no significant difference was found between the individual and team competition groups. It was felt that the extra incentive produced by peer encouragement and a desire to win for one's team as well as for one's self inherent in team competition would result in a better performance than individual competition alone. However, because subjects were placed in their teams only A8 fifteen minutes before they were tested the second time they did not have time to develop a sense of identification with their teams. However, during the test individuals in the group situation were greatly encouraged by their team mates while being tested and this fact does not hold true in the individual competition class. Furthermore, the nature of the task requires little or no co-operation between team members and is therefore perhaps more favorable to an individual competition situation. Never- theless, team competition proved to be as effective as indiVidual competition in this particular phase of the experiment. Analysis of Co-variance of Phase II Phase II was conducted to determine whether indi— vidual competition for awards or team competition for awards would be more effective in improving scores in a situation where both groups knew that they would be retested and were given a three-week period to practice. The anal- ysis procedure for Phase II was identical to that of Phase I except that-the results of the third and final test were compared to the results of test 2. Analysis of covariance of individual competition, team competition and control groups in Phase II produced an F value of A.A2. This value was significant at the .05 level and showed that significant differences among the A9 three groups were present somewhere (see Table 3). The Scheffé method of comparing the differences between test 2 and test 3 means adjusted was used to determine which of the three groups showed significant improvement between test 2 and test 3. When the individual competition group was compared with the control group the resulting t-value of 1.89 showed that the motivation of individual compe- tition did not produce significantly greater improvement than no competition in tflue three weeks allowed for prac- tice betweeen test two and test three. On the other hand, when the team competition group was similarly compared with the control group the resulting t value of 2.5 showed that the motivation of team competition did produce significantly greater improvement than no competition (.05 level) between test 2 and test 3 (see Table A). Although these findings show that team competition produced greater improvement than individual competition the difference between these two improvements did not reach significance at the .05 level (see Table A). 50 TABLE 3.--Analysis of covariance of Test2 and Test 3 means of Phase II. Two experimental and one control group are inter-compared with Test 3 means adjusted for differences in Test 2. Indiv. Group Signif. of Means Compet. Compet. Control F Diff. Test 2 273.1 298.1 280.A6 .60 N.S. Test 3 298.3 299.8 293.6 A.A2 >.05 (adjusted) TABLE A.—-Scheffé analysis to locate significant differences found in Test 3 of Table 3. Y Test 3 _ Variable N adjusted Diff. S.E. Diff. t value Individual competition 31 298.3 Control 30 293.6 A.7 2.A8 1°89 Team competition 28 299.8 * Control 30 293.6 6“2 2°48 2°5 Individual competition 31 298.3 Team 1.5 2.A8 .60 competition 28 299.8 *Significant at .05 level (t 1.99). 51 Discussion of Phase II Findings in Phase II show that the motivation of individual competition produced no greater improvement in performance nithe athletic achievement test than the absence of planned competition in the control group. The motivation of team competition, on the other hand, did show greater improvement than was found in the control group. This suggests the superiority of the team moti- vated competition over the individual motivated compe- tition in improving performance when three weeks of practice are allowed. The fact that the difference between the adjusted test 3 scores of these two groups is not significant does not appear to invalidate this deduc- tion. The further improvement between test 2 and test 3 in the team motivated group is even more significant in light of the fact that great gains were made between test 1 and test 2. Empirical observation of Phase II indicates that both individual and team competition induced the groups to make use of their twenty-minute practice period each day for three weeks. There is no way of knowing which group practiced hardest, however, more subjects practiced in the group class than in the individual class. In the group class, approximately twenty-two boys consistently practiced daily while approximately fifteen practiced in the individual class. Team leaders tended to appear in 52 the group class who encouraged and organized their team mates into group practice sessions. The group process really became apparent during test three. Team members worked out with each other possible ways of bettering their scores on each event and vigorously encouraged each other while being tested. Team members encouraged those who had not done well in the second test to try as hard as possible. The students in the individual class did not encourage each other at all. Motivation was high on the part of indi- viduals taking the test but the added factor of peer encouragement was not present. A further difference between the individual and team competition groups was that in the former subjects who per- formed poorly on one of the first items in the test tended to "give up" since they felt that they had little oppor- tunity to win an award. Subjects in the team situation who did not do well on the first items were pressured by their team mates to try their hardest on all subsequent test items. These results are evidenced by the fact that 9 out of 30 of the subjects in the individual competition group received lower scores on test 3 than on test 2 (average drop of 19.3 points) wile only A out of 30 subjects in the team competition group received lower scores on test 3 than on test 2 (average drop of 13 points). 53 General Discussion The outcome of both Phase I and Phase II of this experiment would perhaps have been greatly affected if the teams in the team competition group had not been arbi- trarily selected but formed on the basis of student choice. The teams were absolutely arbitrary and were in this sense, socially "artificial" and therefore did not possess the social nearness or friendliness that more natural less "artificial" groups would possess. The writer feels that the social nearness or friendliness inherent in natural groups would likely result in greater team cohesiveness and team spirit which would affect results in favor of a team competition situation. In light of these facts perhaps it would have been more desirable to use a socio- gram technique to construct teams rather than a purely arbitrary selection of teams. The results of this study would appear to have impli— cations for teachers of physical education and coaches of athletics, since both groups readily agree that in many situations it is necessary to rely on extrinsic motivation to increase interest and improve performance on certain physical activities. The findings of this study suggest that introducing competitive situations (individual or group) in physical education classes of junior high school boys will increase interest and performance in physical activity. Empirical 5A observation of boys in both situations reveals that team competition contains certain inherent educationally favorable elements other than motivational elements. The power of peers rewarding and punishing each other is brought to bear on team members in the team situation and pressure is great to try hard for the benefit of the team. Individual competition, on the other hand, lacked this powerful factor of peer pressure. Psychologists have long heralded the value of group dynamics or group interaction in aiding social-psychological develOpment of individuals. If one accepts this statement as true it would appear advantageous to employ team compe- tition in situations where its motivational values are equal to or better than those of individual competition. CHAPTER V SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of team competition and individual competition for awards on the outcome in a Y.M.C.A. Athletic Achievement Test for junior high school boys. Eighty—nine male subjects in three physical education classes were used as subjects. There were two eighth grade classes and one ninth grade class. The classes were randomly assigned to treatment groups. Each of the three classes was tested with no motiva- tional factors. Each subject's score was converted to a standard score using Neilson's and Cozen's classification system and standard scores. The classification system and the standard scores for each test item developed by Neilson and Cozens is carefully outlined in the Y.M.C.A. Athletic Achievement Program Manual (1A)° One week later, the three classes were tested again. One class, Group A, competed individually for trophies; a second class, Group B, was divided into teams and the winning team received trophies and the third class, Group C, repeated the test under the same conditions as the original test. Each subject's score was converted to a standard score so that each 55 56 score represented a value out of a possible 500 or a possible 100 on each of the 5 test items. This part of the experiment was referred to as Phase I. The statistical technique used to analyze the scores of Phase I was analysis of co-variance of individual compe- tition, team competition and control groups scores on tests 1 and 2 and a Scheffé analysis of adjusted test 2 means. The results of this analysis revealed the following findings: (1) the individual competition group and the team competition group improved their scores significantly more than the control group at the .01 level of signifi- cance; (2) no significant difference was found between the two motivational variables of individual and team competition. This result was accepted at the 90% level of confidence. These results strongly indicate that both individual and team competition are significantly more effective than no competition in motivating junior high school boys to improve their performance on an atheltic achievement test. The results also indicate that the motivation of team competition is not superior to the movitation of individual competition in a similar situation. Following test two which completed Phase I, all three groups were informed that they would be retested in three weeks and were encouraged to practice. The same experimental treatments were used on the same classes as were used in H V r-‘W- 57 Phase I. The new reward for which the experimental classes were competing was an athletic achievement crest in school colors with the name of the school included on it. After the three week practice period all classes were tested exactly as was done in test two. Analysis of co-variance of individual competition, team competition and control groups on tests 2 and 3 and a Scheffé analysis of adjusted test 3 means were used to analyze Phase II. The following results were discovered: 1. Individual competition did not show signifi- cantly greater improvement than the control group. This result was accepted at the 90% level of confidence. 2. Team competition showed significantly greater improvement than the control group at the .05 level of significance. 3. As in Phase II, no significant difference was discovered between the motivational variables, individual and team competition. This result was accepted at the 90% level of significance. These results indicate that in a situation where junior high school boys are tested on an athletic achieve- ment test after three weeks of practice, team competition for awards is a significantly greater motivator than no planned competition (.05 level). No such improvement was found when motivation was purely by individual competition. 58 This leads the writer to believe that team motivated compe- tition was superior to individual motivated competition in the junior high school boys here observed. BIBLIOGRAPHY 59 UTU'I 10. ll. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, F. H. "The Influence of the Group Upon Association of Thought," Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 3: 159-182, 1920. Allport, S. W. Personality: A Psychological Inter— pretation. New York: Holt, 1937. Bowen, James. Soviet Education. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1962. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Soviet Methods of Character Education: Some Implications for Research," American Psychologist, Vol. 17: 550-56A, August, 1962. Brown, Judson S. The Motivation of Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961. Clawson, Alice L. "The Effects of Three Types of Competitive Motivating Conditions upon the Scores of Archery Students," Completed Research in Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Vol. 8, 1966. Coleman, James S. "Academic Achievement and the Structure of Competition," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 29: 330—351, 1959. Cozens, F. W. and Neilson, N. P. Physical Education Achievement Scales for Boys in Secondary Schools. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1936. Deutsch, M. "A Theory of Co-operation and Competition," Human Relations, Vol. 2: 129-152, April, l9A9. Deutsch, M. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Co-operation and Competition upon Group Process," Human Relations, Vol. 2: 199-232, l9A9. Dudley, Hazel. A Comparison of Two Methods of Motivation on the Learning of Motor Skills. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of- Iowa, 1966. 6O l2. 13. 1A. 15° l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 61 Forlono, G. "An Experiment in Co-operation," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 25: 128- 131, 1932. French, Elizabeth S. "Some Characteristics of Achievement," Journal of Experimental Psychology, V010 50: 332-336, 19550 Friermood, Harold T., Ed. Athletic Achievement Program for Boys and Girls. New York: Association Press, 1960. Gates, Georgina S. "Effect of an Audience upon Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 18: 33A-3AA, 192A. Gates, Georgina S. and Rissland, Louise Q. "The Effects of Encouragement and Discouragement upon Performance," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 1A: 21-26, January, 1923. Gerdes, Glenn R. "The Effects of Various Moti— vational Techniques upon Performance in Selected Physical Tests," Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: University of Indiana, 1958. Hammond, L. H. and Goldman, M. "Competition and Non-Competition and its Relationship to Individual and Group Productivity," Sociometry, Vol. 2A: A6-60, March, 1961. Hansen, Gary F. "Effect of Selective Motive- Incentive Conditions upon Development of Strength Through an Isometric Training Program," Research Quarterly, Vol. 38: 585-591, 1967. Hesse, Barbara. "A Study of the Effects of Self- Competition and Team Competition upon the Motor Performance of Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Grade Girls," Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1955. Hull, C. L. A Behavior System: An Introduction to Behavior Theory Concerning the Individual Organism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. Hurloch, Elizabeth B. "The Psychology of Incentives," Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 2: 261-290, 19310 23. 2A. 62 Hurloch, Elizabeth B. "The Value of Praise and Reproof as Incentives for Children," Archives of Psychology, Vol. 2: 71-78, 192A. Ikai, Michio and Steinhaus, Arthur H. "Some Factors Modifying the Expression of Human Strength," Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 16, January, 1961. 25. Johnson, Walter F., Stefflre, Buford and Edelfelt, 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. Roy A. Pupil Personnel and Guidance Services. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co. Inc., 1961. Jones, S. C. "Effects of Co—operation and Compe— tition." Unpublished Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1961. Julian, J. W. and Perry, F. "Co-Operation Contrasted with Intra-Group and Inter-Group Competition," Sociometry, Vol. 30, March, 1967. Kelly, E. C. Education for What is Real. New York: Harper and Bros., 19A7. Kitson, H. D. "A Study of the Output of Workers under a Particular Wage-Incentive," University Journal of Business, Vol. 1: 5A-68, 1922. Knapp, C. and Hayman, P. Teaching Methods for Physical Education. New York: McGraw and Hill Book Co., Inc., 1053. Lazarus, Richard S., Deese, James and Osler, S. F. "The Effects of Psychological Stress upon Performance," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. A9: 293-317, July, 1952. Maller, J. B. "Co-operation and Competition-- An Experimental Study in Motivation." New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929. Martin, Margery M. "A Study to Determine the Effects of Motivational Techniques on Performance of the Jump and Reach Test of College Women." Unpub- lizhed Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 19 l. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper, 195A. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. A0. A1. A2. A3. 144. A5. A6. 63 Miller, Keith and Hamblin, R. L. "Interdependence Differential Rewarding and Productivity," American Sociological Review, Vol. 28: 768-778, 1963. Missiuro, H. D. "Emotions and Human Performance," Health and Fitness in a Modern World. Chicago: Athletic Institute (p. 199L206), 1961. McClelland, David C. A Study in Motivation. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 1955. McGeoch, S. A. and Irion, A. F. The Psychology of Human Learning. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1952. Nelson, Jack K. An Analysis of the Effects of Applying Various Motivational Situations to College Men Subjected to a Stressful Physical Performance. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,FUni- versity of Oregon, 1952. Nelson, Jack K. and Johnson, Barry. "Effect of Different Motivational Techniques During Training and in Testing upon Strength Performance," Research Quarterly, Vol. 38: 630-636, 1967. Phillips, B. N. and De. Vault, M. V. "Evaluation of Research on Co-operation and Competition," Psychological Reports, Vol. 3: 289-292, June, 1957. Rosen, B. C. "Family Structure and Achievement Motivation," American Sociological Review, Vol. 326: 57A-585, 1961 Ryan, Dean E. "Effect of Differential Motive- Incentive Conditions on Physical Performance," Research Quarterly, Vol. 32: 83-87, 1961. Sargent, D. A. "Competition and Culture," American Physical Education Review, Vol. 15: 579-585, 1910. Shaw, M. E. "Some Motivational Factors in Co- operation and Competition," Journal of Person- ality, Vol. 26: 155-169, 1958. Sims, Verner M. "The Relative Importance of Two Types of Motivation on Improvement," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 19: A80-A8A, 1928. A7. A8. A9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 5A. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 6A Smith, C. H. "The Influence of Athletic Success and Failure on Level of Aspiration," Research Quarterly, Vol. 20: 196-208, May, l9A9. Steinhaus, Arthur H. "A Biologist Looks at Group Work Theory," George Williams Bulletin, Vol. AA, October, l9A9. Strong, Clinton H. "Motivation Related to Perfor- mance of Physical Fitness Tests," Research Quarterly, Vol. 3A, December, 1963. Terrell, Jr., Glenn. "The Role of Incentive in Discrimination Learning in Children," Child Development, Vol. 29: 231-236, 1958. Thorndike, Edward L. The Fundamentals of Learning." New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932. Triplett, N. B. "The Dynamogenic Factors in Pace- making and Competition," American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9: 507-533, 1897. Tuttle, Harold, "Motives Can Be Created," The Educational Digest, Vol. 1y, 1961 Ulrich, Celeste and Burke, R. R. "Effect of Moti- vational Stress upon Physical Performance," Research Quarterly, Vol. 28: A03-Al2, 1957. Vaughn, James and Diserens, Charles M. "The Experi- mental Psychology of Competition," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 7: 76-97, 1938-1939. Warters, Jane. Group Guidance, Principles and Practices. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960. Wegner, N. and Zeaman, D. "Team and Individual Performances on a Motor Learning Task," Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 55: l27-1A1, 1956. Whittemore, Irving G. "The Influence of Competition on Performance," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 19: 236-25A, 192A° Wilkinson, Robert E. Effect of Motivational Conditions upon Performance of Boys of Different Age Levels. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Spring- field College, 1965° APPENDICES 65 APPENDIX A Athletic Achievement Standard Scores for Group A (Individual Competition) Tests 1, 2, 3 Subject Classification Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 1 F 258 313 313 2 E 338 3AA 365 3 D 116 170 159 A D 2AA 236 259 5 E 229 218 26A 6 D 23A 30A 300 7 C 366 A17 A30 8 D 350 361 396 9 C 306 277 355 10 D 355 390 A20 11 E 293 358 391 12 D 198 237 2A8 13 D 355 361 389 1A C 1AA 180 205 15 B 320 325 337 16 D 212 269 258 17 E 355 387 407 18 A 27 8O 52 19 E 2A2 32A 359 20 C A7 109 108 21 C 271 316 355 22 C 13A 1A9 152 23 A 2A2 271 268 2A D 93 115 96 25 D 307 A21 388 26 E 310 251 23A 27 D 302 319 33A 28 D 219 26A 277 29 F 118 1A0 176 30 C 98 15A 166 31 E 277 306 3A0 Mean 237.A 273.1 287.52 66 APPENDIX B Athletic Achievement Standard Scores for Group B (Individual Competition) Tests 1, 2 and 3 Subject Classification Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 l C 271 309 300 2 D 315 297 3A2 3 C 372 A26 A39 A A 233 3A8 355 5 A 123 1A2 193 6 B 306 3A3 3A6 7 B 235 255 311 8 B 373 AlA A22 9 D 32A 353 358 10 B 35A All All 11 A 3A0 36A 367 12 C 177 353 267 13 B 265 308 318 1A A 192 338 235 15 A 297 328 310 16 B 227 231 277 17 B 287 313 330 18 B 216 287 275 19 C 255 285 302 20 B 171 2A0 266 21 C 351 339 385 22 A 207 259 263 23 A 167 199 186 2“ D 338 336 338 25 C 359 377 A03 26 B 232 265 3A3 27 B 208 25A 29A 28 A 16A 19A 198 Mean '263TT “29871 “31575 67 APPENDIX C Athletic Achievement Standard Scores for Group C (Control Group) Tests 1, 2, and 3 Subject Classification Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 1 F 356 A02 A05 2 E 3A7 327 362 3 C 22A 231 2A3 A B 183 116 139 5 A 81 7A 81 6 C 272 28A 306 7 E 27A 302 300 8 D 321 310 351 9 D 155 16A 186 10 C All 387 A25 11 A 126 126 98 12 C 278 292 336 13 D 359 380 38A 1A D 392 397 A12 15 D A01 A25 A18 16 D 271 267 285 17 C 223 278 305 18 C 2A5 226 238 19 B 175 195 198 20 B 317 325 322 21 C 3A3 3A5 3A1 22 D 279 299 296 23 D A16 AA2 A51 2A A 261 171 233 25 C 230 189 226 26 C 336 333 307 27 D 272 30A 313 28 C 307 325 261 29 A 230 1AA 139 30 E 359 350 3A6 Mean 281.A6 280.A6 290.33 68 Wgstructiona! Res UH CEK‘AL‘GF ‘ 133 flékfipn 1987 Instructional Resources Genie r 183 Erickson Donald H. Bauld 1953 Degree of M.A. OVER NIGHT BOOK 1 This book must be returned before the first class on the following school day. DEMCO NO . .0. "IAllllllll1110111111111“