This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Seta, J. J. Articles by Donaldson, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Seta, J. J. Articles by Donaldson, S. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Impact of Comparison Processes on Coactors' Frustration and Willingness to Expend Effort

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Catherine E. Seta

Wake Forest University

Sandra Donaldson

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Subjects worked on an identical simple motor task that was described as being either rhigh or low in value. They worked alone or with a coactor whose performance rate was slightly superior or very superior to their own. When they performed with a very superior coactor on a high-value task, subjects were more frustrated and produced an inferior level of performance relative to those working with the same coactor on a low-value task. When subjects performed alone, however, they were not more frustrated while working on a high-than low-value task. Nevertheless, their performance scores reflected differences in motivation-subjects working on a high-value task tended to perform better than those working on a low-value task. These data are discussed within a social comparison framework and a resource investment analysis of goal value. The implications of this analysis for self-evaluation maintenance and modeling are discussed.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. van Dijke and M. Poppe Motivations Underlying Power Dynamics in Hierarchically Structured Groups Small Group Research, December 1, 2007; 38(6): 643 - 669. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. L. Kerr, L. A. Messe, D.-H. Seok, E. J. Sambolec, R. B. Lount Jr, and E. S. Park Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Kohler Motivation Gain Pers Soc Psychol Bull, June 1, 2007; 33(6): 828 - 841. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. G. Isaksen and J. P. Gaulin A Reexamination of Brainstorming Research: Implications for Research and Practice Gifted Child Quarterly, October 1, 2005; 49(4): 315 - 329. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Munkes and M. Diehl Matching or Competition? Performance Comparison Processes in an Idea Generation Task Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2003; 6(3): 305 - 320. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Barki and A. Pinsonneault Small Group Brainstorming and Idea Quality: Is Electronic Brainstorming the Most Effective Approach? Small Group Research, April 1, 2001; 32(2): 158 - 205. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. Brown and P. B. Paulus A Simple Dynamic Model of Social Factors in Group Brainstorming Small Group Research, February 1, 1996; 27(1): 91 - 114. [Abstract]

				P. B. Pauhus, M. T. Dzindolet, G. Poletes, and L. M. Camacho Perception of Performance in Group Brainstorming: The Illusion of Group Productivity Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 1993; 19(1): 78 - 89. [Abstract]