Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gocłowska, Małgorzata A.; Aldhobaiban, Nawal; Elliot, Andrew, J.; Murayama, Kou; Kobeisy, Ahmed; Abdelaziz, Ashraf (2017)
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
People vary in the extent to which they prefer cooperative, competitive or individualistic achievement tasks. In the present research, we conducted two studies designed to investigate correlates and possible roots of these social interdependence orientations, namely approach and avoidance temperament, general self-efficacy, implicit theories of intelligence, and contingencies of self-worth based in others’ approval, competition, and academic competence. The results indicated that approach temperament, general self-efficacy, and incremental theory were positively, and entity theory was negatively related to cooperative preferences (|r| range from .11 to .41); approach temperament, general self-efficacy, competition contingencies, and academic competence contingencies were positively related to competitive preferences (|r| range from .16 to .46); and avoidance temperament, entity theory, competitive contingencies, and academic competence contingencies were positively related, and incremental theory was negatively related to individualistic preferences (|r| range from .09 to .15). The findings are discussed with regard to the meaning of each of the three social interdependence orientations, cultural differences among the observed relations, and implications for practicioners.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Amodio, D. M., Master, S. L., Yee, C. M., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Neurocognitive components of the behavioral inhibition and activation systems: Implications for theories of self-regulation. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 11-19. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 8986.2007.00609.x Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 208-212. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00202 Caprara, G. V, & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 191-217. doi:10.1521/jscp. Carver, C.S. & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Activation, and Affective Responses to Impending Reward and Punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales.
    • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (2,: 319-333. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.67.2.319.
    • Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004 Choi, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2011a). Relationships among cooperative learning experiences, social interdependence, children's aggression, victimization, and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 976-1003.
    • doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00744.x Choi, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2011b). The roots of social dominance: Aggression, prosocial behavior, and social interdependence. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 442-454. doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.514689 Cloninger, C., Przybeck, T., Syrakic, D., & Wetzel, R. (1993). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis, MO: Washingon University.
    • Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 894-908. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894 Depue, R. A. & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-569. doi:10.1017/s0140525x99002046 Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of co-operation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2(3), 199-231. doi:10.1177/001872674900200301 Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development (p. 178). Philadephia, PA: Psychology Press.
    • Elliot, A. J., Aldhobaiban, N., Murayama, K., Kobeisy, A., Gocłowska, M. A., & Khyat, A. (2014). Impression management and achievement motivation: Investigating substantive links. Manuscript submitted for publication.
    • Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2014). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12(6), 505- 510.
    • Elliot, A., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78(3).
    • Fletcher, T. D., & Nusbaum, D. N. (2008). Trait competitiveness as a composite variable: Linkages with facets of the big-five. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(4), 312- 317. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.020 Hoftstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2014). Culture CompassTM Database. Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358.
    • doi:10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358 Johnson, D. W., & Norem-Hebeisen, A. A. (1979). A measure of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, (109), 253- 261.
    • Kammrath, L. K., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Voicing conflict: preferred conflict strategies among incremental and entity theorists. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1497-508. doi:10.1177/0146167206291476 King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2012). Competitiveness is not that bad…at least in the East: Testing the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in the Asian setting. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 446-457.
    • doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.10.003 Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Sun, H. (2006). Competitive motives and strategies: Understanding constructive competition. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(2), 87-99. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.10.2.87 Tjosvold, D., XueHuang, Y., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social interdependence and orientation toward life and work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 409-435. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00311.x Yeatts, P. E., & Lochbaum, M. R. (2013). Coping in sport: A test of Elliot's Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. Kinesiology, 45, 186-193.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • EC | CREA.TA

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok