Team Sports Off the Field: Competing Excludes Cooperating for Individual but Not for Team Athletes.

Both team and individual sports require competition, whereas cooperation is more prevalent in team than in individual sports. In particular, team athletes have to compete (for starting roles) while cooperating (for team success) with the same teammates. For team athletes, competition and cooperative behavior, two mutually exclusive constructs according to earlier psychological research, might therefore be less incompatible than for individual athletes. In Study 1, team athletes attributed a higher demand to compete and cooperate with the same teammates or training partners to their sport than individual athletes to their sport. Study 2 showed that experiencing competition (vs. control) undermines information sharing less for team than for individual athletes. In addition, Study 2 demonstrated that priming competition undermines the accessibility of cooperative thoughts less for team than for individual athletes. Therefore, team athletes might be better at competing without ceasing to cooperate. Implications for collaboration in groups are discussed.

When those who know do share: Group goals facilitate information sharing, but social power does not undermine it.

Good team decisions require that team members share information with each other. Yet, members often tend to selfishly withhold important information. Does this tendency depend on their power within the team? Power-holders frequently act more selfishly (than the powerless)-accordingly, they might be tempted to withhold information. We predicted that given a task goal to 'solve a task', power-holders would selfishly share less information than the powerless. However, a group goal to 'solve the task together' would compensate for this selfishness, heightening particularly power-holders' information sharing. In parallel, an individual goal to 'solve the task alone' may heighten selfishness and lower information sharing (even) among the powerless. We report five experiments (N = 1305), comprising all studies conducted in their original order. Analyses yielded weak to no evidence for these predictions; the findings rather supported the beneficial role of a group goal to ensure information sharing for both the powerful and the powerless.

What if my colleague was wrong and I was right? The impact of counterfactual mindsets and interpersonal focus on written communication and decision making in a hidden profile task.

Past research on counterfactual mindsets (CFMs) has mainly focused on how those influence dealing with own information, without addressing the potential impact of CFMs on responses to others' information. Thus, this study examined how CFMs combined with an interpersonal focus influence responses to others' statements in a decision making context. Results reveal that a CFM combined with an interpersonal focus leads to more biased communication in response to others' information, thereby reinforcing own preferences. No such effect was observed in an intrapersonal focus or a control condition. A congruency between induction and application context thus seems to make the application of CFMs more likely. We discuss our findings in relation to previous work on counterfactual thinking and the mindset literature in general.

Competing while cooperating with the same others: The consequences of conflicting demands in co-opetition.

Numerous studies comparing the effects of competition and cooperation demonstrated that competition is detrimental on the social level. However, instead of purely competing, many social contexts require competing while cooperating with the same social target. The current work examined the consequences of such "co-opetition" situations between individuals. Because having to compete and to cooperate with the same social target constitutes conflicting demands, co-opetition should lead to more flexibility, such as (a) less rigid transfer effects of competitive behavior and (b) less rigidity/more flexibility in general. Supporting these predictions, Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that co-opetition did not elicit competitive behavior in a subsequent task (here: enhanced deceiving of uninvolved others). Study 2 showed that adding conflicting demands (independent of social interdependence) to competition likewise elicits less competitive transfer than competition without such conflicting demands. Beyond that, co-opetition reduced rigid response tendencies during a classification task in Studies 3a and 3b and enhanced flexibility during brainstorming in Study 4, compared with other forms of interdependence. Together, these results suggest that co-opetition leads to more flexible behavior when individuals have to reconcile conflicting demands. Implications for research on social priming, interdependence and competition in everyday life are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

The scope and consequences of metaphoric thinking: Using individual differences in metaphor usage to understand how metaphor functions.

People often think, feel, and behave metaphorically according to conceptual metaphor theory. There are normative sources of support for this theory, but individual differences have received scant attention. This is surprising because people are likely to differ in the frequency with which they use metaphors and, therefore, the frequency with which they experience the costs and benefits of metaphoric thinking. To investigate these ideas, a 5-study program of research (total N = 532) was conducted. Study 1 developed and validated a Metaphor Usage Measure (MUM), finding that people were fairly consistent in their tendencies toward literal thought and language on the one hand versus metaphoric thought and language on the other. These differences were, in turn, consequential. Although metaphor usage predicted susceptibility to metaphor transfer effects (Studies 2 and 3), it was also linked to higher levels of emotional understanding (Studies 4 and 5). The findings provide support for several key premises of conceptual metaphor theory in the context of a new measure that can be used to track the consequences of metaphoric thinking. (PsycINFO Database Record