Ryckman, 1990.pdf

(596 KB) Pobierz
JOLIRNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(3&4), 630-639
Copyright © 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Construction of a Hypercompetitive
Attitude Scale
Richard M. Ryckman, Max Hammer,
Linda M. Kaczor, and Joel A. Gold
University of Maine
Theory testing in the area of hypercompetitiveness has been impeded by the lack
of an adequate psychometric instrument. Four studies were conducted as part of
an initial research program designed to remedy this deficiency by constructing an
individual difference measure of general hypercompetitive attitude with satisfac-
tory psychometric properties. In Studies 1 and 2, a 26-item scale was derived
primarily through item-total correlational analysis; it demonstrated adequate
internal and test-retest reliabilities. The remaining two studies were concerned
with determining the construct validity of the scale. In line with theoretical
expectations based on Horney's theory of neurosis, subjects who perceived them-
selves as hypercompetitive were less psychologically healthy. The potential useful-
ness ofthe scale in therapeutic, athletic, school, and business settings is discussed.
According to the neoanalyst Karen Horney (1937, chapter 10),
hyper-
competitiveness
refers to an indiscriminate need by individuals to compete and
win (and to avoid losing) at any cost as a means of maintaining or enhancing
feelings of self-worth, with an attendant orientation of manipulation, aggressive-
ness, exploitation, and denigration of others across a myriad of situations. She
believed that such an exaggerated competitive attitude was a central feature of
American culture and had a detrimental impact on the individual's develop-
ment and functioning. In discussing the strong link between neurosis and
competition, she (Horney, 1937) noted that:
[O]ur modern culture is based on the principle of individual competition, [and] the
. . . individual has to fight with other individuals ofthe same group, has to surpass
them and, frequently, [to] thrust them aside. The advantage of the one is
frequently the disadvantage ofthe other. The psychic result... is a diffuse hostile
tension between individuals. [This] competitiveness, and the . . . hostility that
accompanies it, pervades all human relationships. Competitive stimuli are active
RYCKMAN, HAMMER, KACZOR, GOLD
631
from the cradle to the grave . . . [and present] a fertile ground for the development
of neurosis, (pp. 284-287)
Although Horney's words were written in the 1930s, prominent contemporary
writers on the topic are convinced that hypercompetitiveness continues to be an
integral feature of American life and an important mental health problem
(Aronson, 1980; Kohn, 1986). As Kohn (1986) put it:
No one in a culture as competitive as ours is unfamiliar with the experience of
being flooded with shame and self-doubt upon losing some sort of contest. And
when we add the phenomenon of anticipating loss to the occasions of actually
losing, it becomes clear that tbe potential for humiliation, for being exposed as
inadequate, is present in every competitive encounter. . . . Tbe more importance
tbat is placed on winning—in tbe society, in tbe particular situation, or by tbe
individual—tbe more destructive losing will be. (p. 109)
Research indirectly buttresses these views (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,
1983; D. W. Johnson, Maruyama, R. Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Slavin,
1980). D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson (1987), for example, conducted a
meta-analysis of 133 research studies of adults comparing the effectiveness of
competitive versus cooperative efforts on individuals' self-esteem and interper-
sonal relationships and found that, in comparison to subjects performing under
cooperative conditions, competitive subjects had poorer self-concepts and more
negative interpersonal relationships. We assume that the competitive conditions
in at least some of these studies engendered hypercompetitive feelings and acts
toward opponents.
Despite these findings, progress in understanding the origins and conse-
quences of hypercompetitiveness, as well as its reduction/elimination, has been
impeded by a lack of adequate assessment instruments. Lakie (1964), for
example, constructed a scale based on the "win-at-any-cost" philosophy of
athletics, but its psychometric properties were found to be inadequate. As Shaw
and Wright (1967), in their review of the psychometric merit of the scale, stated:
"[Its] reliability is . . . probably unsatisfactory for the study of individual
attitudes. More evidence of validity is [also] badly needed" (p. 951).
The only other scale that attempted to assess hypercompetitiveness is Martin
and Larsen's (1976) Competitive-Cooperative Attitude Scale. This scale is more
directly pertinent to the current psychometric effort than Lakie's scale because it
attempts to measure general hypercompetitiveness. Unfortunately, although its
internal consistency is satisfactory, no test-retest reliability data are available
and only minimal information about its construct validity was reported. Thus,
given the importance of hypercompetitiveness as a societal problem and the fact
that a reliable and valid measure tbat assesses a general hypercompetitive
attitude is unavailable, we decided to conduct a preliminary program of research
to remedy the situation.
632
HYPERCOMPETITIVE ATTITUDE SCALE
STUDY 1
Method
Subjects and procedure.
We generated an initial pool of 90 items based
largely on Horney's (1937) definition of hypercompetitiveness. This pool was
narrowed to 65 items by eliminating those with ambiguous, overly difficult, or
redundant wording. Each of the 65 5-point items had the following response
alternatives:
never true of me
(1),
seldom true of me
(2),
sometimes true of me
(3),
often
true of me
(4), and
always true of me
(5). In order to control for acquiescence
response set, half of the items were stated so the Response 5 indicated a strong
hypercompetitive attitude, whereas the remaining half were stated so that the
Response 5 indicated a weak hypercompetitive attitude. All items were scored in
the direction of hypercompetitiveness, with higher scores indicating stronger
hypercompetitive attitudes.
This item pool was then administered to 320 undergraduate students (138
males and 182 females) enrolled in introductory psychology classes at the
University of Maine, along with the abbreviated version of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964;
Reynolds, 1982). The mean age of subjects was 18.10, with a range from 17 to 38
years
{SD
= 2.29). They participated on a voluntary basis in order to earn extra
academic credit in their introductory psychology class.
Results
Item selection and internal consistency reliability.
Correlations between
social desirability total scores and individual items were computed. Items were
eliminated if they correlated highly with social desirability (r > .30) and if they
showed restriction of response range; 27 items remained.
The internal consistency of the Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale (HCA) was
computed on the 27 items via coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Because the
corrected item-total correlation of one item was low (r = .26), it was eliminated.
The final 26-item scale had an alpha of .91, which reflects strong internal
consistency. Item-total correlations ranged from .35 to .70, with an average r of
.49. (See Table 1 for a listing of the items.)
STUDY 2
Method
Subjects and procedure.
The next step was to assess the long-range stability
of the 26-item scale. Thus, the 26-item HCA scale was administered to 104
RYCBCMAN, HAMMER, KACZOR, GOLD
TABLE 1
Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale Items
1.
2.
(R)3.
4.
(R)5.
(R)6.
7.
8.
9.
(R)10.
11.
12.
(R)13.
14.
(R)i5.
(R)16.
17.
(R)18.
(R)19.
(R)20.
21.
22.
23.
(R)24.
(R)25.
(R)26.
633
Winning in competition makes me feel more powerful as a person.
1 find myself being competitive even in situations which do not call for competition.
I do not see my opponents in competition as my enemies.
I compete with others even if they are not competing with me.
Success in athletic competition does not make me feel superior to others.
Winning in competition does not give me a greater sense of worth.
When my competitors receive rewards for their accomplishments, I feel envy.
I find myself turning a friendly game or activity into a serious contest or conflict.
It's a dog-eat-dog world. If you don't get the better of others, they will surely get the better
of you.
I do not mind giving credit to someone for doing something that I could have done just as
well or better.
If I can disturb my opponent in some way in order to get the edge in competition, I will
do so.
I really feel down when I lose in athletic competition.
Gaining praise from others is not an important reason why I enter competitive situations.
I like the challenge of getting someone to like me who is already going with someone else.
I do not view my relationships in competitive terms.
It does not bother me to be passed by someone while I am driving on the roads.
I can't stand to lose an argument.
In school, I do not feel superior whenever I do better on tests than other students.
I feel no need to get even with a person who criticizes or makes me look bad in front of
others.
Losing in competition has little effect on me.
Failure or loss in competition makes me feel less worthy as a person.
People who quit during competition are weak.
Competition inspires me to excel.
I do not try to win arguments with members of my family.
I believe that you can be a nice guy and still win or be successful in competition.
I do not find it difficult to be fully satisfied with my performance in a competitive
situation.
Note. (R) = item score reversed.
undergraduate students (53 males and 51 females) enrolled in introductory
psychology courses. They volunteered to participate in order to earn extra
academic credit. These same subjects were retested with the HCA scale 6 weeks
later.
Results
The test-retest reliability for the 101 subjects who completed the scale twice was
satisfactory, r(99) = .81,
p <
.001. The means and standard deviations for the
first and second administrations were M = 72.07 (SD = 14.12) and M = 71.87
{SD =
12.18), respectively.
634
HYPERCOMPETITIVE ATTITUDE SCALE
STUDY 3
lUethod
Subjects and procedure.
In order to establish the validity of the scale, two
separate samples of male and female subjects were drawn from different Univer-
sity of Maine undergraduate psychology classes and were asked to complete the
HCA scale, along with a battery of personality tests.
The first sample (n = 70) completed the Win-at-any-Cost Sports Competition
Scale (Lakie, 1964), the Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), and the
Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1975). The Win-at-any-Cost Sports Competition Scale is a 22-item
scale that includes such items as "College C lowered the admission requirements
for men awarded athletic scholarships" and "Player A during a golf match made
noises and movements when Player B was getting ready to make a shot."
Subjects responded to these items on a 5-point scale anchored as follows:
strongly
disapprove
(1),
disapprove
(2),
undecided
(3),
approve
(4), and
strongly approve
(5).
Higher scores reflect a greater "win-at-any-cost" attitude. The Self-Esteem Scale
is a 10-item instrument that assesses differences in subjects' self-esteem levels.
Sample items include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself and "I feel that
I have a number of good qualities." Items have 4-point response alternatives
anchored as follows:
strongly disagree
(1),
disagree
(2),
agree
(3), and
strongly agree
(4). All items were scored in the direction of higher self-esteem, with higher
scores reflecting higher self-esteem. The Neuroticism scale contains items such
as: "Does your mood often go up and down?", "Do you often feel fed up?", and
"Are you an irritable person?" "Yes" responses to these items reflect neurotic
tendencies.
The second sample (n = 49) completed the Competitive-Cooperative Atti-
tude Scale (Martin & Larsen, 1976), the Neuroticism Scale (Eysenck &. Eysenck,
1975), and the abbreviated version ofthe Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (Crowne &. Marlowe, 1964; Reynolds, 1982). The Competitive-
Cooperative Attitude Scale is a 28-item instrument with a 5-point response
format:
strongly disagree
(1),
slightly disagree
(2),
neither agree nor disagree
(3),
slightly agree
(4), and
strongly agree
(5). It contains items such as: "The more I win,
the more powerful I feel" and "Your loss is my gain." Higher scores reflect
stronger hypercompetitiveness. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
is a 13-item true-false measure of subjects' tendencies to seek social approval by
endorsing items that are socially desirable. Sample items are: "I am always
courteous, even to people who are disagreeable" and "no matter who I'm talking
to, I'm always a good listener." Scores can range firom 0 to 13, with higher scores
indicating a higher need for social approval.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin