essay on importance of competition

Essays About Competition: Top 6 Examples and 10 Prompts

As you write about competition, discover our examples of essays about competition and writing prompts to unlock your competitive self.

We live in a highly competitive time, and one might easily say that competition makes the world go round. Indeed, doing your best to get ahead of others has perks, such as fame, money, promotion in the workplace, or esteem from your parents if you’re a student.

Beyond these immediate rewards, competition can help develop self-confidence, discipline, and tenacity, which help people survive and thrive. So unleash your competitive side by writing a thrilling essay about competition, and read our examples to inspire you.

IMAGE	PRODUCT
	Grammarly
	ProWritingAid

6 Helpful Essay Examples

1. is lack of competition strangling the u.s. economy by david wessel, 2. why competition is good for kids (and how to keep it that way) by devan mcguinness, 3. how great power competition has changed by shivshankar menon, 4. how life became an endless, terrible competition by daniel markovits, 5. how to create a successful partnership with your competition by norma watenpaugh , 6. the importance of positive coaching in competition by oscar ponteri, 10 exciting writing prompts on essays about competition, 1. how schools can encourage healthy competition, 2. how competition builds self-esteem, 3. importance of competition laws, 4. business competition in the digital age, 5. competition vs. cooperation, 6. dealing with sibling competition, 7. preparing for a competition, 8. competition in mother-daughter relationships, 9. love is not a competition, 10. competition in the animal kingdom.

“If we’re slow to take action to bolster competition — perhaps because incumbents successfully wield their power or because of a distaste for regulation of any sort — we risk diluting the dynamism of the economy and restricting the flow of innovations and new ideas, darkening the prospects for our children and grandchildren.”

The essay looks at the decline of competition in various US industries. In particular, it investigates factors — profits, investment, business dynamism, and prices — that can indicate the robustness of competition in a country. Falling competition is worrisome in economies as it enables incumbent firms to abuse their power and block new entrants, restricting consumers’ options for more affordable and better quality goods and services.

“Besides setting them up for wins and losses later in life—hey, they won’t always land that big promotion—competitive activities help them develop important skills they’ll use well into adulthood, like taking turns, developing empathy, and tenacity.”

Well-meaning parents might disapprove of competition to shield children from getting disheartened at losing. But child development experts say that competition has lifelong benefits for children, reinforcing the value of hard work, thinking positively, and being a good team player. However, parents should be careful in delineating healthy competition from unhealthy ones.

“Competition among great powers has extended to the sea lanes that carry the world’s energy and trade and is visible in the naval buildup by all the major powers that we see today—a buildup over the last ten years which is unmatched in scale in history.”

With the influence among global superpowers now spread more evenly, coupled with the fact that their interventions in conflict areas have only yielded prolonged battles, global superpowers are now more focused on their geopolitical reach. But some factors, such as their dependence on other superpowers for economic growth, also compel them to go beyond their horizons.

“Outrage at nepotism and other disgraceful forms of elite advantage-taking implicitly valorizes meritocratic ideals. Yet meritocracy itself is the bigger problem, and it is crippling the American dream. Meritocracy has created a competition that, even when everyone plays by the rules, only the rich can win.

Instead of intensely engaging in competition, why not just stop competing? This essay laments how meritocracy destroyed people’s relationships at home, all for advancing in the workplace. While throwing competition out of the window seems like an ambitious proposal, the author offers a glint of hope using the case of a policy framework created during the Great Depression.

“In my experience, working with your competition is not an intuitive thing for most people. It takes a strong value proposition to make the risks and effort worthwhile.”

When cooperating with your competition becomes a key to your goals, you resort to a strategy called “co-opetition,” short for cooperative competition. This essay fleshes out the situations where such alliances work and provides tips on making the most out of these relationships while avoiding risks.

“I have learned that competition holds incredible power… It’s all about how you utilize it. How our youth coaches frame competition will dictate the way we compete beyond athletics for our entire life.”

A high-school student shares his profound thoughts on the essence of positive coaching in the life of athletes even beyond the field. His beliefs stem from his experiences with a cold-hearted coach that turned around his love for sports.

Essays About Competition: How schools can encourage healthy competition

To start, cite the numerous benefits of competition in developing well-rounded students. Make sure to back these up with research. Then, write about how you think schools can create an atmosphere conducive to healthy competition. Provide tips, for example, calling on teachers to encourage students to participate and motivate them to do their best instead of keeping their eyes on the trophy. You may also share how your school is promoting healthy competition.

Competition can drive you to improve and build the foundations for your self-esteem. For this essay, research the scientific links between healthy competition and self-confidence. Look also into how competition can promote a mindset that goes for growth and not just the gold medal. Some who lose may see themselves as a failure and give up rather than seeing their loss as an opportunity to learn and do better.

Competition or antitrust laws aim to ensure robust market competition by banning anti-competitive acts and behaviors. First, briefly explain your country’s competition law and enumerate acts that are prohibited under this law. Then, to help readers understand more clearly, cite a recent case, for example, a merger and acquisition, where your antitrust office had to intervene to protect the interest of consumers.

The borderless digital world has made the competition very cutthroat, with the demands for innovation at a neck-breaking pace. But one advantage is how it has somewhat leveled the playing field between big and small businesses. Enumerate the pros and cons of the digital age to business competition and cite what emerging trends businesses should watch out for.

Should we be more competitive or cooperative? Or should we stop pitting one against the other and begin balancing both? Provide a well-researched answer and write an argumentative essay where you take a position and, with research backing, explain why you take this position. To effectively execute this writing style and its techniques, see our ultimate guide on argumentative essays .

Competition among siblings goes as old as the story of Abel and Cain. It can disrupt family peace and become a vicious, toxic cycle that can last into their adult years if unresolved. What are the other negative impacts of sibling competition on the family and the well-being of siblings in the long term? Identify these and research what experts have to say on managing sibling rivalry.

How do you prepare your mind and body for a competition? If you regularly participate in competitions, this is the right topic prompt for you. So, share tips that have worked to your advantage and find science-backed recommendations on how one can be ready on competition day both psychologically and physically. For example, studies have shown that visualizing your performance as a success can increase motivation, confidence, and self-efficacy.

Describe the factors that trigger competition between mothers and daughters. You can cite aspects of the gender theory identity developed by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud . Then, differentiate the nature of the competition and its different stages as the daughter grows. Finally, help mothers navigate this confusing period and deal with strength and enormous understanding.

This quote is best for couples who fight like cats and dogs. For this writing prompt, explain how seeing your partner as a competition can destroy a romantic relationship. Then, offer tips on how your readers can make amends with their partners, reconnect with them and see them as allies. After all, relationships need intensive teamwork.

Write an informational essay about competition in the animal kingdom. For example, you might have to differentiate interspecific competition from the intraspecific competition. You might also have to flesh out the differences between competition and predation. Then cite the factors that trigger competition and its effects on biodiversity.

Before publishing, make sure your essay is error-free by using the best grammar checkers, including the top-rated Grammarly. Find out why Grammarly is highly recommended in this Grammarly review .

Is Competition Good? Understanding Its Impact and Benefits

This article examines whether competition is beneficial, discussing its impact on productivity, innovation, and personal growth.

Key takeaways:

Competition can be direct or indirect in various contexts.
Healthy competition fosters innovation and personal growth.
Competition is driven by evolutionary and psychological factors.
It spurs innovation but can also cause undue stress.
Competing can lead to personal growth and teach valuable skills.

What Is Competition?

Competition occurs when individuals or groups vie for a limited resource, whether it’s a trophy, a title, a position, or recognition. This struggle can unfold in nature, as in species competing for food, or in human environments, such as companies battling for market share. Here are a few key points to consider:

Types of Competition: It can be direct, like two sports teams facing off, or indirect, where businesses compete for consumer attention without direct confrontation.
Scales of Competition: It ranges from personal (competing with a coworker for a promotion) to global (countries vying for technological supremacy).
Healthy vs. Unhealthy Competition: Not all competition encourages positive outcomes. Healthy competition can lead to innovation and improvement, whereas unhealthy competition can cause stress and unethical behavior.

This concept is integral to understanding human behavior and societal development. It drives progress but also challenges our ethics and values.

Why Do We Compete?

Humans are naturally driven to compete for a variety of evolutionary and psychological reasons. Initially, competition was a survival mechanism to secure scarce resources like food and shelter. Today, these primal instincts manifest in more modern settings—sports, academics, and the job market.

Competition also stems from a desire for social standing. Achieving higher status within a group can lead to better opportunities and increased respect among peers. This social comparison often motivates individuals to enhance their performance in various aspects of life.

Moreover, competition serves as a motivational tool. It pushes us to exceed our limits and innovate. By comparing our achievements with others, we identify areas for improvement and personal growth, which can lead to significant advancements in both personal abilities and broader societal progress.

Yet, the drive to compete might also link to personal fulfillment. Many find joy and a sense of accomplishment in the process of striving for excellence, not just the outcome. This intrinsic satisfaction can be a powerful motivator, independent of external rewards.

The Virtues and Downsides of Competition

Competition can spur innovation. Teams or individuals often push their limits when they’re trying to outdo others, leading to fresh ideas and approaches. This dynamic drives progress in technology, business, and science.

On the flip side, it might lead to undue stress. The pressure to be the best or to win can cause significant anxiety and may discourage risk-taking, as the fear of failure becomes overpowering.

In terms of personal growth, competition can be a great motivator. It encourages people to improve their skills and work harder to achieve their personal best. However, this can sometimes foster an unhealthy focus on winning at all costs.

Furthermore, competition can enhance teamwork. In a group setting, competing against another team can strengthen internal bonds and collaboration. Conversely, it can sometimes lead to conflict or an overly competitive environment that disrupts teamwork and communication.

Lastly, competition can teach resilience and adaptability—valuable life skills in both personal and professional settings. But, if not managed well, it may also breed jealousy and a scarcity mindset, where individuals see success as a limited resource only a few can achieve.

How Competition Affects Our Brains

Competition sparks heightened levels of dopamine in our brains, the chemical largely responsible for our sense of pleasure and reward. This release motivates us and increases focus and energy levels, essential during challenging tasks or events.

However, not all effects are positive. Prolonged exposure to stress, often a byproduct of intense competition, might lead to increased cortisol production. Excessive cortisol can impair cognitive functions such as memory and concentration, and if not managed, it may contribute to long-term health issues.

Furthermore, competition encourages brain plasticity. Engaging in competitive activities, particularly from a young age, helps in developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This cerebral flexibility can aid in learning and adapting across various aspects of life.

Understanding how our brains react to competitive situations helps us better manage our responses and leverage the positive aspects while mitigating the negative impacts.

Should I Compete?

Deciding whether to engage in competition depends on personal goals and context. Here are some considerations to keep in mind:

**1. Personal Growth:** If you thrive under pressure and are motivated by challenges, competition could be a catalyst for significant personal development.

**2. Skill Enhancement:** Competitions can push you to refine your skills more rigorously than solitary practice might.

**3. Stress and Pressure:** It’s crucial to assess how competition affects your mental health. For some, it leads to positive stress, or eustress, while for others, it may contribute to unhealthy anxiety.

**4. Nature of the Competition:** Evaluate the environment. Is it supportive and aimed at mutual growth, or cutthroat and win-at-all-costs?

**5. Long-Term Impact:** Consider how the competitive experience will influence your future. Will it open doors, build valuable connections, or enhance your resume?

Reflect on these points to decide if competing aligns with your values and aspirations.

IELTS Model Essays: Competition v Cooperation (IELTS 19)

In this lesson you are going to see 5 different essays written in response to the following task:

Some people think that competition at work, at school and in daily life is a good thing. Others believe that we should try to cooperate more, rather than competing against each other. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Cambridge IELTS 19 Academic Test 1

Each essay responds to the same task in different ways. Each essay is accompanied by an essay plan and vocabulary list.

Here is the 1st essay. This essay discusses both sides of the debate, before arguing that cooperation is more beneficial over the long-term.

Essay 1 Plan

Introduction

Introduce the topic of competition vs. cooperation.
Mention the debate on which is more beneficial.
State the aim of the essay: discuss both views and provide my opinion.

Body Paragraph 1: Competition

Point: Competition drives individuals to excel.
Example: Workplace productivity and innovation.
Example: Academic motivation and critical thinking skills.
Explanation: Competition pushes individuals to acquire new skills and knowledge.

Body Paragraph 2: Cooperation

Point: Cooperation fosters teamwork and collective effort.
Example: Workplace problem-solving and diverse perspectives.
Example: Cooperative learning in schools.
Explanation: Cooperation enhances academic performance and social skills.

Body Paragraph 3: My Opinion

Point: Cooperation is more beneficial in the long run.
Example: Team-oriented workplaces and job satisfaction.
Example: Cooperative learning preparing students for real-world scenarios.
Explanation: Cooperation promotes community and belonging.
Summarize the benefits of both competition and cooperation.
Reiterate the preference for cooperation.
Final thought: Encouraging collaboration over competition leads to sustainable success.

[Introduction]

In today’s competitive world, the debate over whether competition or cooperation is more beneficial in work, school, and daily life is highly relevant. Some argue that competition drives individuals to excel, while others believe that cooperation fosters a more supportive and productive environment. This essay will explore both viewpoints and provide my perspective.

[Body Paragraph 1: Benefits of Competition]

Advocates of competition argue that it pushes individuals to reach their full potential. For instance, in the workplace, competition can lead to higher productivity and innovation as employees strive to outperform their peers. Similarly, in schools, students may be motivated to achieve higher grades and develop critical thinking skills to stay ahead of their classmates. The pressure to succeed can drive individuals to acquire new skills and knowledge, ultimately benefiting society as a whole.

[Body Paragraph 1: Benefits of Cooperation]

On the other hand, proponents of cooperation emphasize the importance of teamwork and collective effort. In work settings, collaboration can lead to more effective problem-solving and the sharing of diverse perspectives, resulting in better decision-making. In educational environments, cooperative learning encourages students to work together, promoting mutual understanding and support. This approach not only enhances academic performance but also helps students develop social and emotional skills, such as empathy and communication.

[Body Paragraph 3: My Opinion]

In my opinion, while competition can spur individual achievement, cooperation is ultimately more beneficial in the long run. Cooperation fosters a sense of community and belonging, which is essential for personal and professional growth. For example, in a team-oriented workplace, employees are more likely to feel valued and supported, leading to higher job satisfaction and retention rates. Additionally, cooperative learning in schools prepares students for the collaborative nature of modern work environments, where teamwork is often crucial to success.

[Conclusion]

In conclusion, both competition and cooperation have their merits. However, I believe that fostering a cooperative spirit is more advantageous as it promotes a supportive and inclusive environment, which is essential for sustainable growth and development. Encouraging collaboration over competition can lead to more meaningful and lasting achievements.

Vocabulary List

Competitive world – phrase referring to a society where individuals or groups compete.
Drive individuals to excel – idiom meaning to motivate people to achieve high standards.
Workplace productivity – noun phrase referring to the efficiency of employees at work.
Critical thinking skills – noun phrase denoting the ability to analyze and evaluate an issue.
Collective effort – phrase meaning a combined effort by a group.
Mutual understanding – noun phrase meaning shared comprehension among people.
Supportive and inclusive environment – complex noun phrase referring to a setting that encourages and includes everyone.
Personal and professional growth – noun phrase denoting development in personal and career aspects.
Team-oriented workplace – adjective-noun phrase describing a work environment focused on teamwork.
Sustainable growth – noun phrase meaning growth that can be maintained over time.

Here is the 2nd essay. This essay takes the view that while both competition and cooperation are beneficial, cooperation should be prioritised.

Essay 2 Plan

Acknowledge the ongoing debate.
State the aim of the essay: examine both perspectives and provide my opinion.

Body Paragraph 1: Benefits of Competition

Point: Competition drives excellence and personal achievement.
Example: Workplace productivity and performance incentives.
Example: Academic motivation and resilience in sports competitions.
Explanation: Competition leads to critical life skills.

Body Paragraph 2: Benefits of Cooperation

Point: Cooperation creates a harmonious and productive atmosphere.
Example: Workplace creativity and problem-solving.
Example: Cooperative learning and social skill development.
Explanation: Cooperation promotes a supportive environment.
Point: Cooperation is more beneficial for long-term success.
Example: Teamwork and employee satisfaction in companies.
Example: Cooperative learning preparing students for future challenges.
Explanation: Cooperation is essential in an interconnected world.
Summarize the advantages of both competition and cooperation.
Final thought: Prioritizing cooperation fosters a supportive society.

The ongoing debate about whether competition or cooperation is more beneficial in various aspects of life, such as work, school, and daily activities, continues to spark interest. Some believe that competition is essential for personal and societal advancement, while others advocate for the benefits of cooperation. This essay will examine both perspectives and provide my opinion.

Advocates of competition assert that it drives individuals to strive for excellence. In professional settings, competition can lead to increased productivity and innovation as employees aim to outperform their colleagues. Similarly, in educational contexts, competitive environments can motivate students to achieve higher academic standards and develop resilience. For instance, sports competitions teach students the value of hard work, perseverance, and discipline, which are crucial life skills.

[Body Paragraph 2: Benefits of Cooperation]

Conversely, those who favour cooperation argue that it cultivates a more harmonious and productive atmosphere. In the workplace, collaboration can enhance creativity and problem-solving by bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise. In schools, cooperative learning strategies, such as group projects and peer tutoring, help students develop interpersonal skills and foster a sense of community. Cooperation encourages individuals to work together towards common goals, promoting a supportive environment where everyone can thrive.

I believe that while competition has its place, cooperation is ultimately more beneficial for long-term success. In today’s interconnected world, the ability to work effectively with others is essential. For example, companies that emphasize teamwork and collaboration often experience higher levels of employee satisfaction and lower turnover rates. Similarly, students who engage in cooperative learning activities are better prepared for real-world challenges, as they learn to communicate, negotiate, and compromise.

In conclusion, both competition and cooperation offer unique advantages. However, I contend that cooperation should be prioritized, as it fosters a supportive and inclusive environment that is conducive to sustainable success. By promoting collaboration over competition, we can create a society where individuals work together to achieve shared goals, leading to greater overall prosperity.

Ongoing debate – noun phrase referring to a continuous discussion.
Drives individuals to strive for excellence – idiom meaning motivates people to aim for the best.
Resilience in sports competitions – noun phrase referring to the ability to recover from setbacks in sports.
Enhanced creativity and problem-solving – noun phrase describing improved ability to create and solve issues.
Collective goals – noun phrase meaning shared objectives.
Interconnected world – adjective-noun phrase describing a world where everyone is connected.
Shared knowledge and resources – noun phrase referring to information and materials that are used collectively.
Employee satisfaction – noun phrase denoting the contentment of workers.
Real-world challenges – adjective-noun phrase referring to practical problems faced in life.
Overall prosperity – noun phrase meaning general well-being and success.

Here is the 3rd essay, written in response to the same task. It takes a similar view to Essay 2, arguing that while competition can have short-term benefits, cooperation has long-term benefits.

Mention the relevance of the debate.
State the aim of the essay: discuss both viewpoints and provide my perspective.

Body Paragraph 1: Arguments for Competition

Point: Competition is a powerful motivator.
Example: Workplace performance and incentives.
Example: Academic achievement and scholarship motivation.
Explanation: Competition drives individuals to excel.

Body Paragraph 2: Arguments for Cooperation

Point: Cooperation fosters teamwork and mutual support.
Example: Workplace innovation through collaboration.
Explanation: Cooperation enhances social skills and inclusivity.

Body Paragraph 3: My Perspective

Point: Cooperation offers long-term benefits.
Example: Shared knowledge and resources in the workplace.
Example: Cooperative learning preparing students for teamwork.
Explanation: Cooperation promotes collective growth.
Final thought: Encouraging cooperation leads to sustainable success.

The question of whether competition or cooperation is more beneficial in work, school, and daily life is a subject of much debate. Some argue that competition drives progress and individual excellence, while others believe that cooperation fosters a more supportive and effective environment. This essay will discuss both viewpoints and provide my own perspective.

[Body Paragraph 1: Arguments for Competition]

Proponents of competition argue that it is a powerful motivator. In the workplace, competitive environments can lead to higher levels of performance as employees strive to achieve better results than their peers. For instance, sales teams often perform better when there are incentives for top performers. Similarly, in academic settings, students who compete for the highest grades are likely to put in more effort and achieve higher academic standards.

[Body Paragraph 2: Arguments for Cooperation]

On the other hand, advocates for cooperation highlight its importance in fostering teamwork and mutual support. In professional settings, collaborative efforts can lead to innovative solutions and improved outcomes. For example, tech companies that encourage teamwork often develop more creative and effective products. In schools, cooperative learning helps students build essential social skills, such as communication and empathy, and can lead to a more inclusive and supportive educational environment.

From my perspective, while competition can lead to short-term gains, cooperation is more beneficial for long-term success. Cooperative environments promote a sense of community and shared purpose. For instance, in a cooperative workplace, employees are more likely to share knowledge and resources, leading to collective growth and development. In educational settings, cooperative learning not only enhances academic performance but also prepares students for real-world scenarios where teamwork is essential.

In conclusion, both competition and cooperation have their advantages. However, I believe that cooperation should be emphasized as it fosters a supportive and inclusive environment, essential for sustainable growth and success. By promoting cooperative practices, we can create a more harmonious and productive society.

Relevant debate – adjective-noun phrase referring to a discussion that is applicable to the current context.
Powerful motivator – noun phrase meaning a strong incentive or drive.
Performance-based incentives – noun phrase referring to rewards based on achievements.
Scholarship motivation – noun phrase meaning the drive to earn academic scholarships.
Teamwork and mutual support – noun phrase denoting collaboration and helping each other.
Innovative solutions – noun phrase referring to creative and effective answers to problems.
Enhances social skills – verb phrase meaning improves the ability to interact with others.
Collective growth – noun phrase meaning development as a group.
Sustainable success – noun phrase referring to long-term achievement.
Encouraging cooperation – verb-noun phrase meaning promoting teamwork.

Essay 4 Plan

Introduce the debate on competition vs. cooperation.
State the aim: discuss both views and argue for the benefits of competition.
Brief overview of the main points.
Point: Competition drives innovation and progress.
Example: Tech industry advancements driven by rivalry (Apple vs. Samsung).
Explanation: Competitive environments encourage continuous improvement and creativity.
Point: Cooperation fosters teamwork and collective success.
Example: Group projects in academic settings.
Explanation: Cooperation helps develop communication and collaboration skills.

Body Paragraph 3: Opinion in Favor of Competition

Point: Competition prepares individuals for real-world challenges.
Example: Sports competition teaching resilience and discipline.
Explanation: Competitive experiences build crucial life skills.
Reiterate the stance that competition is more beneficial.
Final thought: Emphasizing competition leads to personal and societal growth.

The debate over whether competition or cooperation is more advantageous in work, school, and daily life is ongoing. Some argue that competition drives progress and excellence, while others believe that cooperation fosters teamwork and mutual support. This essay will discuss both perspectives, ultimately arguing that competition offers greater benefits.

Competition is a powerful driver of innovation and progress. In the tech industry, for instance, the rivalry between companies like Apple and Samsung has led to significant technological advancements. Each company strives to outdo the other by introducing new features and improvements, benefiting consumers with cutting-edge products. Such competitive environments foster continuous improvement and creativity, pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

On the other hand, cooperation is essential for fostering teamwork and collective success. In academic settings, group projects encourage students to work together, share ideas, and solve problems collaboratively. This helps them develop vital communication and collaboration skills, which are crucial for success in the modern workplace. Cooperation ensures that everyone’s strengths are utilized, leading to well-rounded and effective solutions.

[Body Paragraph 3: Opinion in Favor of Competition]

Despite the advantages of cooperation, I believe that competition is more beneficial as it prepares individuals for real-world challenges. Sports competitions, for example, teach participants resilience, discipline, and the importance of hard work. These experiences build crucial life skills that are applicable in various aspects of life. Furthermore, competition motivates individuals to strive for excellence and achieve their personal best, leading to personal and societal growth.

In conclusion, both competition and cooperation have their merits. However, competition is more beneficial as it drives innovation, prepares individuals for challenges, and promotes personal and societal growth. By emphasizing competition, we can foster an environment where individuals are motivated to excel and continuously improve.

Competitive environments
Continuous improvement
Collective success
Communication skills
Collaboration
Real-world challenges
Personal growth
Societal growth
Technological advancements
Academic settings
Market dynamics
Problem-solving
Product development
Strategic planning
Skill development
Productivity
Entrepreneurship
Economic growth
Benchmarking

Essay 5 Plan

Introduce the competition vs. cooperation debate.
Point: Competition enhances personal performance and achievement.
Example: Performance-based incentives in workplaces.
Explanation: Competition motivates individuals to reach their highest potential.
Point: Cooperation builds strong, supportive communities.
Example: Collaborative community projects.
Explanation: Working together helps solve local issues and fosters a sense of belonging.
Point: Competition drives economic growth and innovation.
Example: Competitive markets leading to better products and services.
Explanation: Competition encourages efficiency and higher standards.
Final thought: Prioritizing competition fosters excellence and societal advancement.

The debate between the benefits of competition and cooperation in work, school, and daily life is an important one. While cooperation promotes teamwork and collective success, competition can enhance personal performance and achievement. This essay will discuss both views, ultimately arguing that competition is more beneficial.

Competition significantly enhances personal performance and achievement. In workplaces, performance-based incentives drive employees to excel and reach their highest potential. For instance, sales teams often compete to achieve the best results, leading to increased productivity and higher sales figures. This competitive spirit motivates individuals to set ambitious goals and strive for excellence, ultimately leading to personal growth and success.

Conversely, cooperation is crucial for building strong, supportive communities. Collaborative projects, whether in schools or local communities, encourage people to work together towards common goals. For example, community clean-up initiatives bring residents together to improve their environment, fostering a sense of belonging and shared responsibility. Cooperation helps solve local issues effectively and creates a supportive network where individuals can rely on each other.

Despite the advantages of cooperation, competition drives economic growth and innovation. In competitive markets, companies are constantly striving to offer better products and services to gain a competitive edge. This leads to higher standards, efficiency, and continuous improvement. For instance, the fierce competition in the automotive industry has resulted in safer, more efficient, and environmentally friendly vehicles. Competition encourages businesses to innovate and optimize resources, driving economic prosperity and societal advancement.

In conclusion, while cooperation builds supportive communities and addresses local issues, competition is more beneficial as it enhances personal performance, drives economic growth, and fosters innovation. By prioritizing competition, we can create an environment where individuals and businesses are motivated to excel and continuously improve, leading to societal advancement and excellence.

Personal performance
Achievement
Performance-based incentives
Highest potential
Supportive communities
Collaborative projects
Sense of belonging
Competitive markets
Higher standards
Societal advancement
Goal setting
Entrepreneurial spirit
Competitive edge
Market leadership
Talent development
Strategic initiatives
Resource optimization
Competitive advantage
Performance metrics
Organizational success
Consumer satisfaction
Quality improvement

Practice Exercises 1

Try to complete the essays as above. Drag and drop the missing words/phrases into the correct spaces. (The exercise work best on desktop, not mobile).

Practice Exercise 2

The paragraphs in the following essay are in the wrong order. Try to put the paragraphs into the correct order.

Practice Exercise 3: Hard!

The sentences in the following essay are in the wrong order. Try to put the sentences into the correct order. This is quite difficult, so good luck!

Privacy Overview

Discover the 7 STEPS to BAND 7 in IELTS Writing Task 2

Home — Essay Samples — Business — Competition — The Role and Importance of Competitive Spirit in Our Lives

The Role and Importance of Competitive Spirit in Our Lives

Categories: Competition Personality

About this sample

Words: 777 |

Published: Jan 21, 2020

Words: 777 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Works Cited

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Conroy, D. E., Willow, J. P., & Metzler, J. N. (2002). Multidimensional fear of failure measurement: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(2), 76-90.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171-200.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638-645.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.
Roberts, G. C., & Balague, G. (1991). Motivation in sport and exercise: Conceptual clarifications and theoretical framework. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(3), 206-217.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271-360). Academic Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Business Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 2585 words

3 pages / 1435 words

1 pages / 325 words

2 pages / 934 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

The Role and Importance of Competitive Spirit in Our Lives Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Competition

In today's world, the debate between football and basketball enthusiasts has been ongoing for decades. While both sports have their unique appeal and dedicated fan bases, football stands out as the superior sport for a variety [...]

Toyota's position as a dominant player in the global automobile industry highlights the characteristics and implications of an oligopoly market structure. While concerns about limited competition and potential harm to consumer [...]

While being in FFA I have not only built a substantial amount of leadership skills, but it has given me the chance to meet so many people from all over the nation. Many of which are well known and have accomplished big things [...]

A little competition can be a healthy thing. It can also be both costly and disastrous if you aren’t up to par with others in your particular business or industry. How you handle competition can be a direct link to the success [...]

According to Arnold (2013), financial management entails the understanding, evaluation, analysis, and forecasting of economic, legal and regulatory issues. As such, financial managers have the obligation of acting in ways that [...]

In any industry, competition depends on five key forces (Porter, 1979): the bargaining power of suppliers, the threat of substitute products or services, the bargaining power of customers, the threat of new entrants and the [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Try AI-powered search

Why competition matters

An interview with barry lynn of the open markets institute.

Part of The Economist ’s Open Future initiative looks at what has gone wrong with modern capitalism, and what can be done to put it right. One of the big themes we will examine is competition. There are fears that in recent years, capitalism in the rich world has become less vigorous. As part of our week-long debate on whether capitalism is rigged in favour of elites we spoke to Barry Lynn, the head of the Open Markets Institute, to discuss the basics of competition and why it is important. A conversation between Mr Lynn and The Economist has been transcribed and lightly edited for clarity.

The Economist: Why is competition important? Why should we care about it?

Barry Lynn: There are two ways to think about competition: good competition and bad competition. Under good competition, we get businesses and powerful people to compete for everyone else’s sake. Imagine that there are ten car companies, all competing to put out better cars. That is good. Competition helps promote better safety, innovation and technology—and lower prices. Workers benefit too. With ten companies, even if you don’t have good labour laws, there is an impulse to work cooperatively. Firms need to treat workers well in order to get them to work well. You want happy workers; you want the best workers.

But then there is bad competition, where powerful people get others to compete for their sake. Imagine now that the ten car companies have been swallowed up in to one big company. If you have a single monopolist, then at the level of the customer, there is only one place to buy your cars. The company can put out trash and still make money. And there is also no need to treat workers well. Once consolidation has taken place, businesses don’t need to serve the customer so well, so they don’t need to hire so many people or pay them very much.

The Economist: Is it possible to measure the degree of competition in an economy? How has it changed over time?

Barry Lynn: Yes, it is possible. There are many measures, because it is a complex topic. One is the level of corporate profits, which are at record levels. The rate of startups has fallen as well. Some research I did looked at the period 1979-2009, and focused on the rate of creation of new firms that had at least one employee. We found that over the period, the rate of new-company formation declined by 50%. And it has continued to go down since then. That suggests that breaking into markets is more difficult than ever before.

And we have got prices for all kinds of goods that are much higher than they would otherwise be. Most dramatically, health care, which in America is incredibly expensive. That is because of consolidation of hospitals. People get all upset about insurance companies. Yes, they can be bad actors but most of the surge in prices is to do with consolidation in the hospitals sector.

The Economist: Work that we have done also looks at the amount of an industry’s total revenue that is accounted for by the four biggest firms in that industry. Of America’s roughly 900 sectors, two-thirds became more concentrated between 1997 and 2012.

Barry Lynn: Right. I think to show evidence of declining competition, you can also just show people their paycheck.

The Economist: What do you mean by that?

Barry Lynn: Well, everyone is saying that robots or free trade are driving down wages. But maybe it’s actually declining competition. Economists have tended to ignore the effects of consolidation until recently. Now, we are finally getting some articles about this, which look at what happens when a big, monopolistic company buys labour. Wages go down. This is extremely significant.

The Economist: Yes, a paper published recently by the National Bureau of Economic Research looks at Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online crowdworking platform. There are few buyers of labour on that platform but loads of sellers. That may allow buyers of labour to push down the wages of those completing tasks, to way below what they might be paid in a more competitive arrangement.

Barry Lynn: Right.

The Economist: So if competition in modern capitalism has become less vigorous, why is that?

Barry Lynn: Really, it is to do with the replacement of liberalism with libertarianism as the guiding ideology of the state in the late 1970s and early 1980s. People changed the philosophy with which they viewed anti-monopoly laws. It was a revolution of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. In America, there was a radical change in competition policy in the early 1980s. The idea was to reduce state intervention in the economy more generally—to give people liberty. That meant that it gradually became easier for big companies to acquire smaller rivals, and build themselves up into a position of monopoly.

The Economist: Why is declining competition not more of a hot-button political issue, in the way of rising income or wealth inequality?

Barry Lynn: It is partly because economists have only recently started to take this idea seriously. Politicians have been slow to catch on, too. Two years ago Elizabeth Warren made a speech about the problem of declining competition in America. That process of awakening, however, has been somewhat stunted by the rise of Donald Trump. But I think people are slowly realising just how important this stuff is.

More from Open Future

“Making real the ideals of our country”

Cory Booker, a Democratic senator from New Jersey, on racial justice, fixing racial income inequality—and optimism

How society can overcome covid-19

Countries can test, quarantine and prepare for the post-coronavirus world, says Larry Brilliant, an epidemiologist

Telemedicine is essential amid the covid-19 crisis and after it

Online health care helps patients and medical workers—and will be a legacy of combating the novel coronavirus, says Eric Topol of Scripps Research

We can harness peer pressure to uphold social values

People are natural followers, so use “behavioural contagion” to improve lives, says Robert Frank of Cornell University

Even noxious ideas need airing—censorship only makes them stronger

Restricting free speech in the name of liberty fuels illiberalism, says Jacob Mchangama of Justitia, a Danish think-tank

Society doesn't think ahead but we can trick ourselves into doing better

There are mental techniques to bypass our natural short-termism—and to defend our liberty, says Steven Johnson, author of "Farsighted"

Argumentative Essay on Competition’s Pros and Cons

Is Competition Really Good?

Introduction

Almost every day, people have to compete at work, in family, or in society. It may be the signing of a contract, or the winning or losing of a race, but this causes people to experience different emotions. In addition to the opportunity to feel joy, or to find new friends, competition can also lead to stress or obsession with a competitor.

The implication of competition

Competition always implies that a person needs to make an effort in order to achieve the desired result, for instance, to win tender or a race. It requires spending not only physical, but emotional energy. By overcoming personal limitations, a person becomes psychologically stronger, which can positively contribute to future achievements. The individual gets an opportunity to develop such qualities as stress resistance, creativity, and a sense of purpose (Harrison). Also, it is possible to develop other skills like speed or agility if the competition is related to physical activity. Also, achieving the desired results can bring positive emotions.

Apart from feeling joy for winning a competition, a person may also experience pleasant emotions in the process of achieving goals. For instance, in a summer camp, counselors organize competitions among several groups of children. Although everyone wants to win, the process of achieving a goal can be fun and interesting. Another example is that if competition is related to an activity that a person likes, then he or she will take part in it with great satisfaction, in addition to gaining new knowledge or skills. Therefore, it is worth not taking part in events where there is only one winning position, and it seems to be initially difficult, stressful, and impossible. Besides winning, an individual can gain experience of communication and find new friends in the course of a contest.

Interaction with people as a key to competition

In any case, competition involves interaction with people regardless of whether they are members of one team or opponents. If it is a group of people united by one idea, then it is a great way to learn how to communicate with others and take their opinions into account. Also, by taking the initiative and making efforts, a person gets an opportunity to become a group leader, which has a positive effect on the formation of personality traits (Bloomgarden). If it comes to competitors, an individual needs to be able or learn to accept the fact that rivals are also participants of the contest. However, everyone should be prepared for the negative factors of competition.

The first thing a participant should pay attention to is the fact that he or she may experience stress during a competition, and it may subsequently negatively affect well-being and productivity. Also, people may begin to experience anxiety both before and during the competition. This problem is most often faced by athletes, as they have to worry about their results (Hanton et al.). One more issue of the competition is that while reaching a goal, a person can be more focused on merely becoming better than someone else and not on developing personal skills and knowledge. Thus, the individual spends more attention on the opponent, rather than on himself or herself. In the case of achieving goals, it is worth considering the pros and cons of the competitive process.

Conclusions

To conclude, it should be said that no process in a person’s life can be too easy. Although during a competition an individual may experience negative emotions, it is also possible to get new knowledge or learn how to commune with strangers. Plus, it is an excellent opportunity to become an emotionally stable individual.

Works Cited

Bloomgarden, Kathy. “Being Competitive: Why It Will Get You Ahead.” Fortune , 12 Apr. 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/04/12/kathy-bloomgarden-staying-motivated/. Hanton, Sheldon et al. “Management of Competitive Stress in Elite Sport.” Handbook of Sports Medicine and Science, Sport Psychology, 2009, pp. 30-42., doi:10.1002/9781444303650.ch4. Harrison, Craig. “5 Reasons Why Competition Is Good (and Bad) for Your Child.” AUT Millennium, 14 Feb. 2017, https://news.autmillennium.org.nz/athlete-development/5-reasons-competition/.

Let Us Be a Part of Your Writing Success!

Life is an endless battle. We combat our fears, destiny, inner demons, and other phenomena that make us feel miserable and unhappy. But do we have to compete to feel better? Is competitiveness necessary for our development? The author of the essay on the competition above believes that competitiveness has a wide range of positive effects. Do you agree? Express your personal opinion in your essay on the competition!

If this topic doesn’t inspire you, don’t worry. We have more than a hundred original topics for your argumentative essays right here. You may also check other blog posts to find free samples, writing guides, and even more topics! However, you can’t copy our texts from the website, as you’ll be considered a plagiarist, and our essay writing service was created exclusively for educational purposes. So, click the order button and get unique samples for inspiration instead of using AI writer essay help!

Photo by RyanMcGuire from Pixabay

Article review samples
Bibliography samples
Biography samples
Book review samples
Business paper samples
Case Study Samples
Coursework samples
Critical thinking samples
Dissertation samples
Essay samples
Lab report samples
Movie review samples
Poem analysis samples
Presentation samples
Research paper samples
Research proposal samples
Speech samples
Summary samples
Thesis samples

Grab our 3 e-books bundle for $27 FREE

Pros and Cons of Competition Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Pros of competition, cons of competition, reference list.

As Geroski (p.1) argues, with the current situation of the corporate world and ever-changing trends in people’s lifestyles, the ability of a business or individuals to thrive well within a certain environment, depends on their ability to compete positively and effectively. That is, because competition is inevitable in all spheres of life, survival in the current competitive world depends on individuals’ survival strategies of defeating their opponents. For example, in any working scenario, managements judge employees’ work using their level of work proficiency and output. Employees’ performance levels depend primarily on their ability to maximize their potentials in order to have a competitive advantage over their fellow workers.

The same thing happens in business, competition being the primary determinant of a business’s ability to thrive and survive in a market full of producers or services providers with the same products. Further, even in learning institutions, the ability of a student to outshine others depends on one’s ability to compete effectively through maximization of their potentials and utilization of the available resources. Although this is the case, in uncontrolled scenarios, competition can be very detrimental to the performance level of individuals, because individuals are always ready to do anything and use whatever is at their disposal to achieve desired outcomes. Therefore, although competition has many advantages, which include increased productivity, improved quality of work output, meeting of deadlines, and increased profit margins, it has also many associated disadvantages, for example, it increases job stress, creates unhealthy competition, and it may kill teamwork spirit (Lewis, 1997, p.1).

Competition primarily involves peoples struggle to outshine their opponents in whatever they are doing be it in business, school, or work. In a healthy competing environment, individuals or organizations; whether they are tangible goods producers, for example, producers of pain killers, or service offering, for example, dental services, competition takes many forms. The most prevalent ways that organizations use to have a competent advantage over their opponents include, improving the quality of their products, varying prices, and adding innovative ideas to their products of services. One primary advantage of competition is increase production and general work output, which acts as a primary mechanism of controlling prices of essential goods. Achieving of success in any activity that one engages in is one of the primary goals of any individual.

Therefore, because the level of success depends on the amount of effort individuals put in whatever they are doing, in an endeavor to defeat opponents in the same industry, most individuals will use whatever is at their disposal to achieve their desired level of success. Through such efforts, people are able to stretch their potentials to higher levels of success, leading to increased production whereby, if such products or services meet the market demand, then likelihoods of increased profits are high. In life, nobody wants to be a failure or be associated with failure. Hence, to fit in the present competitive world, individuals have to put more effort in their daily endeavors, to meet and overcome any obstacles that they face everyday, making competition a primary motivational factor in any life endeavor (Lewis, 1997, p.1).

Going hand in hand with increased profits is increased product qualities, because of increased competition. Every producer of a good or provider of a service always aims to win buyers’ hearts and trust. To achieve this, producers and service providers have to improve their production process to meet the market standards or their buyer’s needs. Therefore, to meet such needs individuals have to formulate innovative ideas of improving the qualities of whatever they are offering, for this will define their level of success in the market. Production or offering of goods and services that do not meet consumer’s needs and, which are detrimental to consumers’ health may make an individual or organization tom loose its customers trust and loyalty; hence, leading to looses. On the other hand, in a learning or working scenario, because managements judge workers’ performance levels using their work output quality and level, through competition, workers are likely to enhance their working methodologies, in an endeavor to receive recognition and achieve success (Shukla, 2009, p.1).

In addition to increasing work output and quality of produced products, competition greatly boosts the formulation of new or innovative ideologies, depending on the prevailing conditions. Through vigorous and health competition, individuals will always struggle to formulate new production and marketing ideologies in an endeavor win a bigger segment of the market. Stiff and health competitions bring forth many working, learning, and production challenges, which in most cases, demand innovative ideologies necessary to counter such challenges. For innovational ideals to meet the challenges of competition, individuals must set boundaries, meet time deadlines, formulate new working strategies, and methods of ensuring they beat their competitors in the same fields. Hence, competition plays another crucial role of ensuring individuals do things in the desired manner and within set limits, as this defines the standards of judging their level of achievement (Singh, 2003, pp. 1-2).

Although competition has such advantages, sometimes in an endeavor to beat their opponents, most individuals or organizations may involve themselves in unhealthy practices hence, making the significance of competition questionable. One primary disadvantage of competition is creation of an unhealthy business, study, or working environment. The level competition in learning or working environments never takes into consideration the differences in people’s potentials. In addition to not considering personal abilities, the level of competition always favors well developed or resource endowed individuals or business in certain aspects of competition. For example, in any production process or service offering process, well developed or experienced practitioners of a certain field are more advantaged than new entrants into the field or production process; hence, making it hard for such new entrants to succeed. In addition, well-developed and experienced individuals have the expertise in their areas of specialization; hence, customers will always prefer them to new entrants, although the new entrants may be offering better goods and services (Philipose, Kamat, & Ananthanarayan, 2009, p.1).

Sometimes beating competitors can be one of the most stressing factors, as it requires formulation of new ideologies, pumping of more resources into any activity one engages in, and finding new methodologies of having control over an activity that one is doing or being the most successful. For example, in a learning scenario, for students to excel in their endeavors, although it is to their advantage, students have to spend extra time reading, consulting, and formulating appropriate strategies of defeating their opponents. The same is the case in business, as individuals have to find new methodologies, increase their work ratios, speed and proficiency, or formulate new working methodologies, necessary to enable them beat deadlines. In stressing working or learning environments likelihoods of individuals suffering work burnout and other health complications, associate with work stress, for example, ulcers are high (Ganster & Ivancevich, 1986, pp. 7-27).

In addition to making wok very stressful, unhealthy competitions negatively affects teamwork spirit or cooperation among individuals doing the same task. That is, because of human selfishness and egocentrism, most individuals working in a competing work scenario will rarely assist their co-workers or friends, although they may have the potential to do so. For example, because every individual may be struggling for managements to recognize and award them, rarely will such individuals cooperate in doing an act, or offering some requested help, as most individuals will never want their friends to excel than them (Lewis, 1997, p.1).

In conclusion, to curb the negative effects that may result due to unhealthy competition, and to ensure competition is beneficial to all participating individuals, it is of great significance for all competitors to create health competing environments. A health competing environment will guarantee formulation and implementation of innovative ideas, which are beneficial and not detrimental to all participating parties.

Ganster, D. C., & Ivancevich, J. m. (1986). Job stress: from theory to suggestions. London: Haworth Press. Web.

Gerowski, P. A. (2004). Is the competition policy worthy it? Web.

Lewis, M. B. (1997). Pros and cons of competitions. Web.

Philiposse, M., Kamat, V., & Ananthanarayan, R. (2009). The pros and cons of market Competition. Money Matters. Web.

Shukla, A. (2009). Competition at work place- advantages and disadvantages of competition . Web.

Singh, A. (2003). Emerging markets: the significance of competition and corporate governance for future economic growth. Web.

Investing in Turkey of the Oh la La! French Manufacturing Company
Requirement Provisions Impact on the Financial Markets
Organizational Conflict: Pros, Cons, Prevention
Analysis of Pros and Cons of Unionization
Threat of New Entrants
The Global Team Work Performance
Business in the Global Conditions
Global Leadership & Management: Expansion to France
Inditex’s Global Strategy Analysis
Incident Command System: Overview
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 16). Pros and Cons of Competition. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-competition/

"Pros and Cons of Competition." IvyPanda , 16 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-competition/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Pros and Cons of Competition'. 16 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Pros and Cons of Competition." March 16, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-competition/.

1. IvyPanda . "Pros and Cons of Competition." March 16, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-competition/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Pros and Cons of Competition." March 16, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-competition/.

6 Benefits of Essay Writing Competitions

30 Jan, 2024 | Blog Articles , Get the Edge

5. They don’t require any funding or background knowledge

Most essay competitions are free to enter, and a good essay can be written based on your own ideas and public resources. They can be completed at any time and place, and panels will often accept entries from around the world.

Most can be found online if you look around – a quick Google search usually turns up the most reputable ones. If you’re keen to develop in the STEM field, the Oxford Scientist’s Schools Competition might take your fancy (2). Was the Scholastica Law summer school program (3) right up your alley? Trinity College Cambridge has competitions in many areas, including Law (4).

These, and many other, opportunities are open to anyone, even if you don’t have prior experience.

6. Now is the best time to enter!

Essay competitions are usually based around deadlines. While this may seem scary and overwhelming, it’s the number one reason to start now. With tight time frames, you won’t be able to procrastinate.

Similarly, many are only open to certain year groups or age ranges – so it’s best to seize any opportunity when it arises. That shows proactivity, and gives you more knowledge and skills to build on later. You can apply these new skills to another competition, a job, summer course or your degree.

Read more about how to write the perfect essay

Next steps for passionate writers

Read some top tips on academic writing in English .
Oxford University have a list of essay and creative writing competitions for students covering a range of subjects
Keen to try out UK university life? Sign up to one of our Oxford Scholastica summer schools today!

References and Further Reading:

1) https://www.oxfordscholastica.com/oxford-summer-courses/

2) https://oxsci.org/schools/

3) https://www.oxfordscholastica.com/oxford-summer-courses/#law

4) https://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/essay-prizes/

Looking to boost your university applications?

Best Universities to Study Medicine in the World

A degree in Medicine spans many years, so it’s important to make a good choice when committing yourself to your studies. This guide is designed to help you figure out where you'd like to study and practise medicine. For those interested in getting a head start, the...

What Is A Year Abroad?

One of the great opportunities offered to UK university students is taking a year abroad. But what does this involve? Who can do it? What are some of the pros and cons? In our year abroad guide, we’ll explain some of the things to bear in mind when considering this...

The Ultimate Guide To Summer Internships

Are you eager to make the most of your summer break and jumpstart your career? There are so many productive things students can do in the summer or with their school holidays, and an internship is one of the most valuable! A summer internship could be the perfect...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

The power of competition: Effects of social motivation on attention, sustained physical effort, and learning

Competition has often been implicated as a means to improve effort-based learning and attention. Two experiments examined the effects of competition on effort and memory. In Experiment 1, participants completed a physical effort task in which they were rewarded for winning an overall percentage, or for winning a competition they believed was against another player. In Experiment 2, participants completed a memory task in which they were rewarded for remembering an overall percentage of shapes, or more shapes than a “competitor.” We found that, in the physical effort task, participants demonstrated faster reaction times (RTs)—a previous indicator of increased attention—in the competitive environment. Moreover, individual differences predicted the salience of competition’s effect. Furthermore, male participants showed faster RTs and greater sustained effort as a result of a competitive environment, suggesting that males may be more affected by competition in physical effort tasks. However, in Experiment 2, participants remembered fewer shapes when competing, and later recalled less of these shapes during a post-test, suggesting that competition was harmful in our memory task. The different results from these two experiments suggest that competition can improve attention in a physical effort task, yet caution the use of competition in memory tasks.

Introduction

Social motivation has been defined as a drive for a particular goal based on a social influence ( Hogg and Abrams, 1990 ). Although research has examined correlative relationships between competition and learning ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Zimmerman, 1989 ; Oldfather and Dahl, 1994 ; Wentzel, 1999 ), few studies have examined how the presence of a competitor directly influences motivation, effort, and memory. In Burguillo (2010) found that implementing competition-based games in a classroom improved course performance. One might therefore assume that competition may directly improve some aspect of the memory process; yet, it is unclear whether competition directly affects attention, effort, or memory.

Recent research has shown that the presence of a competitor can increase physical effort over both short ( Le Bouc and Pessiglione, 2013 ) and long durations ( Kilduff, 2014 ). Competitiveness has also been shown to increase physical motivation, such as motivation to practice a sport ( Frederick-Recascino and Schuster-Smith, 2003 ). A better understanding of how competition improves performance may help shed light on how to improve cognitive performance (e.g., memory in the classroom). For example, if the presence of a competitor affected attention, we may expect to see an effect at encoding, since attention is one of many necessary components for accurate encoding ( Craik et al., 1996 ; Anderson et al., 2000 ; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2000 ). However, if the presence of a competitor is affecting memory retention, we may expect a difference regarding long-term memory, but not short-term memory. Furthermore, competition could affect components of memory without affecting attention at all.

There may also be individual differences in the magnitude and direction of competition’s effect on performance. Individual differences exist in a variety of domains, especially those involving motivation ( Duckworth et al., 2007 ; Maddi et al., 2012 ). For example, previous research has found that individual differences in normative goals—i.e., wanting to perform better than others ( Grant and Dweck, 2003 )—have been shown to predict performance on ostensibly difficult tasks ( Swanson and Tricomi, 2014 ), suggesting that individual differences may be at play when examining competition’s effect on effort, attention, and memory. Also, competition may affect elements of effort and elements of memory in different ways. For example, if competition does indeed have an effect on attention, competition could have a varying effect depending on attentional load. In accordance with the Yerkes and Dodson (1908) law, one might expect that competition may improve performance in situations requiring a low attention load, but not in learning environments requiring high attentional load.

Additionally, research has yet to examine the potential social stigma associated with competition, or in other words, whether being competitive is viewed as a negative personality trait. Moreover, previous research regarding illusory superiority has found that individuals tend to rate themselves as having significantly more positive personality traits than the rest of the population, including traits such as trustworthiness, honesty, good-humor, and patience ( Hoorens, 1995 ). Furthermore, previous research has found that the majority of individuals rate themselves as significantly less likely to act selfishly than the rest of the general population ( Pronin et al., 2002 ), as well as drive better ( Horswill et al., 2004 ) than the rest of the general population. Since individuals tend to have unrealistically positive reflections of themselves, participants may tend to rate themselves as having less competitive behaviors—if competitive behavior is viewed as a socially negative trait—in order to continue to view themselves in a positively-skewed light.

Experiment 1 examined the effect of social motivation on a physical effort task. Experiment 2 examined the effect that the presence of a competitor can have on working memory and long-term memory. We hoped to gain insight regarding competition’s effect on effort, attention, and memory, as well as individual differences in competitive performance and the likely possibility of a social desirability bias regarding competitive habits.

Experiment 1

Experiment 1 examined whether competition affects physical effort. Specifically, we wondered if competition would affect sustained effort on an isolated, simple physical task, or if competition affects some other mechanism necessary for successful performance regarding physical effort, such as attentional control. Le Bouc and Pessiglione (2013) found that, when participants believed they were competing, they increased physical effort, suggesting that social factors often increase motivation. However, research has yet to parse the mechanisms at play in social motivation and physical effort. For example, does competition increase effort at the attentional level, or does the presence of a competitor increase sustained effort over time? Previous research has suggested that reaction times (RTs) are indicative of an individual’s level of selective attention ( Eason et al., 1969 ; Stuss et al., 1989 ; Prinzmetal et al., 2005 ), while sustained press rates have been regularly implicated as a means for measuring sustained effort over time ( Maatsch et al., 1954 ; Treadway et al., 2009 ). We also wanted to examine the possibility of individual differences in physical effort in the presence of a competitor, and the possibility of gender differences in the saliency of social motivation.

Participants

One hundred and twenty-nine undergraduates from Rutgers University’s Newark campus participated in the study, which was approved by the Rutgers IRB. Participants received course credit for their participation, and were told upon arriving they would be eligible to earn $1–3 in bonus money in addition to course credit. Participants entered the lab and were introduced to a fellow “participant” they would later be interacting with—a same or opposite sex confederate. After obtaining written informed consent from the participant, the experimenter brought the confederate into a testing room and waited for about 5 min, the expected time for the confederate to complete the practice session of the task. Participants then completed a practice version of the task, the actual task, and a battery of surveys, including demographic information. After completing the surveys, participants were probed about whether or not they believed they were actually competing against another individual and if they believed the confederate was a real participant. Then, participants were debriefed about the confederate and real purpose of the task. Seven participants were removed for not believing the manipulation, and two participants were removed for failing to complete the task in its entirety. Analyses were thus performed on the remaining 120 participants.

Effort Bar Task

Participants completed an effort bar task in the form of a computerized carnival water gun game. Participants saw a fixation cross with a 3–7 s jitter, then were required to press the “x” key to move the effort bar (in this case, in the form of a “water tube”). If participants pressed the “x” key before the water tube appeared, the jitter reset. Participants were required to press between a randomly generated requirement of 5 and 30 times to fill the effort bar in order to win the trial. Participants had to press at an average rate of 150 ms to fill the tube with water in time to win the round, with an extra 350 ms to account for the expected first press time. This time amount was decided due to the results of a pilot study that found that participants had an average first press of 350 ms and press rate (excluding the first press) of one press per 150 ms. Titrating the task at this rate led to the expectation that participants would win an average of 50% of trials. We analyzed participants’ first press RTs as a measure of their attention to the task ( Eason et al., 1969 ; Stuss et al., 1989 ; Prinzmetal et al., 2005 ), as well as their sustained press rate over the span of the task, which provided us a measure of sustained effort ( Maatsch et al., 1954 ; Treadway et al., 2009 ).

“Self” condition

In the “self” condition, participants were told they were playing against the clock, and that if they could win 2/3 of the games (trials) played in this round, they would be granted $1 in addition to their course credit. There were 100 trials per condition (200 trials total). Participants were given immediate feedback after each trial as to whether they won, and were immediately told at the end of each self and each competition condition if they won the bonus money. Conditions were counterbalanced across participants to prevent order effects.

“Competition” condition

In the competition condition, participants were told they were playing against the other “participant” they met earlier (again, a confederate), and would be granted an additional $1 if they could beat their competitor in more of the games. At the end of each game, they were told whether they or the other player won the game, and were told who won the bonus at the end of each self and each competition condition. If participants won 2/3 of the games in a particular condition, they were granted the bonus. Each participant completed both conditions, and conditions were counterbalanced across participants to account for possible order effects. Task depiction is illustrated in Figure Figure1 1 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-06-01282-g0001.jpg

Experiment 1 task depiction. Participants saw a preparation screen (Slide 1) for 2 s, then a fixation jittered for 1.5–3 s (Slide 2). Participants pressed the x key repeatedly when they saw the effort bar appear; time was varied by the number of required presses (Slide 3). Participants were told if they filled the effort bar in time (Slide 4) and were given feedback regarding their performance (Slide 5).

We administered several surveys to investigate potential individual differences and their relationship to task performance.

Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale (HAS)

The HAS examines individual differences in general hypercompetitive attitude ( Ryckman et al., 1990 ). The HAS asks participants to reflect on habits and traits that may be associated with a competitive personality (e.g., “I can’t stand to lose an argument.”).

Personal Development Competitive Attitude Scale (PDCAS)

The PDCAS examines if individuals regard competition as a means of improving personal development ( Ryckman et al., 1996 ) The PDCAS reflects on preference for situations in which competition may improve their performance (e.g., “I enjoy competition because it gives me a chance to discover my abilities.”).

Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

We included the SDS ( Crowne and Marlowe, 1960 ) to measure possible bias in responding, whether it be because participants have unrealistic representations of their own traits, or because of a desire to please the experimenter. This questionnaire examines the extent to which a subject may positively skew their survey responses to represent themselves in a positive manner, and requires a “true or false” response to items such as “I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.” The SDS has been previously used to detect the tendency of participants to have unrealistically positive representations of their own traits ( Zerbe and Paulhus, 1987 ; Paulhus, 1991 ; DiMenichi and Richmond, 2015 ). Because Ryckman et al. (1990) found that HAS was also correlated with high aggression, we were unsure whether participants would be likely to admit the extent of their competitive natures. Furthermore, research has yet to examine whether or not individuals view competition as a negative personality trait, and a correlation with the HAS and SDS would suggest this.

Main analyses

A within-subjects t -test examined differences between the first-press RTs in the self condition and the first-press RTs in competition condition. A within-subjects t -test also examined differences between the sustained press-rates in the self condition and the sustained press-rates in the competition condition.

Individual differences analyses

Pearson correlations examined the relationship between trait competitive tendencies (HAS and PDCAS), first-press RTs, and sustained press-rates from the competition condition and the self condition. Pearson correlations also examined relationships between survey scores and scores on the SDS in order to examine possible biases in participants’ responding, as well as if competitive habits are viewed as a socially-negative trait. We used a Bonferroni corrected significance threshold of p = 0.017 (0.05/3 scales) and interpreted correlations with p -values between 0.018 and 0.05 with caution.

Gender differences analyses

Between-subjects t -tests examined gender differences in performance and on the survey measures (HAS, PDCAS, and SDS) used in our experiment. Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) also examined the effects of the factors gender and confederate gender on competitive first-press RT (first-press RT in the competition condition minus the first-press RT in the self condition) and competitive press rate (press rate in the competition condition minus the press rate in the self condition). Within-subject t -tests for each group individually also examined differences in performance across conditions (30 participants per group).

Results and Discussion

A paired-samples t -test revealed that participants’ first presses—i.e., immediate RTs on the task—were significantly faster in the competition condition ( M = 339.43 ms, SD = 72.96) than in the self condition [ M = 352.89, SD = 86.84; t (119) = –2.62, p = 0.010, Cohen’s d = 0.24], suggesting that participants demonstrated greater attentional focus on the task when they believed they were competing against another participant (Figure (Figure2). 2 ). There were no other significant findings regarding press rate, score, and condition, suggesting that competition affected attentional focus on the task, but not sustained physical effort over time.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-06-01282-g0002.jpg

Results from Experiment 1. Participants’ first press reaction times (RTs) were significantly faster in the competition condition than the self condition. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means. *Significant at p < 0 .05.

Scores on the SDS were significantly negatively correlated with scores on the HAS ( r = –0.367, p < 0.001), suggesting that overt competition may be implicitly viewed as a negative personal quality by most individuals. There was no significant relationship between scores on the SDS and scores on the PDCAS, suggesting that the PDCAS may be immune to participants’ tendencies to paint themselves in a positively-skewed manner. Scores on the PDCAS were significantly correlated with faster RTs of the first press in competition condition ( r = –0.239, p = 0.008), suggesting that individuals who view competition as a means for personal development may have greater attentional focus in the presence of a competitor. However, there was no significant relationship between scores on the PDCAS and first press RT in the self condition, which is consistent with the idea that competitive personality traits should not affect performance in an environment with no competition.

Men also scored significantly higher on the PDCAS ( M = 51.59, SD = 9.65) than women [ M = 46.62, SD = 11.68; t (118) = 2.53, p = 0.012, Cohen’s d = 0.46], suggesting that men may view competition as a greater motivation for improving skills pertaining to personal development. Additionally, male participants demonstrated significantly faster first press RTs in the competition condition than female participants’ first press RTs in the competition condition [male M = 323.23, SD = 71.44; female M = 335.09, SD = 71.53; t (118) = –2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen’s d = 0.17] Furthermore, male participants also had faster sustained press rates in the competition condition ( M = 128.36, SD = 16.01) when compared to females participants’ press rates in the competition condition [ M = 138.26, SD = 11.98; t (118) = –3.84, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.70]. However, there were no significant gender differences involving first press RT in the self condition or press rate in the self condition. Furthermore, when examining male participants’ sustained press rate performance, there was no significant difference between press rate in the competition and self conditions. See Figure Figure3 3 for gender difference results across conditions. A two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender did not reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 0.48, p = 0.695] or interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 0.63, p = 0.825 Cohen’s d = 0.08] on competitive first-press RTs. Also, a two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender did not reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 0.75, p = 0.528] or interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 1.25, p = 0.209, Cohen’s d = 0.10] on competitive press rate. Overall, these findings suggest that men were significantly more socially motivated in the presence of another competitor, at least in terms of attention in a physical effort task.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-06-01282-g0003.jpg

Gender differences from Experiment 1. Males had significantly faster first press reaction times and significantly faster press rates in the competition condition compared to female’s first press reaction times and press rates in the competition condition. However, there was no significant gender difference in the self condition. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means.

Our findings from Experiment 1 suggest that competition had an effect on participants’ attention to our task. We did not find a significant relationship between competition and sustained physical effort in our task, suggesting that competition may have a more cloudy relationship with physical effort than our task was able to provide. Furthermore, our results suggest that there are predictable individual differences in competition’s influence on attention, although reflection on these individual differences may be vulnerable to a bias of individuals to paint themselves in an overly positive light, whether implicitly or explicitly (e.g., due to task-demand characteristics or the presence of an experimenter). Also, our findings show that men’s attention on a physical effort task may be more influenced by the presence of a competitor than women’s.

Experiment 2

Because Experiment 1 found that competition increased attention, Experiment 2 examined whether the presence of a competitor enhanced working memory as well as memory retention, mechanisms that both rely heavily on attention. Specifically, we examined whether competition would inspire greater performance on a memory task and, if so, what mechanisms are responsible.

One hundred and twenty-four undergraduates from Rutgers University’s Newark campus participated in the study, which was approved by the Rutgers IRB. Participants received course credit for their participation, and were told upon arriving they would be eligible to earn $1–3 in bonus money in addition to course credit. Experiment 2 followed the same laboratory format as Experiment 1: upon entering the lab, participants were introduced to another “participant” they would later be interacting with—a same or opposite sex confederate. After obtaining written informed consent from the participant, the experimenter brought the confederate into a testing room and waited for about 5 min, the expected time for the confederate to complete the practice session of the task. Participants then completed a practice version of the task, the actual task, a surprise recall task, and a battery of surveys, including demographic information. After completing the surveys, participants were probed for task believability and debriefed about the confederate and real purpose of the task. Four participants were removed from the sample for not believing that the confederate was a participant. Analyses were performed on the remaining 120 participants (60 females).

Working Memory Task

Our working memory task was adapted from ( Redick et al., 2012 ). Participants decided if a matrix was symmetrical or not, and then were presented with a line drawing of an abnormal shape, along with a number (1 through 3). See Figure Figure4 4 for task depiction. They were asked to memorize the association between the shape and the number. Novel shapes were taken from Endo et al.’s (2001) Novel Shape database. After three different matrices and shapes were shown, participants were shown a recall screen with the shapes from the trial, and asked to recall the numbers associated with the shapes they were just shown. Each condition contained 12 rounds with 18 novel shapes randomly assigned to each condition, and each round was shown twice because of a later recall task. Each participant completed both conditions, and shapes in the “self” condition were not repeated in the “competition” condition (and vice versa ). Conditions were counterbalanced across participants to prevent order effects, and shapes in each condition were counterbalanced across participants, in case shapes in one condition were somehow more difficult than shapes in another condition.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-06-01282-g0004.jpg

Experiment 2 task depiction. (A) Participants were shown a matrix for 2 s (Slide 1) and asked to decide if the shape was symmetrical (Slide 2). Participants were then shown a novel shape paired with a number (1, 2, or 3) for 2 s, and were asked to memorize this association (Slide 3). After three rounds (of Slides 1–3), participants were asked to recall the numbers associated with the shapes. (B) Subjects were given immediate feedback for 6 s regarding their performance on the previous round. In the self condition (left), subjects were informed about how many shapes they recalled correctly. After a 2 s delay, they also saw the number of symmetry errors they made on this trial, and the total percentage of symmetry problems answered correctly throughout the condition (top right corner—subjects were required to answer at least 85% of symmetry problems correctly in order to receive the monetary bonus). In the competition condition (right), subjects were also given feedback about the number of shapes their “opponent” remembered correctly—a randomly generated number from 0 to 3. After a 2 s delay, they were also given feedback about their symmetry performance.

In the self condition, participants were given feedback about their performance directly after the recall screen: they were told how many shapes they recalled correctly out of three, as well as how many symmetry problems they answered correctly. They were also given the running total percentage of correct symmetry problems for the entire condition. Participants viewed feedback for 6 s after each round, and were told that if they could remember a total average of 2/3 shapes across all rounds for this condition, they would be given a $1 bonus in addition to their course credit. They were also told that in order to receive the bonus, they were required to complete the task with a symmetry matrix accuracy of at least 85%. Inclusion of the symmetry task also allowed us to examine if effort on the task varied across conditions, since this section of the task did not have a memory component.

In the competition condition, after each recall screen, participants were given feedback about how many shapes they correctly recalled out of three, as well as feedback about their “competitor’s” performance. Competitor performance was randomly generated out of 3, and averaged out to be 2/3 across the entire condition, making the task goal equivalent across both the self and competition conditions. After a 2 s delay, participants were also given feedback about symmetry matrices errors for the round. This delay was issued in order to present the same amount of information across conditions, therefore making cognitive load on working memory more equal across conditions. Total recall viewing time was 6 s after each round. Participants were told if they could recall more associations than the other participant on the most rounds—as well have a symmetry matrix accuracy of at least 85%—they would get a $1 bonus at the end of the condition. Condition feedback is depicted in Figure Figure1B 1B .

Recall task

In a surprise recall task that followed the working memory task, participants were again asked to recall each number associated with each shape. Shape order was randomized to prevent order effects.

A within-subjects t -test examined differences between the number of shapes remembered in the self condition and the number of shapes remembered in competition condition of the working memory task. A within-subjects t -test also examined whether there were differences in subsequent memory between the two conditions, i.e., whether there were differences between the number of shapes originally learned in the self condition and the number of shapes originally learned in the competition condition that were correctly recalled on the surprise recall posttest. To compare any differences in immediate attention across conditions, a within-subjects t -test examined RT to the first symmetry problem between the two conditions. We also subtracted each participant’s total number of shapes remembered during the self condition of the working memory task from their total number of shapes remembered during the competition condition of the working memory task, and deemed this score each participant’s “competitive performance score.” A positive number would indicate better performance on the competition condition of our task. We also repeated the process for post-test scores. A linear regression examined if competitive performance scores predicted competitive recall scores, in order to examine if recall scores on the post-test were the result of learning during the working memory task. If there was no significant relationship between competitive performance scores and competitive recall scores, we would assume that competition increased effort on our task, but not immediate long-term memory. Self scores were subtracted from competition scores in order to account for general memory ability on the task.

Pearson correlations (Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons, α = 0.017) examined the relationship between trait competitive tendencies (HAS and PDCAS) and working memory scores from the competition condition and self condition, as well as recall scores. Pearson correlations also examined relationships between survey scores and scores on the SDS in order to examine possible biases in participants’ responding, as well as if competitive habits are viewed as a socially-negative trait. A partial Pearson correlation also examined relationships between trait competitive tendencies and performance while controlling for scores on the SDS.

Between-subjects t -tests examined gender differences in performance, recall, and on the survey measures (HAS, PDCAS, and SDS) used in our experiment. Two-way ANOVAs also examined the effect of the factors gender and confederate gender on competitive performance and competitive recall scores. Furthermore, within-subject t -tests for each group individually examined differences in performance across conditions (30 participants per group). Partial Pearson correlations controlling for SDS also examined the relationship between trait competitive tendencies (HAS and PDCAS) and working memory scores from the competition condition, self condition, and recall conditions in order to examine if the presence of a same- or opposite-sex confederate is salient enough to override state tendencies.

A paired-samples t -test revealed that participants performed significantly better in the self condition ( M = 28.78, SD = 6.87) than the competition condition [ M = 26.72, SD = 6.24; t (119) = 3.85, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.31] during the working memory task. There was no significant difference between symmetry error rates across conditions, as well as no significant difference in RT to the first symmetry problem across conditions, suggesting that competition did not affect participants’ expended effort on the task, but specifically affected working memory performance. Furthermore, a paired-samples t -test revealed that participants later recalled more shapes on the post-test learned in the self condition ( M = 10.61, SD = 4.40) than in the competition condition [ M = 8.76, SD = 3.34; t (119) = 4.06, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.37]. A linear regression revealed that competitive performance scores significantly predicted competitive recall scores [β = 0.25, t (119) = 3.34, p = 0.005], and competitive performance scores also explained a significant proportion of variance in competitive recall post-test scores [ R 2 = 0.09, F (1,118) = 11.15, p = 0.001], suggesting that recall scores on the post-test were the result of learning during the working memory task. If there was not a significant relationship between competitive performance scores and competitive recall scores, we would assume that competition increased effort on our task, but not immediate long-term memory.

A Pearson correlation on our survey data revealed a marginally significantly positive association between scores on the PDCAS and performance in the competition condition ( r = 0.17, p = 0.061), but not in the self condition. Because scores on the SDS were again relatively high in our sample—participants answered an average of 55.25% of questions in a “socially desirable” manner—we conducted a partial correlation that revealed that, when controlling for SDS, PDCAS scores were marginally significantly associated with performance during the competition condition ( r = 0.18, p = 0.048). However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, this finding was no longer significant.

As predicted, SDS scores were again significantly negatively correlated with scores on the HAS ( r = –0.367, p < 0.001), replicating our findings from Experiment 1 and again suggesting that our participants’ self-reflections of their own competitive habits may be skewed. Since HAS contains questions pertaining to direct competitive tendencies, overt competitiveness may be considered a negative personality trait by most individuals. Furthermore, although HAS scores were significantly associated with PDCAS scores ( r = 0.304, p < 0.001), PDCAS scores were not significantly associated with SDS scores, again suggesting that competition as a means for personal development may be viewed more positively than overt competitive behavior and beliefs.

Although the men in our sample again scored significantly higher on the PDCAS ( M = 56.03, SD = 13.26) than women [ M = 49.27, SD = 14.76; t (118) = 2.87, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.48], there were no significant differences regarding gender and task performance or recall. We also examined the results with respect to the gender of the confederates. A two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender did not reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 1.48, p = 0.229] or an interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 1.09, p = 0.735, Cohen’s d = 0.36] on competitive performance scores, nor did a two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 2.28, p = 0.088] or an interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 1.73, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.45] on competitive recall scores. Furthermore, pair-wise t -tests revealed that neither men nor women who competed against male confederates showed any significant difference in self vs. competitive performance. Yet, male participants who competed against female confederates performed significantly worse [ t (29) = 3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.65] and female participants who competed against female confederates performed marginally significantly worse [females: t (29) = 1.91, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.35] while they believed they were competing than when they were not competing. Furthermore, both male and females participants who competed against female confederates later recalled significantly fewer shapes learned in the competition condition [males: t (29) = 3.38, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.62; females: t (29) = 3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen’s d = 0.55]. All groups contained equal n ’s of 30 participants in each group. Although one could suggest that a significant difference among participants who believed they were competing against females may have resulted because these participants were exerting less effort against female competitors, there were no significant group differences regarding symmetry errors, suggesting that effort on the task was equal across groups, while memory on the task was hindered in those participants who faced female competitors. Details regarding group differences are depicted in Figure Figure5 5 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-06-01282-g0005.jpg

Results of Experiment 2. (A) Participants remembered significantly more shapes during the task in the “self” condition than the “competition” condition. (B) Participants later recalled more shapes learned in the “self” condition than the “competition” condition. (C) “Competitive performance scores” (score on “self” condition subtracted from score on “competition” condition) significantly predicted “competitive recall scores” (shapes from the “self” condition successfully recalled on the post-test subtracted from shapes from the “competition” condition successfully recalled), suggesting that our working memory task produced significant immediate long-term learning. In this graph, a positive score signifies more competitive score. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means.

When controlling for social desirability bias, scores on the PDCAS were significantly positively correlated with performance in the competition condition (but not the self condition) for female participants who believed they were competing against female confederates ( r = 0.49, p = 0.009). This suggests that the more these participants viewed competition as a way to improve their skills, the better they performed in a competitive environment. However, given the small sample of female participants who competed against female confederates ( n = 30), this finding may be very speculative. Furthermore, although one would then expect the PDCAS to be correlated with the number of shapes recalled from the competition condition, this finding was not significant. However, competitive performance scores (score during self condition subtracted from the score during the competition condition) did not predict competitive recall scores for females who believed they were competing against other females, suggesting that, although competition may increase performance for individuals who prefer competition as a means of improving performance, competitive performance does not very often translate to an increase in immediate long-term memory.

Overall, our results suggest that competition hindered working memory performance and immediate long-term memory for most groups in our task. The finding that competition may hinder memory is surprising; one explanation for this finding could be that the presence of a competitor could invoke high anxiety among participants, and high levels of anxiety have been shown to decrease working ( Darke, 1988 ; Ashcraft and Kirk, 2001 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ) and long-term memory ( Rosenfeld, 1978 ; Cassady, 2004 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ). Specifically, research has found that adolescents raised in high normative goal environments report the highest rates of competitive anxiety ( White, 1998 ), which may lead to decrements in performance.

Perhaps even more unanticipated is that the finding that the presence of a female competitor, but not a male, was most likely to hinder performance on our memory task. An alternative explanation for this finding would be that participants exerted less effort on the task because of the presence of a female competitor. However, because there was no significant difference involving gender, competition condition, and symmetry errors, these results suggest that the presence of a female competitor is more likely to be hindering processes involved in working memory—and subsequently, the processes necessary for encoding, as evident by the results of our recall task. Furthermore, we found significant differences between conditions for participants who believed they were competing against female confederates, but there was no significant interaction of gender by confederate gender. This may suggest that all participants may have reduced performance in the competition condition in a similar fashion (see Figure Figure6), 6 ), and therefore not produced an interaction of gender by confederate gender.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-06-01282-g0006.jpg

Gender differences in Experiment 2. Male and female participants performed worse in and recalled fewer shapes at post-test when they believed they were competing against female competitors. There were no significant differences for participants who believed they were competing again male competitors. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means.

Moreover, disparities in subjective reward could affect the memory processes required for learning, such as attention: succeeding in a competitive learning environment could feel subjectively more rewarding than succeeding in an individualist learning environment, and therefore distract participants’ attention, thereby disrupting working and long-term memory.

General Discussion

Competition, attention, and memory.

Our results support the notion that a competitive environment can affect memory and effort. In Experiment 1, we examined the effect of competition on attention and effort; we found that the presence of a competitor increased attention on a physical effort task. However, we did not find that competition increased sustained effort on our task—just as competition did not affect the effort portion of Experiment 2 (symmetry matrices). This result could have occurred for a number of reasons: first, since RTs tend to be viewed as an implicit marker of motivation ( Glaser and Knowles, 2008 ), perhaps competition affects effort on an implicit, rather than explicit, level, especially since our survey results suggest that participants tend to view overt competitive behavior as a negative trait. Second, perhaps competition is only salient enough to increase immediate attention in a laboratory setting, and not sustained physical effort on a task over time. More likely, however, competition may only affect performance on a physical effort task in an environment where competitors compete side-by-side, which did not occur in our task. Furthermore, Kilduff (2014) has found that competition tends to increase physical effort on a gross physical effort task (i.e., running a race). Nonetheless, the finding that competition may increase attention has crucial real-world applications for education and the workplace.

In Experiment 2, we examined the effects of the presence of a competitor on memory. Participants in our sample performed best on our working memory task in a non-competitive environment, and also learned more in a non-competitive environment, as demonstrated by their performance on a later recall test. These results could have occurred for a number of reasons. First, competition could be viewed as an anxiety-provoking threat for most participants: previous research has suggested that high levels of anxiety could have a negative effect on both working memory ability ( Darke, 1988 ; Ashcraft and Kirk, 2001 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ; Owens et al., 2012 ) and on learning ( Rosenfeld, 1978 ; Cassady, 2004 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ; Einsel and Turk, 2011 ). We would expect that, if participants viewed their competitor as a threat, this would indeed hinder performance, as was seen in our results. These findings were even stronger in our results regarding recall, suggesting that for most individuals, competition actually hinders memory. Furthermore, our sample consisted of students already at the undergraduate level of education, who may already be acclimated to cooperating with other students in academic settings (as opposed to competing). Since our sample consisted of U.S. undergraduate students—as opposed to students from a country such as Japan, in which competitive learning environments are common ( Heine et al., 2001 )—perhaps our participants were not adjusted to learning in a competitive environment. Competitive learning environments may have led to improvements in countries which have taught this way from an early age, suggesting that a competitive learning environment may be too novel for someone already at a higher level of education ( Sanders, 1987 ; Smith, 1992 ).

Although competition improved initial RT in Experiment 1, the presence of a competitor hindered both working memory and immediate long-term memory in Experiment 2. Since attention is likely to increase both working memory ( Awh et al., 2006 ; Berryhill et al., 2011 ) and learning ( Nissen and Bullemer, 1987 ; Cohen et al., 1990 ; Gottlieb, 2012 ), why did this finding occur? It is possible that the difficulty of the task was responsible for this paradox: Experiment 1 featured a simple, button press task that required minimal effort. However, the multi-faceted task from Experiment 2 required more effort to succeed, and since greater emotional arousal may hinder performance and motivation on a very difficult task ( Yerkes and Dodson, 1908 ; Watters et al., 1997 ; Diamond et al., 2007 ), it may be that the presence of a competitor was anxiety-provoking enough to hinder working memory performance and immediate long-term memory. In fact, previous research has found that RT tends to be faster after an increase in arousal, whereas executive tasks such as those necessary for successful working memory tend to benefit from a decrease in arousal ( Luft et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, since competitive performance scores significantly predicted competitive recall scores, it may be that anxiety affected memory at the encoding phase—as opposed to affecting retention or retrieval.

An alternative explanation lies in the reward literature, as previous research has found that receiving rewards for a task can sometimes hinder performance, learning, and memory ( Spence, 1970 ; McGraw and McCullers, 1974 ; Mobbs et al., 2009 ; Chib et al., 2012 ). Perhaps succeeding in a competitive learning environment was subjectively more rewarding than succeeding in an individualist setting, despite objective rewards remaining the same across conditions. If succeeding in a competitive learning environment is subjectively more rewarding than succeeding in an individualist setting, competition may be more likely to distract participants—similarly to “choking under pressure” ( Baumeister, 1984 ; Beilock and Carr, 2001 , 2005 ; Ramirez et al., 2013 ). This explanation may be why competition negatively affecting working memory and immediate long-term memory on our task. There also may individual differences in preferences for competitive learning environments. In future research, it would be valuable to discern participants’ preference for the competition condition, as this information may provide insight as to the possible distractibility of competition and memory.

Individual and Gender Differences

In Experiment 1, we found that the PDCAS predicted how competitive an individual was at an effort bar task. In Experiment 2, the PDCAS predicted how competitive an individual was in a memory task, although this finding did not remain significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. Competitiveness in a learning setting is likely to be contingent on more factors than can be grasped from one survey measure. Furthermore, we found that men scored significantly higher on the PDCAS, suggesting that men may value competition as a means for improving personal development more than women. Men also exhibited a more competitive performance in our physical effort task in Experiment 1, in line with recent research that suggests men tend to both prefer and perform better in competitive physical environments more so than women ( Gneezy et al., 2009 ; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2011 ). However, men did not outperform women in our repeated memory task in Experiment 2. Competition may affect performance on memory tasks differently than competition traditionally affects effort and attention. Furthermore, since previous studies [such as Gneezy et al. (2009) ] have typically utilized effort tasks to compare preference for competitive environments, future research studies may want to further examine gender differences in preference for competition in memory tasks specifically, since these are typically utilized in educational settings.

We also found high rates of social desirability in our sample, which was negatively correlated with the HAS—but not the PDCAS—suggesting that the PDCAS may be a superior survey measure when tapping an individual’s true trait competitive habits and preferences. Furthermore, because the HAS contains blatant questions regarding competition, its negative correlation with social desirability may suggest that competition may be viewed as a negative personality trait by most individuals.

In Experiment 2, we found significant differences in performance on a memory task when a participant believed they were competing against a female participant. However, this result was not the case in Experiment 1 in a physical effort task. Although some research has found that females tend to excel at tasks involving episodic memory ( Herlitz et al., 1997 ; Davis, 1999 ) and object identification memory tasks ( Voyer et al., 2007 ), which were strong skills necessary to succeed at the type of task used in Experiment 2, whether this gender advantage was known by our participants remains unknown. Research suggests that increased attention drawn to one’s own performance can result in performance decrements or “choking under pressure” ( Baumeister, 1984 ; Beilock and Carr, 2001 , 2005 ; Ramirez et al., 2013 ), so the presence of a female competitor may increase pressure in a learning environment if participants have had previous experience with an object identification memory tasks and a female rivals, such as in a classroom learning setting. Yet, it is unclear whether the performance differences we found among participants who believed they were competing against female competitors were due to increased pressure due to the presence of a female competitor, or the opposite view: that females did not appear to be strong opponents in a learning setting, so they did not cause their competitors to devote more attentional resources to the task. However, although we found significant differences between conditions for participants who believed they were competing against female confederates, there was no significant interaction of gender by confederate gender, suggesting that all participants may have reduced performance in the competition condition.

Limitations

It may be difficult to generalize our experiment to competition and memory in a real-world sense. Our task in Experiment 1 examined how social motivation’s effect on a simple physical effort task, but competition may affect gross physical effort (e.g., running, team sports, etc.) on a more complex level. Additionally, our task from Experiment 2 was a specific, short memory task that did not offer any realistic long-term gains. Future research should include a longer period before administering a recall task, as a longer delay before recall would more realistically illustrate how learning occurs in a classroom setting. Furthermore, although individual preferences in competition were obtained, individual differences in intrinsic vs. extrinsic reward preference were not accounted for, and an additional sum of a few dollars may not have been enough motivation for some individuals to increase performance. Future research should examine how competition may influence long-term memory in a true educational setting.

Because our study examined the effect of competition on memory in two tasks that also featured gains and losses, our findings may have been driven by the effect of gains and losses on attention and performance, moderated by the saliency of a competitor. Since previous research has suggested that losses can increase both attention and performance ( Yechiam and Hochman, 2013 ), future research studies should attempt to distinguish whether or not competition merely moderates this affect, especially since most competitive learning environments incorporate some type of gains and losses, such as in educational settings.

In sum, our research suggests that social motivation—specifically, competition—can have strong effects on attention and memory, although significant individual and gender differences exist. Competition in a physical effort setting may increase attention, while the presence of a competitor may have detrimental effects on memory and performance. These findings present strong implications for education, the workplace, and other real-world settings involving social interaction.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Zana J Hanini, Joe Melon, and Tanasia Hall for their help as experimenters. We would also like to thank Holly Sullivan Toole with design of the effort bar task, and James Bradley, Frank Nick, Ahmet Ceceli, Christina Bejjani, Samantha DePasque Swanson, Jamil Bhanji, Onaisa Rizki, Kiranmayee Kurimella, and Stuti Prajapati for their help as confederates. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS 1150708) awarded to ET.

Anderson N. D., Iidaka T., Cabeza R., Kapur S., McIntosh A. R., Craik F. I. (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding-and retrieval-related brain activity: a PET study of younger and older adults . J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12 , 775–792. 10.1162/089892900562598 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ashcraft M. H., Kirk E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130 , 224. 10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Awh E., Vogel E., Oh S.-H. (2006). Interactions between attention and working memory . Neuroscience 139 , 201–208. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.08.023 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baumeister R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46 , 610 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Beilock S. L., Carr T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130 , 701. 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Beilock S. L., Carr T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail working memory and “choking under pressure” in math . Psychol. Sci. 16 , 101–105. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Berryhill M. E., Chein J., Olson I. R. (2011). At the intersection of attention and memory: the mechanistic role of the posterior parietal lobe in working memory . Neuropsychologia 49 , 1306–1315. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.033 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burguillo J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance . Comput. Educ. 55 , 566–575. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cassady J. C. (2004). The influence of cognitive test anxiety across the learning–testing cycle . Learn. Instr. 14 , 569–592. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.09.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chib V. S., De Martino B., Shimojo S., O’Doherty J. P. (2012). Neural mechanisms underlying paradoxical performance for monetary incentives are driven by loss aversion . Neuron 74 , 582–594. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.038 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cohen A., Ivry R. I., Keele S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning . J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16 , 17 10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.17 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Craik F. I., Govoni R., Naveh-Benjamin M., Anderson N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 125 , 159. 10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.159 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Crowne D. P., Marlowe D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology . J. Consult. Psychol. 24 , 349. 10.1037/h0047358 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Darke S. (1988). Anxiety and working memory capacity . Cogn. Emot. 2 , 145–154. 10.1080/02699938808408071 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Davis P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional experiences . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76 , 498 10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.498 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Diamond D. M., Campbell A. M., Park C. R., Halonen J., Zoladz P. R. (2007). The temporal dynamics model of emotional memory processing: a synthesis on the neurobiological basis of stress-induced amnesia, flashbulb and traumatic memories, and the Yerkes-Dodson law . Neural Plast. 2007 :60803. 10.1155/2007/60803 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
DiMenichi B. C., Richmond L. L. (2015). Reflecting on past failures leads to increased perseverance and sustained attention . J. Cogn. Psychol. 27 , 180–193. 10.1080/20445911.2014.995104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Duckworth A. L., Peterson C., Matthews M. D., Kelly D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 , 1087. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dweck C. S., Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality . Psychol. Rev. 95 , 256 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eason R. G., Harter M. R., White C. (1969). Effects of attention and arousal on visually evoked cortical potentials and reaction time in man . Physiol. Behav. 4 , 283–289. 10.1016/0031-9384(69)90176-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Einsel K., Turk C. L. (2011). Social anxiety and rumination: effect on anticipatory anxiety, memory bias, and beliefs . Psi Chi J. Undergrad. Res. 16 , 26–31. [ Google Scholar ]
Endo N., Saiki J., Saito H. (2001). Determinants of occurrence of negative priming for novel shapes with matching paradigm . Jpn J. Psychol. 72 , 204–212. [in Japanese]. 10.4992/jjpsy.72.204 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fernandes M. A., Moscovitch M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129 , 155. 10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.155 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Frederick-Recascino C. M., Schuster-Smith H. (2003). Competition and intrinsic motivation in physical activity: a comparison of two groups . J. Sport Behav. 26 , 240–254. [ Google Scholar ]
Glaser J., Knowles E. D. (2008). Implicit motivation to control prejudice . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 , 164–172. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gneezy U., Leonard K. L., List J. A. (2009). Gender differences in competition: evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society . Econometrica 77 , 1637–1664. 10.3982/ECTA6690 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gottlieb J. (2012). Attention, learning, and the value of information . Neuron 76 , 281–295. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.034 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grant H., Dweck C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 , 541. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Heine S. J., Kitayama S., Lehman D. R., Takata T., Ide E., Leung C., et al. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: an investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 , 599. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.599 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Herlitz A., Nilsson L.-G., Bäckman L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic memory . Mem. Cogn. 25 , 801–811. 10.3758/BF03211324 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hogg M. A., Abrams D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity . Social identity theory: Const. crit. adv. 28 , 47. [ Google Scholar ]
Hoorens V. (1995). Self-favoring biases, self-presentation, and the self-other asymmetry in social comparison . J. Pers. 63 , 793–817. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00317.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Horswill M. S., Waylen A. E., Tofield M. I. (2004). Drivers’ ratings of different components of their own driving skill: a greater illusion of superiority for skills that relate to accident involvement . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34 , 177–195. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02543.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kilduff G. J. (2014). Driven to win rivalry, motivation, and performance . Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5 , 944–952. 10.1177/1948550614539770 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Le Bouc R., Pessiglione M. (2013). Imaging social motivation: distinct brain mechanisms drive effort production during collaboration versus competition . J. Neurosci. 33 , 15894–15902. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0143-13.2013 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luft C. D. B., Takase E., Darby D. (2009). Heart rate variability and cognitive function: effects of physical effort . Biol. Psychol. 82 , 186–191. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.07.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maatsch J. L., Adelman H. M., Denny M. (1954). Effort and resistance to extinction of the bar-pressing response . J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 47 , 47. 10.1037/h0061827 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maddi S. R., Matthews M. D., Kelly D. R., Villarreal B., White M. (2012). The role of hardiness and grit in predicting performance and retention of USMA cadets . Mil. Psychol. 24 , 19–28. 10.1080/08995605.2012.639672 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McGraw K. O., McCullers J. C. (1974). The distracting effect of material reward: an alternative explanation for the superior performance of reward groups in probability learning . J. Exp. Child Psychol. 18 , 149–158. 10.1016/0022-0965(74)90096-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Miller H., Bichsel J. (2004). Anxiety, working memory, gender, and math performance . Pers. Individ. Dif. 37 , 591–606. 10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mobbs D., Hassabis D., Seymour B., Marchant J. L., Weiskopf N., Dolan R. J., et al. (2009). Choking on the money reward-based performance decrements are associated with midbrain activity . Psychol. Sci. 20 , 955–962. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02399.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Niederle M., Vesterlund L. (2011). Gender and competition . Annu. Rev. Econ. 3 , 601–630. 10.1146/annurev-economics-111809-125122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nissen M. J., Bullemer P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: evidence from performance measures . Cogn. Psychol. 19 , 1–32. 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Oldfather P., Dahl K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning . J. Lit. Res. 26 , 139–158. 10.1080/10862969409547843 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Owens M., Stevenson J., Hadwin J. A., Norgate R. (2012). Anxiety and depression in academic performance: an exploration of the mediating factors of worry and working memory . Sch. Psychol. Int. 33 , 433–449. 10.1177/0143034311427433 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Paulhus D. L. (1991). “Measurement and control of response bias,” in Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes , eds Robinson J. P., Shaver P. R., Wrightsman L. S. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 17–59. [ Google Scholar ]
Prinzmetal W., McCool C., Park S. (2005). Attention: reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134 , 73. 10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.73 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pronin E., Lin D. Y., Ross L. (2002). The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28 , 369–381. 10.1177/0146167202286008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ramirez G., Gunderson E. A., Levine S. C., Beilock S. L. (2013). Math anxiety, working memory, and math achievement in early elementary school . J. Cogn. Dev. 14 , 187–202. 10.1080/15248372.2012.664593 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Redick T. S., Broadway J. M., Meier M. E., Kuriakose P. S., Unsworth N., Kane M. J., et al. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks . Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28 , 164 10.1027/1015-5759/a000123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rosenfeld R. A. (1978). Anxiety and learning . Teach. Sociol. 5 , 151–166. 10.2307/1317061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ryckman R. M., Hammer M., Kaczor L. M., Gold J. A. (1990). Construction of a hypercompetitive attitude scale . J. Pers. Assess. 55 , 630–639. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_19 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ryckman R. M., Hammer M., Kaczor L. M., Gold J. A. (1996). Construction of a personal development competitive attitude scale . J. Pers. Assess. 66 , 374–385. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6602_15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sanders D. (1987). Cultural conflicts: an important factor in the academic failures of American Indian students . J. Multicult. Couns. Devel. 15 , 81–90. 10.1002/j.2161-1912.1987.tb00381.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smith K. J. (1992). Using multimedia with Navajo children: an effort to alleviate problems of cultural learning style, background of experience, and motivation . Read. Writ. Q. 8 , 287–294. 10.1080/0748763920080303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Spence J. T. (1970). The distracting effects of material reinforcers in the discrimination learning of lower-and middle-class children . Child Dev. 41 , 103–111. [ Google Scholar ]
Stuss D., Stethem L., Hugenholtz H., Picton T., Pivik J., Richard M. (1989). Reaction time after head injury: fatigue, divided and focused attention, and consistency of performance . J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 52 , 742–748. 10.1136/jnnp.52.6.742 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Swanson S. D., Tricomi E. (2014). Goals and task difficulty expectations modulate striatal responses to feedback . Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 14 , 610–620. 10.3758/s13415-014-0269-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Treadway M. T., Buckholtz J. W., Schwartzman A. N., Lambert W. E., Zald D. H. (2009). Worth the ‘EEfRT’? The effort expenditure for rewards task as an objective measure of motivation and anhedonia . PLoS ONE 4 :e6598. 10.1371/journal.pone.0006598 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Voyer D., Postma A., Brake B., Imperato-McGinley J. (2007). Gender differences in object location memory: a meta-analysis . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14 , 23–38. 10.3758/BF03194024 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Watters P. A., Martin F., Schreter Z. (1997). Caffeine and cognitive performance: the nonlinear Yerkes–Dodson Law . Hum. Psychopharmacol. 12 , 249–257. [ Google Scholar ]
Wentzel K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: implications for understanding motivation at school . J. Educ. Psychol. 91 , 76 10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.76 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
White S. A. (1998). Adolescent goal profiles, perceptions of the parent-initiated motivational climate, and competitive trait anxiety . Sport Psychol. 12 , 16–28. [ Google Scholar ]
Yechiam E., Hochman G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains . Psychol. Bull. 139 , 497. 10.1037/a0029383 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yerkes R. M., Dodson J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation . J. Comp. Neurol. Psychol. 18 , 459–482. 10.1002/cne.920180503 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zerbe W. J., Paulhus D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: a reconception . Acad. Manage. Rev. 12 , 250–264. [ Google Scholar ]
Zimmerman B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning . J. Educ. Psychol. 81 , 329 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

The Importance of Competition for the American Economy

By Heather Boushey and Helen Knudsen

Healthy market competition is fundamental to a well-functioning U.S. economy. Basic economic theory demonstrates that when firms have to compete for customers, it leads to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, greater variety, and more innovation. [1] Competition is critical not only in product markets, but also in labor markets. [2] When firms compete to attract workers, they must increase compensation and improve working conditions.

There is evidence that in the United States, markets have become more concentrated and perhaps less competitive across a wide array of industries: four beef packers now control over 80 percent of their market, domestic air travel is now dominated by four airlines, and many Americans have only one choice of reliable broadband provider. There are a number of reasons for these trends towards greater concentration, including technological change, the increasing importance of “winner take all” markets, and more lenient government oversight over the last 40 years. [3]

When there is insufficient competition, dominant firms can use their market power to charge higher prices, offer decreased quality, and block potential competitors from entering the market—meaning entrepreneurs and small businesses cannot participate on a level playing field and new ideas cannot become new goods and services. Research has also connected market power to inequality . In an economy without adequate competition, prices and corporate profits rise, while workers’ wages decrease. This means large corporations and their shareholders gain wealth, while consumers and workers pay the cost. The pandemic has further underscored the dangers of an economy that depends on a few companies for essentials, exemplified by the supply chain problems we face when a small handful of corporations creates bottlenecks for a critical product.

This is why today, President Biden will sign an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. It launches a whole-of-government effort to combat growing market power in the U.S. economy by seeking to ensure that markets are competitive. Because of the scale and scope of the market power problem, the President’s Executive Order makes the promotion of competition central to the government’s mission by dedicating the entire government to reversing these trends.

Signals that indicate greater market power

Even though competition is fundamental to a thriving and fair economy, there is growing evidence that, over time, markets across the United States have become less competitive and that market power is expanding. There are two kinds of evidence that indicate that there are widespread concentration problems in the U.S. economy. First, there is evidence that market concentration, as well as profits and markups, are rising across industries. Second, market-specific studies show that consolidation has led to harmful price increases, providing one of the clearest indicators of enhanced market power.

Alongside the rise in prices, which is both an indication of a market power problem and an important consequence for consumers, economists have identified two other important consequences of rising concentration: first, there is growing evidence that it is hampering innovation; and, second, research shows that it is leading to substantial concentration in the U.S. labor market—not just markets for goods and services, which has the effect of suppressing wages.

Evidence of rising economic concentration

There are numerous studies that show increased concentration across a large number of industries in the economy. In fact, concentration has increased in over 75 percent of U.S. industries since the late 1990s. These studies show that the largest companies in the economy have grown at the expense of smaller firms. While it could be that, in some cases, concentration has grown because firms with a high market share are more efficient or more innovative than their competitors, the prevalence across so many industries and the trendlines are cause for concern.

This is underscored by a set of studies that show that the profits and markups of the largest firms—indicators that many economists point to as aggregate measures of market power across the economy—have grown over the last 30 to 40 years. In a free and open market, we would expect new companies to enter the market and compete down these profits. However, these increases in the profits of large, dominant firms coincide with a decrease in business dynamism in the U.S. economy—with fewer startups launching and less labor market fluidity.

Consequences of increased concentration

While informative, national-level, industry-wide studies give little insight into whether increased concentration and markups are a result of decreased competition; that is, they cannot tell us whether or not the concentration is problematic for the U.S. economy. As mentioned above, on the one hand, industry-wide concentration can increase when a firm becomes more efficient or more innovative or when a national firm increases its footprint. [4] Similarly, increased markups can be the result of improved technology driving down marginal costs. On the other hand, increased concentration can also be the result of anti-competitive mergers or increased barriers to entry, which could also increase markups.

In order to figure out whether the patterns of increased concentration and markups are problematic, economists must look more closely at individual markets, since market-specific studies allow a more detailed understanding of the competitive mechanisms that are leading to these patterns. To better understand these markets, economists have done deep dives into an array of industries—ranging from concrete to health care . These studies tend to focus on what happens after two (or more) firms merge. Studying mergers is especially important because a merger changes market structure in a way that is not caused by a firm improving its product or becoming more efficient. Rising consumer prices following a merger indicate that a firm has gained market power, which gives them increased price-setting capabilities and suggests that the merger harmed consumers.

There is evidence from an array of market-specific studies looking before and after mergers that strongly suggests that consolidation has led to less competition and greater market power. These studies show that as market conditions changed, prices rose, indicating that firms had the capacity to charge more since they had—in these cases—merged with their competitors:

One review of this literature shows that of 49 such studies, 36 found merger-induced price increases. Another review finds that the average price effect in mergers studied was 7.2 percent.
A review of hospital merger studies finds that most of the mergers led to price increases of at least 20 percent.
A study of a large health insurer merger shows that it led to a 7 percent average premium increase.
A study of airline mergers in the 1980s finds that prices increased between 7.2 and 29.4 percent in markets where the merging airlines competed directly.
A study of the MillerCoors joint venture finds that it resulted in tacit coordination with Anheuser-Busch, leading to a 6 to 8 percent increase in retail beer prices.

Looking across these kinds of studies, the conclusion is that consolidation does indicate a market power problem with the consequence that consumers are facing higher prices than they would if the market was more competitive.

Other negative consequences of market concentration

There is also growing evidence that market power negatively affects innovation. There have long been questions about whether market concentration fostered or inhibited innovation. Even decades ago, Kenneth Arrow argued that concentration hindered invention: “pre-invention monopoly power acts as a strong disincentive to further innovation.” [5] Emerging evidence points to this being the case today: one study shows that firms with monopoly power are less likely to advance technological changes; another paper focuses on the channel through which less innovation occurs in the presence of market power; and another study finds that while price markups increased after a merger, there was no corresponding increase in productivity.

There are emerging concerns that this effect on innovation may be affecting the economy more generally. In his book, The Great Reversal, Thomas Philippon documents that the increase in concentration across the economy is reducing economy-wide investment. Similarly, scholars are finding that greater market power is a factor in low interest rates and high firm financial wealth, but relatively little investment. If concentration is allowed to continue, this may dampen U.S. productivity and growth, limiting the future competitiveness of the U.S. economy.

Decreased competition in labor markets

As firms become more concentrated, they are able to push wages down, exemplifying another instance where we see the growing consequences of market power. With greater market power, employers have less competition for the best workers since there are fewer other firms. Such power in the labor market can be deployed in several ways; we discuss two below.

First, consolidation in output markets not only affects consumer prices, but also wages and working conditions as the number of employers in an industry decreases. For example, as hospitals have merged, not only have consumers faced decreased choices in where to get their medical care, but nurses, doctors, and other health care employees have had less of a choice of employer. In fact, a study found that large hospital mergers led to lower wage growth for nurses, pharmacy workers, and hospital administrators.

Firms can also exert market power by limiting their employee’s ability to change jobs through noncompete agreements . These agreements prevent employees from quitting and—within a certain time period—taking a job with a different employer who may benefit from the employee’s industry-specific skills. This translates into lower pay , as the employee has limited ability to deploy their skills elsewhere.

In all, these uncompetitive labor market conditions are quite common —with 60 percent of labor markets being highly concentrated. Importantly, researchers have documented that uncompetitive labor markets are associated with lower wages relative to what a truly competitive market would provide. A meta-analysis of labor market studies finds that firms pay their workers less than they would in a competitive labor market, with the median estimate showing that firms pay workers 58 percent of their value. New work has also found that more than one in ten U.S. workers are in labor markets where pay is reduced by at least 2 percent due to employer concentration.

Signs that policy change is necessary

There is strong evidence that one of the reasons for the current rise in market power is a shift in policy. Antitrust enforcement has become more lenient over the last 40 years, and regulators have not had sufficient resources to enforce the laws on the books.

Antitrust laws are traditionally enforced by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They challenge anticompetitive mergers and other anticompetitive behavior by firms, such as exclusionary practices. The DOJ also prosecutes the criminal antitrust laws that bar collusive behavior, such as price-fixing.

To enforce the law, the DOJ and the FTC publish merger guidelines that lay out when a merger is likely to be challenged. Since the guidelines were first published in 1968, enforcement practice has become increasingly lenient.

In 1968, in a highly concentrated market (four firms having 75 percent of market share), even the merger of two small firms (each with 4 percent market share) would be challenged routinely. Today, such mergers are almost never challenged; indeed, based on guidelines released in 2010, mergers are unlikely to be challenged even if they leave only four substantial competitors in place. The increase in these thresholds reflects, in part, the agencies giving more credit to efficiencies that might arise from mergers. At the same time that these guideline thresholds have increased, the level of purchase price that requires companies to give notice of their mergers to the agencies has risen, leading to a larger number of mergers going unreviewed—even as firms strategically acquire competitors.

In part because of these changes and because of real-term reductions in funding, Federal agencies have been bringing fewer antitrust cases. In fact, the number of criminal antitrust cases brought by the DOJ from FY2018-2021 has declined to an average of 22 a year, down from an average of over 60 cases a year across the previous six years. On the civil side, from 2010 to 2019 only about 3 percent of mergers that met the filing threshold have received “second requests,” which are a more thorough review by the agencies. When mergers are challenged, they are at the extreme, where four or fewer competitors are remaining.

Government suits enforcing the laws against anticompetitive conduct have also been rare. The DOJ’s lawsuit against Google and the FTC’s lawsuit against Facebook , both filed in 2020, are the first major Federal monopolization cases since the Microsoft case in 1998. [6] As the economy evolves with technology and “winner take all” markets become more important, it will be crucial to guard against anticompetitive conduct as well. These shifts have come at the same time that judicial precedent has moved in the direction of skepticism towards antitrust enforcement.

The Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy launches an effort to solve these problems

The President’s Executive Order establishes a whole-of-government approach to push back on decades of decline in competition. The Order not only calls on the traditional antitrust agencies—the DOJ and the FTC—to enforce existing laws vigorously and to consider updating their merger guidelines, it also directs all agencies and departments to use their detailed knowledge and expertise to ensure that their work clearly supports competition in the markets they regulate—including paying close attention to labor markets. This whole-of-government approach is necessary because the antitrust agencies are limited both by resources and the current judicial interpretation of the antitrust laws. It also relies on the fact that Congress has delegated authority to police anticompetitive conduct and oversee mergers to many agencies—not just the DOJ and the FTC.

The Order therefore directs or encourages roughly a dozen agencies to engage in more than 70 specific actions that will remove barriers to entry and encourage more competition. For example, the Order encourages the Department of Health and Human Services to work with states developing drug importation programs and to consider finalizing rules allowing hearing aids to be sold over the counter at a fraction of their current price. It requires all agencies to use their procurement and spending powers to avoid entrenching monopolists and to create new business opportunities for small firms. It encourages the FTC to issue rules curtailing noncompete agreements which inhibit labor mobility, preventing workers from switching to jobs that offer better pay and benefits. And, it directs the Department of Agriculture to consider strengthening its enforcement of laws designed to prevent large meat-processing companies from taking advantage of farmers.

The U.S. economy faces a serious market power problem which results in increasing wage inequality and wealth concentration, high prices, and stagnating wages. The President’s Executive Order relies on the full range of powers granted by Congress to address it, ensuring that the economy works for all Americans.

[1] When only a single firm sells a product or service for which there is no substitute, the firm is a monopoly.

[2] When only a single firm buys a product or service, the firm is a monopsony. A monopsony can exist in labor markets, when there is only one employer in a market.

[3] “Winner take all” markets are those where a single firm tends to dominate, even if the dominant firm’s product is only slightly better than the other products, and the market may have originally been competitive. The market becomes more concentrated when the best performers are able to capture a large share of the market, often through technological advances. Walmart is an example in that it has been able to drive many smaller firms out of the market by harnessing advances in transportation and information technology in order to lower prices. This can also happen when the market has network externalities such that a firm’s technology is more valuable when there are more users of the technology; social media platforms or search engines are examples of such markets.

[4] There are some studies that show local concentration has been declining. This can be explained by large national companies entering local markets. These studies still look at broad industries rather than product specific markets.

[5] Kenneth Arrow, “Economic Welfare and The Allocation of Resources for Invention,” in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors , A Report of the National Bureau of Economic Research, 609-26 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 620.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

The Pros and Cons of Competition Among Employees

Anna Steinhage,
Duncan Wardley

What managers need to know.

New research shows that the way in which leaders communicate about competition can make employees experience either anxiety or excitement, and those feelings influence whether they react positively or negatively. When employees feel excited, they’re more likely to come up with creative solutions. When they feel anxious, they’re more likely to cut corners or sabotage one another. Leaders can generate excitement by highlighting the potential positive consequences of competition (e.g., the recognition and rewards that await outstanding performers) rather than creating anxiety by singling out and highlighting low performers.

Competition between employees is an inescapable part of most people’s work lives. Whether overtly or otherwise, most companies create a dynamic in which employees compete against each other for recognition, bonuses, and promotions. After a close look at workplace policies across corporations, banks, law firms, and tech companies, the New York Times called grueling competition the defining feature of the upper-echelon workplace.

Anna Steinhage is a researcher in organizational behavior and visiting researcher at the Global Insights Initiative (GINI) within the Development Research Group at the World Bank.
Dan Cable is professor of organizational behavior at London Business School. His newest book Exceptional helps you build a personal highlight reel to unlock your potential, and Alive at Work helps you understand the neuroscience of why people love what they do.
DW Duncan Wardley is a Director in PwC’s New Business Consulting practice and a subject matter expert in behavioral and cultural change.

Partner Center

10 Ways Competitions Enhance Learning

Posted July 4, 2016 by Josh Neubert

Competition may be one of the most contentious and misunderstood topics in education. Should our students compete? What about collaboration? Doesn't competition create winners and losers? Its hard to know what to believe when it comes to competitions in education because there is so much misinformation and seemingly conflicting research studies on the topic.

We wanted to cut through the confusion and get down to the research-backed impact. In this post we only address a few of the positive benefits that students can receive. We do recognize that there are potential detriments from competitions. We'll address these in a future post and explore how to avoid them. It is also important to understand that not every competition will provide all of these benefits, and not every competition will be structured to maximize benefits. Through the expanding use of ICS's best-practices in competition design, more and more programs are beginning to understand how to structure the rules and processes of the competition to maximize Net Collaborative Impact.

In future posts we'll explore each of the benefits listed below in more detail and review some of the actual research studies that help us understand how they work. For now, we're going to give a brief overview of a few selected personal benefits to the participants. This is not a comprehensive list, nor is it a full examination of the research. It is a selection of benefits pulled from the research literature that we deemed highly potent for our students. So, without further adieu, we give you the 10 top personal benefits of Educational Competitions:

1. Improving Teamwork and Collaboration

One of the most common concerns and misconceptions regarding educational competitions is the "Competition vs. Collaboration" debate. We mistakenly think that competition is the antonym to collaboration (see more on this in our post Redefining Competition in Education ); however, when we break it down, well-structured, consciously designed competitions actually foster collaboration and team work. Most team-based educational competitions require students to take on challenging tasks that require good communication, collaboration, and teamwork. The fact that they are striving to achieve such a challenging task together, makes them work harder at understanding their specific skills, and how to work well with one another. The fact that they know other teams are aiming to achieve the same goals, goes a long way in motivating the teams to become more cohesive, and better collaborators.

2. Enhancing Social and Emotional Learning.

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is a complex area of development for students and the educators trying to help them. There are so many factors at play here it is sometimes difficult to determine what will have an impact, and if the same interventions will have the same impacts on all students. As with all methodologies used Â to help students gain social and emotional skills, competitions can have a wide range of impacts on different students. However, we know best-practices in competition design to help students maximize their benefits from competitions. Through competitions students can gain better understanding of how to deal with conflicting opinions and ideas. They can learn how to collaborate with widely differing personalities. They can learn to manage subjectivity in their lives. And they can learn to better gauge and evaluate risks. There are variances in how students react to competitions that also impacts how they will realize these benefits. Gender variances exist as do socio-economic variances and age variances. Knowing these facts allows us as coaches, competition organizers, and educators to direct our support to help each student individually maximize these benefits from competitions.

One critical piece to increasing a student's academic self-identity is in having heroes and idols that they can look up to. Students in K-12 grades are especially malleable to the influence of older peers and those they perceive as being "socially superior" to themselves. To help students increase their respect for academics and interest in learning, it is important that they have heroes in these fields that they can look up to. Competitions are the strongest way to do this. We can learn from athletics on this where we have very specific evaluation criteria on which our youth can easily see who is an expert in the field and who is not. We know that Lebron James is an expert at basketball because of his ridiculously high numbers of shots, rebounds, blocks, and ultimately wins. Without the competition to showcase his skills, would our students still be able to recognize him as a hero they aspire to? Taking a similar structure into academics will help our students place value on educational criteria in ways that they currently cannot.

This is another contentious one when it comes to people's perceptions of competitions. Its often said that by creating external incentives, we end up decreasing intrinsic motivation of students because we highlight the value of the task as only being valuable because of an external reward. This was famously highlighted in this brilliant RSA Animate video . What has happened in the world of competition design since the research underlying that video was conducted is that we've learned how to do incentives right. Simply trying to incentivize a task that requires even a little mental effort with a monetary reward is not a good motivator. However, we know that creating a challenging, purposeful process behind the task IS a good motivator! Competitions have learned this and are relying more and more on highlighting the process and purpose driven challenges behind the competition to drive student motivation. Rarely do we see competitions simply highlight the large awards at the end as the reason to participate. ICS's best-practices in competition design help coaches and competition managers understand how to implement these changes so that their students develop and maintain intrinsic motivation for the challenges they're faced with.

5. Enhancing Beneficial Peer Comparisons.

Students are constantly comparing themselves to their peers. This is a fact of life that we cannot stop. Comparison is built into human nature. It is a natural way of evaluating how we're doing on the things that matter to us. What we can change are the items on which we compare ourselves. For K-12 students, comparisons are mostly made around items of social status; how likable we are, how many friends we have, how much respect others give us. What we hope to do is to help students see academics as a favorable area in which to compare themselves. To do this we need to place real-world value on academic tasks. We can again take a lesson from Athletics. By placing concrete values on academic tasks similar to how sports competitions assign value to physical attributes, we can begin to increase the beneficial comparisons students make about their academic performances. We don't mean to say that students should value themselves based on their performance in academic competitions, but just that they should be able to place a certain level of respect and appreciation on the academic prowess of students with these skills. When well-designed, competitions can help students move towards these beneficial peer comparisons and place them in a similar high regard along with other social status comparisons.

6. Strengthening Academic Self-Concept.

This is again a very contentious area for academic competitions. Many will say that competitions create winners and losers, where the losers are then taught that they are not good enough to perform in academics and have their academic self-concept crushed. However, research in social psychology has advanced the field of competition design by leaps and bounds in the last decades. We now know how to mitigate the negative impacts of not-winning a competition and highlight the participation. In basic zero-sum-game competitions, it may happen that students who repeatedly lose end up having lower self-concept in the challenge topics. However, competition design has become much more complex than this. We can take our lesson here from... I hate to say it... but from Reality TV. Look at what many of the performance based competitions on TV do when a team is kicked off. They celebrate their participation. They highlight their effort that it took to get them there, and showcase how the team enjoyed every minute of the challenge. This is just one mechanism in competition design to ensure that even the "not-winners" end up benefiting from their participation. Simply because you don't win the end goal, doesn't mean that you are a worthless good-for-nothing student. Imagine if Basketball was held to this same misconception. We'd have no basketball players left! Everyone would quit and go home to become an academic! Losing in a competition does not have to diminish the participant's self-concept. In fact, research has shown that it can actually enhance self-concept more than winning in some cases!

7. Facilitating Growth Mindsets.

In 2006, Dr. Carol Dweck published her now famous book, "Mindset." This laid out the benefits of having a growth mindset in learning and in life. Dweck noted that by having a growth mindset, we constantly look for ways to improve ourselves, and this leads to increased opportunity in our careers and personal lives. Learning to have a growth mindset is not something that is taught in school. We can gain this skill by conducting small iterations and repeatedly exploring improvement in the tasks we take on. Competitions set a framework for practicing and facilitating a growth mindset for our students. They give benchmarks upon which we can base our improvements, and put value on the challenge of improving.

8. Building Mental Toughness.

Persistence, resiliency, and grit are all components of Mental Toughness. These valuable real-world skills come in handy across every area of our careers and lives. We must know how to bend and not break under pressure. We must learn how to handle stressful, competitive situations. Educational competitions in a K-12 setting provide students with safe scenarios in which they can practice these skills. Students faced with tough challenges can learn how to pick themselves up and try again when they fail. They can learn through their participation that failing to achieve the best marks is not the end of the journey, but just a stepping stone, and an amazing learning experience. Limiting students from participating in competitive environments during their K-12 education can be a huge detriment to their future careers. Companies look for employees who are able to handle the stress of competitive situations they will be faced with. Educational Competitions ensure that students will not be put in these situations for the first time when they jump into their jobs.

9. Developing Agency.

The "Yes man" is so last century. Companies in the high-tech industries driving our economy today look for employees who can think. People who can analyze situations and determine a course of action without being told what to do. Unfortunately, our traditional lecture and test model of schooling leaves no opportunity for students to practice these skills. Competitions on the other hand often require them. In many models of educational competitions, students are required to think on their feet, analyze results of their processes, and make improvements, or determine a new course of action. Through the process of these competitions students take on the responsibilities. Much is on the coach to follow best-practices in guiding the students through this process so that they aren't being overbearing and making decisions for the team or leaving the team not knowing how to move forward. When the coach is well trained, students find themselves forced to learn how to get themselves going and over time develop strong agency and self-motivation.

10. Improving Risk Analysis.

In traditional schooling, there is little opportunity to teach students skills in risk analysis. More and more schools are beginning to understand the importance of this and other 21st century skills; however, few are successfully executing high quality programs where students are required to analyze risks in real-world situations and determine a course of action. Many types of educational competitions provide a safe environment for them to do so. In tournaments, Engineering Design Competitions, and Open Solution Challenges there are many ways in which students are tasked to evaluate risk. Through these programs we can help students become better prepared for the 21st century workforce by having well developed risk-analysis skills.

These are just a few of the broad spectrum of benefits that students can achieve through educational competitions. Many go hand in hand with each other, but none are guaranteed. It is critical that our educators, coaches, parents, and competition organizers understand the best-practices in executing competition design in ways to ensure these benefits are realized. We have not address all of the benefits to students in this post, nor have we begun to explore the social and community benefits that can be gained through educational competitions. We will address each of these benefits in more detail along with additional community-based benefits in future posts. We will also explore the potential detriments that may result from competitions and examine how to avoid them in future posts.

We hope this is an interesting beginning to the conversation of how educational competitions can be positively impact education. For ICS this is a continuous process to refine best-practices in challenge-based-learning, we always welcome thoughts and comments from our community.

Signup Newsletter

Sign me up for the newsletter!

The Institute of Competition Sciences (ICS) was founded in 2012 to help transform learning into an exciting challenge for all students. We exist to support students in realizing the full potential of their future.

Quick Links

Competitions
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions

Connect with us on social media

Competition and the Economy: Economic Perspectives

First Online: 25 January 2020

Cite this chapter

Svein Olaf Thorbjørnsen 2

208 Accesses

Economic competition is defined, and economics discussed, both generally and scientifically. Focus is then given to the elements in the competitive process: the actors, the forms of competition, and their anchoring in the real world. Regulation is also a topic considered. What then are the functions and goals of competition? Special attention is given to the question of efficiency, promoted, for example, by Pareto optimization, but also with problems such as unwished-for external effects, inefficient production of collective goods, and a waste of resources. Consideration is given to whether competition or cooperation is most effective? How competition can promote creativity, quality, and economic growth is also discussed. The three are linked, creative innovation and quality can contribute to growth, but each of them includes as well both positive and problematic aspects. The competitive distribution of resources (and of power) depends on the actors involved and on the form of competition. From the viewpoint of consumers, the goal of competition is utility; from the viewpoint of both sellers and producers, it is profit. Does competition also have a societal goal? Societal well-being seems not generally prominent in today’s competitive economic world. There are, however, in a modern, competitive economy, elements that can promote the well-being of society: consumer sovereignty and a reduced concentration of power and creativity to benefit more people. In order to identify carefully what characterizes competition as an economic instrument and what this entails in a societal context, the author contrasts Milton Friedman and John K. Galbraith. The comparison is related to the character of competition, the necessity of competition, its consequences, and competition and state regulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Arnsperger, Christian. 1996. Competition, Consumerism and the ‘Other’. A Philosophical Investigation into the Ethics of Economic Competition. Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales 1996014) (19.12.2003). Louvain: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES). http://ideas.repec.org/p/ctl/louvir/1996014.html (2.7.2018).

Arrow, Kenneth J., and Frank Hahn. 1971. General Competitive Analysis . Advanced Textbooks in Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Google Scholar

Bain, Joe S. 2018. Monopoly and Competition. Britannica Academic (3.10.2018). http://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/monopoly-and-competition/106206 (15.11.2018).

Bowie, Norman E. 1999. Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective . Oxford: Blackwell.

Brakelmann, Günter. 1988. Zur Arbeit geboren?: Beiträge zu einer christlichen Arbeitsethik . SWI-Studien. Bochum: SWI Verl.

Britton, Andrew, and Peter Sedgwick. 2003. Economic Theory and Christian Belief . Bern: Peter Lang.

Brockway, George P. 2001. The End of Economic Man: An Introduction to Humanistic Economics . New York; London: W. W. Norton & Co.

Buechner, M. Northrup. 2014. A Comment on Scarcity. The Journal of Philosophical Economics 8 (1): 1–19. Bucharest: Bucharest University of Economic Studies. https://bibsys-almaprimo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid = TN_doaj_soai_doaj_org_article_26478465d69a4d71837955fe978fccc1&context=PC&vid=MF&lang=no_NO&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,a%20comment%20on%20scarcity&sortby=rank&offset=0 (15.3.18).

Butler, Eamonn. 1985. Milton Friedman: A Guide to His Economic Thought . Aldershot: Gower Publishing.

Caillois, R. 1988. The Structure and Classification of Games. In Philosophic Inquiry in Sport , ed. William J. Morgan and Klaus V. Meier. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Crouch, Colin, and David Marquand. 1993. Introduction. In Ethics and Markets: Co-operation and Competition Within Capitalist Economies , ed. Colin Crouch and David Marquand, 1–5. Oxford: Blackwell.

Daly, Herman E., and Joshua Farley. 2011. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications , 2nd ed. Washington: Island Press.

Dunn, Stephen P. 2011. The Economics of John Kenneth Galbraith: Introduction, Persuasion and Rehabilitation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friedman, Milton. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. New York Times Magazine (13.9.1970). New York: A.G. Sulzberger http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf (28.11.2018).

Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. 1980. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1952. American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power . Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1968. The New Industrial State . London: Hamish Hamilton.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1998 [1958]. The Affluent Society , 40th anniversary ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Haugland, Sven A., and Kjell Grønhaug. 1993. Cooperative Relationships and Competitive Markets . LOS-senter notat 9324. Bergen: LOS-senteret.

Howerth, Ira Woods. 1912. Competition, Natural and Industrial. International Journal of Ethics 22: 399–419.

Article Google Scholar

Jevons, William Stanley. 1970 [1871]. The Theory of Political Economy. Edited with an Introduction by R.D Collison Black. The Pelican Classics. Middelsex: Penguin Books.

Kay, John. 2003. The Truth About Markets: Their Genius, Their Limits, Their Follies . London: Allen Lane/Penguin Books.

Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money . London: Macmillan.

Kirzner, Israel M. 1991. The Driving Force of the Market: The Idea of ‘Competition’ in Contemporary Economic Theory and in the Austrian Theory of the Market Process. In Austrian Economics: Perspectives on the Past and Prospects for the Future , vol. 17, ed. Richard M. Ebeling, 139–160. Champions of Freedom. Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press.

Kohn, Alfie. 1992. No Contest: The Case Against Competition , Rev ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Krawietz, Birgit. 2014. Falconry as a Cultural Icon of the Arab Gulf Region. In Under Construction: Logics of Urbanism in the Gulf Region , ed. Steffen Wippel, Katrin Bromber, Christian Steiner, and Birgit Krawietz, 131–146. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Kurz, Heinz D. 2016. Adam Smith on Markets, Competition and Violations of Natural Liberty. Cambridge Journal of Economics 40: 615–638.

Landreth, Harry, and David C. Colander. 2002. History of Economic Thought , 4th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Langhelle, Oluf. 1999. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Ethics of ‘Our Common Future’. International Political Science Review 20 (2): 129–149.

Lenn, D. Jeffrey. 1998. Efficient Markets. In The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics , ed. Patricia H. Werhane and R. Edward Freeman, 191–192. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell.

Luttwak, Edward. 1999. Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy , 1st U.S. ed. New York: HarperCollins.

Lutz, Christopher Steven. 2016. Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre (1929–). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . http://www.iep.utm.edu/mac-over/ (28.11.2018).

Lutz, Mark A., and Kenneth Lux. 1979. The Challenge of Humanistic Economics . Reading, MA: Benjamin Cummings.

MacAvoy, Thomas C. 1998. Innovation. In The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics , ed. Patricia H. Werhane and R. Edward Freeman, 331–332. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell.

Nilsson, Jan-Evert. 2016. The Social Democratic Welfare Model: A Child of Times Past. In The Current Nordic Welfare State Model , ed. Noralv Veggeland, 21–41. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

O’Neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parker, Richard. 2005. John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics and His Economics . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Rich, Arthur. 1990. Marktwirtschaft, Planwirtschaft, Weltwirtschaft aus sozialethischer Sicht . Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn.

Robbins, Lionel. 1984 [1935]. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science , 3rd ed. New York: New York University Press.

Salsman, Richard M. 2000a. ‘Pure and Perfect’ Competition? By What Standard? Capitalism Magazine (12.2.2000). http://capitalismmagazine.com/2000/02/pure-and-perfect-competition-by-what-standard/ (15.3.2018).

Salsman, Richard M. 2000b. What Does Competition Mean Under Capitalism? Capitalism Magazine (2.1.2000), http://capitalismmagazine.com/2000/01/what-does-competition-mean-under-capitalism/ (15.3.2018).

Smith, Adam. 1998 [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Sowell, Thomas. 2015. Basic Economics. A Common Sense Guide to the Economy , 5th ed. New York: Basic Books.

Torsvik, Gaute. 2003. Menneskenatur og samfunnsstruktur: ein kritisk introduksjon til økonomisk teori . Samlagets bøker for høgare utdanning. Oslo: Samlaget.

Veggeland, Noralv (ed.). 2016. The Current Nordic Welfare State Model . New York: Nova Science Publishers.

von Hayek, Friedrich A. 1948. Individualism and Economic Order . London: University of Chicago Press.

Wachtel, Paul L. 1983. The Poverty of Affluence: A Psychological Portrait of the American Way of Life . New York: Free Press.

Walras, Léon. 1977 [1874]. Elements of Pure Economics, or, The Theory of Social Wealth . Fairfield: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.

Werhane, Patricia H. 1999. Business Ethics and the Origins of Contemporary Capitalism: Economics and Ethics in the Work of Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer. In A Companion to Business Ethics , vol. 17, ed. Robert E. Frederick, 325–341. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future . Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Oslo, Norway

Svein Olaf Thorbjørnsen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svein Olaf Thorbjørnsen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Thorbjørnsen, S.O. (2019). Competition and the Economy: Economic Perspectives. In: What Happens to People in a Competitive Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22133-1_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22133-1_5

Published : 25 January 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-22132-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-22133-1

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Competition and why it matters

Competition leads to lower prices and more choice for consumers. It also inspires better quality products and services.
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 bans business behaviours that damage competition.
It is illegal for businesses to collude in a cartel or to impose minimum resale prices.
A range of other behaviours break the law if they substantially lessen competition.
Businesses can seek an exemption for anti-competitive conduct.

What the ACCC does

We protect and promote competition in markets.
We provide general information about business obligations under competition law.
We investigate anti-competitive behaviour that may be illegal.
We enforce the law on anti-competitive behaviour. We take action against businesses that break the law.

What the ACCC can't do

We don’t intervene directly in disputes between businesses.
We don’t give legal advice.

Legitimate business behaviour

As long as a business is competing on its merits rather than trying to stop other businesses from competing, its behaviour is unlikely to break the law. This is the case even if a competitor’s business is harmed.

Businesses competing on their merits do things like:

investing in research to improve products or services, or invent new ones
advertising to win customers, without making false or misleading claims
improving their processes to lower costs.

Behaviours like these benefit consumers and the economy, and are not illegal.

Some common misconceptions

Some people believe these actions are illegal when they're not.

It’s not illegal to:

innovate and launch new products which disrupt a market
respond to price competition by offering lower prices
open a shop of the same kind over the road from an existing shop
refuse to supply another business, unless it substantially lessens competition, results from cartel conduct, or is part of resale price maintenance .

Business behaviour that is illegal

Some behaviour is so damaging to competition that it’s banned outright.

Cartel activity

It's illegal for businesses to collude with competitors by:

fixing prices
rigging bids
sharing markets, or
controlling output as part of a cartel .

These activities cheat consumers and other businesses and restrict economic growth.

Imposing minimum resale prices

The law bans suppliers from setting minimum prices for the resale of their products or services.

Imposing minimum resale prices stops retailers competing on price, increasing what consumers pay.

Business behaviour that is potentially illegal

There are also a range of business behaviours that may damage competition, depending on the circumstances.

Business behaviour can break the law when it has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market .

Business behaviour substantially lessens competition when it interferes with or damages the competitive process in a market in a meaningful way. This is usually by deterring, hindering or preventing competition.

When competition can be substantially lessened

Competition is substantially lessened when, as a result of the business’s behaviour:

the business’s competitors are restricted from competing effectively
the business is able to significantly and sustainably increase its prices
it would be very hard for a new business to set up and start competing.

Competition can also be substantially lessened when 2 or more businesses engage in conduct that weakens competition.

Cooperation among businesses

Generally, competition relies on businesses making independent decisions.

When businesses communicate and cooperate , they risk damaging competition and breaking the law.

Businesses that want to join together to negotiate with a supplier or customer through collective bargaining first need permission. This is known as an exemption .

Misuse of market power

It's not illegal to have market power. However, businesses must not misuse this power to stop other businesses competing on their merits.

When the misuse of market power substantially lessens competition, it is illegal.

Exclusive dealing

A business risks breaching competition law when it engages in exclusive dealing by restricting how its customers or suppliers do business.

While exclusive dealing is common in legitimate business arrangements, it is illegal when it substantially lessens competition.

Next steps if you see anti-competitive conduct

Anyone can report anti-competitive business behaviour to the ACCC.

Is this page useful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Fall 2024 Admissions is officially OPEN. Sign up for the next live information session here .

Discourse, debate, and analysis

Cambridge re:think essay competition 2024.

This year, CCIR saw over 4,200 submissions from more than 50 countries. Of these 4,200 essays, our jury panel, consists of scholars across the Atlantic, selected approximately 350 Honourable Mention students, and 33 award winners.

The mission of the Re:think essay competition has always been to encourage critical thinking and exploration of a wide range of thought-provoking and often controversial topics. The hope is to create a discourse capable of broadening our collective understanding and generating innovative solutions to contemporary challenges. This year’s submissions more than exceeded our expectations in terms of their depth and their critical engagement with the proposed topics. The decision process was, accordingly, difficult. After four rigorous rounds of blind review by scholars from Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, MIT and several Ivy League universities, we have arrived at the following list of award recipients:

Competition Opens: 15th January, 2024

Essay Submission Deadline: 10th May, 2024 Result Announcement: 20th June, 2024 Award Ceremony and Dinner at the University of Cambridge: 30th July, 2024

We welcome talented high school students from diverse educational settings worldwide to contribute their unique perspectives to the competition.

Entry to the competition is free.

About the Competition

The spirit of the Re:think essay competition is to encourage critical thinking and exploration of a wide range of thought-provoking and often controversial topics. The competition covers a diverse array of subjects, from historical and present issues to speculative future scenarios. Participants are invited to engage deeply with these topics, critically analysing their various facets and implications. It promotes intellectual exploration and encourages participants to challenge established norms and beliefs, presenting opportunities to envision alternative futures, consider the consequences of new technologies, and reevaluate longstanding traditions.

Ultimately, our aim is to create a platform for students and scholars to share their perspectives on pressing issues of the past and future, with the hope of broadening our collective understanding and generating innovative solutions to contemporary challenges. This year’s competition aims to underscore the importance of discourse, debate, and critical analysis in addressing complex societal issues in nine areas, including:

Religion and Politics

Political science and law, linguistics, environment, sociology and philosophy, business and investment, public health and sustainability, biotechonology.

Artificial Intelligence

Neuroengineering

2024 essay prompts.

This year, the essay prompts are contributed by distinguished professors from Harvard, Brown, UC Berkeley, Cambridge, Oxford, and MIT.

Essay Guidelines and Judging Criteria

Review general guidelines, format guidelines, eligibility, judging criteria.

Awards and Award Ceremony

Award winners will be invited to attend the Award Ceremony and Dinner hosted at the King’s College, University of Cambridge. The Dinner is free of charge for select award recipients.

Registration and Submission

Advisory Committee and Judging Panel

The Cambridge Re:think Essay Competition is guided by an esteemed Advisory Committee comprising distinguished academics and experts from elite universities worldwide. These committee members, drawn from prestigious institutions, such as Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, and MIT, bring diverse expertise in various disciplines.

They play a pivotal role in shaping the competition, contributing their insights to curate the themes and framework. Their collective knowledge and scholarly guidance ensure the competition’s relevance, academic rigour, and intellectual depth, setting the stage for aspiring minds to engage with thought-provoking topics and ideas.

We are honoured to invite the following distinguished professors to contribute to this year’s competition.

The judging panel of the competition comprises leading researchers and professors from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, and Oxford, engaging in a strictly double blind review process.

Keynote Speeches by 10 Nobel Laureates

We are beyond excited to announce that multiple Nobel laureates have confirmed to attend and speak at this year’s ceremony on 30th July, 2024 .

They will each be delivering a keynote speech to the attendees. Some of them distinguished speakers will speak virtually, while others will attend and present in person and attend the Reception at Cambridge.

The Official List of Re:Think 2024 Winners

Gold Recipients

Ishan Amirthalingam, Anglo Chinese School (Independent), Singapore, Singapore
Arnav Aphale, King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys Birmingham, West Midlands, United Kingdom
Anchen Che, Shanghai Pinghe School, Shanghai China
Chloe Huang, Westminster School, London, United Kingdom
Rose Kim, MPW Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Jingyuan Li, St. Mark’s School, Southborough, United States
Michael Noh, Korea International School, Pangyo Campus, Seoul, Korea
Aarav Rastogi, Oberoi International School JVLR Campus, Mumbai, India
Yuseon Song, Hickory Christian Academy, Hickory, United States
Aiqi Yan, Basis International School Guangzhou, Guangzhou, China

Silver Recipients

John Liu, Deerfield Academy, Deerfield, United States
Sophie Reason, The Cheltenham Ladies College, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Peida Han, Nanjing Foreign Language School, Nanjing, China
Thura Linn Htet, Kolej Tuanku Ja’afar School, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
Steven Wang, Radley College, Headington, United Kingdom
Rainier Liu, Knox Grammar School, Sydney, Australia
Anupriya Nayak, Amity International School, Saket, New Delhi, India
Ming Min Yang, The Beacon School, New York City, United States
Anna Zhou, Shanghai YK Pao School, Shanghai, China
Yuyang Cui, The Williston Northampton School, Easthampton,United States

Bronze Recipients

Giulia Marinari, Churchdown School Academy, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
Christina Wang, International School of Beijing, Beijing, China
Chuhao Guo, Shenzhen Middle School, Shenzhen, China
Isla Clayton, King’s College School Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom
Hanqiao Li, The Experimental High School Attached to Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
He Hua Yip, Raffles Institution, Singapore, Singapore
Wang Chon Chan, Macau Puiching Middle School, Macau, Macau, China
Evan Hou, Rancho Cucamonga High School, Rancho Cucamonga, United States
Carson Park, Seoul International School, Seongnam-si, Korea
Sophie Eastham, King George V Sixth Form College, Liverpool, United Kingdom

The Logos Prize for Best Argument

Ellisha Yao, German Swiss International School Hong Kong, Mong Kok, Hong Kong, China

The Pathos Prize for Best Writing

Isabelle Cox-Garleanu, Mary Institute and Saint Louis Country Day School, Frontenac, United States

The Ethos Prize for Best Research

Garrick Tan, Harrow School, Harrow on the Hill, United Kingdom

Ccir Essay Competition Prompt Contributed By Dr Harald Wydra

Gene therapy is a medical approach that treats or prevents disease by correcting the underlying genetic problem. Is gene therapy better than traditional medicines? What are the pros and cons of using gene therapy as a medicine? Is gene therapy justifiable?

Especially after Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, gene therapy is getting more and more interesting approach to cure. That’s why that could be interesting to think about. I believe that students will enjoy and learn a lot while they are investigating this topic.

Ccir Essay Competition Prompt Contributed By Dr Mamiko Yajima

The Hall at King’s College, Cambridge

The Hall was designed by William Wilkins in the 1820s and is considered one of the most magnificent halls of its era. The first High Table dinner in the Hall was held in February 1828, and ever since then, the splendid Hall has been where members of the college eat and where formal dinners have been held for centuries.

The Award Ceremony and Dinner will be held in the Hall in the evening of 30th July, 2024.

Stretching out down to the River Cam, the Back Lawn has one of the most iconic backdrop of King’s College Chapel.

The early evening reception will be hosted on the Back Lawn with the iconic Chapel in the background (weather permitting).

King’s College Chapel

With construction started in 1446 by Henry VI and took over a century to build, King’s College Chapel is one of the most iconic buildings in the world, and is a splendid example of late Gothic architecture.

Attendees are also granted complimentary access to the King’s College Chapel before and during the event.

Confirmed Nobel Laureates

Dr Thomas R. Cech

The nobel prize in chemistry 1989 , for the discovery of catalytic properties of rna.

Thomas Robert Cech is an American chemist who shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Sidney Altman, for their discovery of the catalytic properties of RNA. Cech discovered that RNA could itself cut strands of RNA, suggesting that life might have started as RNA. He found that RNA can not only transmit instructions, but also that it can speed up the necessary reactions.

He also studied telomeres, and his lab discovered an enzyme, TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase), which is part of the process of restoring telomeres after they are shortened during cell division.

As president of Howard Hughes Medical Institute, he promoted science education, and he teaches an undergraduate chemistry course at the University of Colorado

Sir Richard J. Roberts

The nobel prize in medicine 1993 .

F or the discovery of split genes

During 1969–1972, Sir Richard J. Roberts did postdoctoral research at Harvard University before moving to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where he was hired by James Dewey Watson, a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and a fellow Nobel laureate. In this period he also visited the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology for the first time, working alongside Fred Sanger. In 1977, he published his discovery of RNA splicing. In 1992, he moved to New England Biolabs. The following year, he shared a Nobel Prize with his former colleague at Cold Spring Harbor Phillip Allen Sharp.

His discovery of the alternative splicing of genes, in particular, has had a profound impact on the study and applications of molecular biology. The realisation that individual genes could exist as separate, disconnected segments within longer strands of DNA first arose in his 1977 study of adenovirus, one of the viruses responsible for causing the common cold. Robert’s research in this field resulted in a fundamental shift in our understanding of genetics, and has led to the discovery of split genes in higher organisms, including human beings.

Dr Aaron Ciechanover

The nobel prize in chemistry 2004 .

F or the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation

Aaron Ciechanover is one of Israel’s first Nobel Laureates in science, earning his Nobel Prize in 2004 for his work in ubiquitination. He is honored for playing a central role in the history of Israel and in the history of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.

Dr Ciechanover is currently a Technion Distinguished Research Professor in the Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute at the Technion. He is a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the Russian Academy of Sciences and is a foreign associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2008, he was a visiting Distinguished Chair Professor at NCKU, Taiwan. As part of Shenzhen’s 13th Five-Year Plan funding research in emerging technologies and opening “Nobel laureate research labs”, in 2018 he opened the Ciechanover Institute of Precision and Regenerative Medicine at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen campus.

Dr Robert Lefkowitz

The nobel prize in chemistry 2012 .

F or the discovery of G protein-coupled receptors

Robert Joseph Lefkowitz is an American physician (internist and cardiologist) and biochemist. He is best known for his discoveries that reveal the inner workings of an important family G protein-coupled receptors, for which he was awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize for Chemistry with Brian Kobilka. He is currently an Investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute as well as a James B. Duke Professor of Medicine and Professor of Biochemistry and Chemistry at Duke University.

Dr Lefkowitz made a remarkable contribution in the mid-1980s when he and his colleagues cloned the gene first for the β-adrenergic receptor, and then rapidly thereafter, for a total of 8 adrenergic receptors (receptors for adrenaline and noradrenaline). This led to the seminal discovery that all GPCRs (which include the β-adrenergic receptor) have a very similar molecular structure. The structure is defined by an amino acid sequence which weaves its way back and forth across the plasma membrane seven times. Today we know that about 1,000 receptors in the human body belong to this same family. The importance of this is that all of these receptors use the same basic mechanisms so that pharmaceutical researchers now understand how to effectively target the largest receptor family in the human body. Today, as many as 30 to 50 percent of all prescription drugs are designed to “fit” like keys into the similarly structured locks of Dr Lefkowitz’ receptors—everything from anti-histamines to ulcer drugs to beta blockers that help relieve hypertension, angina and coronary disease.

Dr Lefkowitz is among the most highly cited researchers in the fields of biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and clinical medicine according to Thomson-ISI.

Dr Joachim Frank

The nobel prize in chemistry 2017 .

F or developing cryo-electron microscopy

Joachim Frank is a German-American biophysicist at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate. He is regarded as the founder of single-particle cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM), for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2017 with Jacques Dubochet and Richard Henderson. He also made significant contributions to structure and function of the ribosome from bacteria and eukaryotes.

In 1975, Dr Frank was offered a position of senior research scientist in the Division of Laboratories and Research (now Wadsworth Center), New York State Department of Health,where he started working on single-particle approaches in electron microscopy. In 1985 he was appointed associate and then (1986) full professor at the newly formed Department of Biomedical Sciences of the University at Albany, State University of New York. In 1987 and 1994, he went on sabbaticals in Europe, one to work with Richard Henderson, Laboratory of Molecular Biology Medical Research Council in Cambridge and the other as a Humboldt Research Award winner with Kenneth C. Holmes, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg. In 1998, Dr Frank was appointed investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). Since 2003 he was also lecturer at Columbia University, and he joined Columbia University in 2008 as professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and of biological sciences.

Dr Barry C. Barish

The nobel prize in physics 2017 .

For the decisive contributions to the detection of gravitational waves

Dr Barry Clark Barish is an American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate. He is a Linde Professor of Physics, emeritus at California Institute of Technology and a leading expert on gravitational waves.

In 2017, Barish was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics along with Rainer Weiss and Kip Thorne “for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”. He said, “I didn’t know if I would succeed. I was afraid I would fail, but because I tried, I had a breakthrough.”

In 2018, he joined the faculty at University of California, Riverside, becoming the university’s second Nobel Prize winner on the faculty.

In the fall of 2023, he joined Stony Brook University as the inaugural President’s Distinguished Endowed Chair in Physics.

In 2023, Dr Barish was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Biden in a White House ceremony.

Dr Harvey J. Alter

The nobel prize in medicine 2020 .

For the discovery of Hepatitis C virus

Dr Harvey J. Alter is an American medical researcher, virologist, physician and Nobel Prize laureate, who is best known for his work that led to the discovery of the hepatitis C virus. Alter is the former chief of the infectious disease section and the associate director for research of the Department of Transfusion Medicine at the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. In the mid-1970s, Alter and his research team demonstrated that most post-transfusion hepatitis cases were not due to hepatitis A or hepatitis B viruses. Working independently, Alter and Edward Tabor, a scientist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, proved through transmission studies in chimpanzees that a new form of hepatitis, initially called “non-A, non-B hepatitis” caused the infections, and that the causative agent was probably a virus. This work eventually led to the discovery of the hepatitis C virus in 1988, for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2020 along with Michael Houghton and Charles M. Rice.

Dr Alter has received recognition for the research leading to the discovery of the virus that causes hepatitis C. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the highest award conferred to civilians in United States government public health service, and the 2000 Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research.

Dr Ardem Patapoutian

The nobel prize in medicine 2021 .

For discovering how pressure is translated into nerve impulses

Dr Ardem Patapoutian is an Lebanese-American molecular biologist, neuroscientist, and Nobel Prize laureate of Armenian descent. He is known for his work in characterising the PIEZO1, PIEZO2, and TRPM8 receptors that detect pressure, menthol, and temperature. Dr Patapoutian is a neuroscience professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California. In 2021, he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine jointly with David Julius.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why should I participate in the Re:think essay competition?

The Re:think Essay competition is meant to serve as fertile ground for honing writing skills, fostering critical thinking, and refining communication abilities. Winning or participating in reputable contests can lead to recognition, awards, scholarships, or even publication opportunities, elevating your academic profile for college applications and future endeavours. Moreover, these competitions facilitate intellectual growth by encouraging exploration of diverse topics, while also providing networking opportunities and exposure to peers, educators, and professionals. Beyond accolades, they instil confidence, prepare for higher education demands, and often allow you to contribute meaningfully to societal conversations or causes, making an impact with your ideas.

Who is eligible to enter the Re:think essay competition?

As long as you’re currently attending high school, regardless of your location or background, you’re eligible to participate. We welcome students from diverse educational settings worldwide to contribute their unique perspectives to the competition.

Is there any entry fee for the competition?

There is no entry fee for the competition. Waiving the entry fee for our essay competition demonstrates CCIR’s dedication to equity. CCIR believes everyone should have an equal chance to participate and showcase their talents, regardless of financial circumstances. Removing this barrier ensures a diverse pool of participants and emphasises merit and creativity over economic capacity, fostering a fair and inclusive environment for all contributors.

Subscribe for Competition Updates

If you are interested to receive latest information and updates of this year’s competition, please sign up here.

Essay Papers Writing Online

Engaging in competitive essay writing – how to excel in essay writing competitions.

Essay writing competitions can be a great opportunity to showcase your writing skills and win accolades for your creativity and thoughtfulness. Whether you are a seasoned writer or just starting out, competition can be fierce, so it’s vital to have a winning strategy in place.

In this article, we will discuss top tips and strategies that can help you stand out from the competition and increase your chances of winning essay writing competitions.

From identifying the right competition to crafting a compelling thesis statement and polishing your final draft, there are several key steps you can take to improve your chances of emerging victorious. Let’s dive into these tips and strategies to help you succeed in essay writing competitions!

Prepare Your Essay

1. Understand the topic: Before you start writing your essay, make sure you completely understand the topic. Research and gather relevant information to build a strong foundation for your argument.

2. Develop a clear thesis statement: Your thesis statement should clearly convey the main point of your essay. It will serve as the guiding principle for the rest of your writing.

3. Create an outline: Organize your thoughts and arguments by creating an outline. This will help you structure your essay in a logical and coherent manner.

4. Write a compelling introduction: Start your essay with a compelling introduction that captures the reader’s attention and clearly presents your thesis statement.

5. Support your arguments with evidence: Back up your arguments with reliable evidence, examples, and research. This will strengthen your essay and make your points more convincing.

6. Craft a strong conclusion: End your essay with a strong conclusion that summarizes your main points and reinforces your thesis statement. Leave a lasting impression on the reader.

7. Edit and revise: Once you have completed your essay, take the time to edit and revise it. Check for spelling and grammatical errors, ensure your arguments flow smoothly, and make any necessary revisions to improve clarity and coherence.

Research Your Topic

One of the most important steps in preparing for an essay writing competition is to thoroughly research your topic. Ensure that you understand the key concepts, arguments, and perspectives related to the subject matter. Use credible sources such as academic journals, books, and reputable websites to gather information and support your arguments.

Tip 1:	Utilize library resources to access scholarly articles and books that delve into your topic.
Tip 2:	Take notes and organize your research findings to structure your essay effectively.
Tip 3:	Consider different perspectives and sources to develop a well-rounded argument.

Understand the Competition Guidelines

One essential aspect of winning essay writing competitions is understanding the competition guidelines. Before you start writing your essay, carefully read and follow the rules and requirements provided by the competition organizers. Pay attention to the word count, topic restrictions, formatting guidelines, submission deadlines, and any other specific instructions.

By familiarizing yourself with the competition guidelines, you can ensure that your essay meets all the necessary criteria for consideration. Failure to adhere to the rules could result in disqualification, so it is crucial to read and understand the guidelines thoroughly before you begin your writing process.

Develop Your Writing Skills

Improving your writing skills is essential if you want to succeed in essay writing competitions. Here are some tips to help you develop your writing skills:

Read extensively: Reading a variety of books, articles, and essays can help you improve your writing style and vocabulary.
Practice writing regularly: The more you write, the better you will become. Set aside time each day to write and experiment with different writing techniques.
Seek feedback: Ask teachers, peers, or writing professionals to provide feedback on your writing. Constructive criticism can help you identify areas for improvement.
Study grammar and punctuation: Understanding the rules of grammar and punctuation is crucial for producing high-quality writing. Take the time to study these rules and apply them to your writing.
Learn from successful writers: Study the works of successful writers and analyze their writing techniques. Try to incorporate some of these techniques into your own writing.

Practice Regularly

One of the key ways to improve your essay writing skills and increase your chances of winning competitions is to practice regularly. Writing is a skill that improves with practice, so make time each day to write essays, articles, or even short stories. Set aside dedicated time to work on your writing, and challenge yourself to explore different topics and styles.

By practicing regularly, you’ll not only improve your writing technique but also build confidence in your abilities. This confidence will show in your competition entries and set you apart from other participants. Remember, practice makes perfect, so the more you write, the better you’ll become.

Seek Feedback and Editing

Getting feedback on your essay is crucial to improving it and making it stand out in competitions. Don’t be afraid to ask teachers, peers, or writing tutors to review your work and provide constructive criticism.

Consider joining a writing group or workshop where you can share your essay and receive feedback from other writers. This can help you identify weak points in your argument or areas where you can improve your writing style.

After receiving feedback, be open to making edits and revisions. Polish your essay by fixing grammar and punctuation errors, tightening up your arguments, and ensuring your ideas flow logically and cohesively.

Remember, the more eyes you have on your essay, the better it will become. Don’t hesitate to seek feedback and editing to make your essay the best it can be.

Hook Your Readers

One of the most important aspects of winning an essay writing competition is grabbing the reader’s attention right from the start. Your introduction should be compelling and draw the reader in, making them want to continue reading. Here are some effective ways to hook your readers:

Start with a powerful quote: Using a thought-provoking quote at the beginning can set the tone for your essay and intrigue your readers.
Pose a question: Asking a question can engage your readers and make them curious to find out the answer, encouraging them to keep reading.
Provide a shocking statistic: Sharing a surprising statistic can capture your readers’ interest and make them want to learn more about the topic.
Share a personal anecdote: Connecting with your readers on a personal level by sharing a relevant anecdote can make your essay more relatable and engaging.
Use descriptive imagery: Painting a vivid picture with descriptive language can transport your readers into the world you’re describing, making them more invested in your essay.

By hooking your readers from the beginning, you set the stage for a captivating essay that will leave a lasting impression on the judges of the competition.

State Your Thesis Clearly

One of the most important aspects of winning an essay writing competition is to state your thesis clearly in the introductory paragraph. Your thesis is the main argument or point you will be making in your essay, and it serves as the foundation for your entire piece. Make sure your thesis is specific, debatable, and concise. Avoid vague statements and ensure that your thesis directly addresses the prompt provided for the competition.

Tip: Your thesis should be strong and compelling, drawing the reader in and establishing the purpose of your essay from the start. It should be clear enough that your reader can easily understand what you will be arguing throughout the rest of your essay.

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

IMAGES

≫ Benefits of Competition Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Essay writing competition 2013 uk in 2021
Chambers Student Essay Competition
GSK-EDB Essay Competition Merit Prize.pdf
≫ Importance of Value of Competition Explanation for Kids Free Essay
4 Competitive Essays on Advantages & Disadvantages of Competition

COMMENTS

Essays About Competition: Top 6 Examples and 10 Prompts
10 Exciting Writing Prompts on Essays About Competition. 1. How Schools Can Encourage Healthy Competition. In your essay, provide tips, for example, calling on teachers to encourage students to participate and motivate them to do their best instead of keeping their eyes on the trophy.
Is Competition Good? Understanding Its Impact and Benefits
Here are some considerations to keep in mind: **1. Personal Growth:** If you thrive under pressure and are motivated by challenges, competition could be a catalyst for significant personal development. **2. Skill Enhancement:** Competitions can push you to refine your skills more rigorously than solitary practice might.
Importance Of Competition Essay
Importance Of Competition Essay. TOPIC: 'Life is all about competition. To get ahead in almost every aspect of life we inevitably trample on others to get what we want. Competition is an indispensable part of our lives. Competition at every walk of life is as inevitable as taxes and death. Even before birth, competition has always been the key ...
The Importance Of Competition
Competition is a really important , and a fun way to be challenged, possibly, It will help in the future, and give you more self esteem. ... Persuasive Essay On Competition 759 Words | 4 Pages. I have loved competition ever since a young age. I have several friends that I love to compete with. We compete every day, whether it is sports or if it ...
IELTS Model Essays: Competition v Cooperation (IELTS 19)
It takes a similar view to Essay 2, arguing that while competition can have short-term benefits, cooperation has long-term benefits. Essay Plan. Introduction. ... On the other hand, advocates for cooperation highlight its importance in fostering teamwork and mutual support. In professional settings, collaborative efforts can lead to innovative ...
Is Competition Necessary for Success: [Essay Example], 470 words
Conclusion. The question of whether competition is necessary for success elicits a multifaceted discussion. While competition can drive innovation, determination, and progress, it comes with potential drawbacks. A holistic view of success acknowledges that collaboration, ethics, and a focus on well-being are equally vital components.
The Role and Importance of Competitive Spirit in Our Lives: [Essay
Being competitive is rarely being portrayed as a personality attribute that is negatively impacting our mind and body. Being competitive helps us in chasing our dreams and in becoming our true selves. Whether it's a sport, a job/career or a kid's game, we all wish to win. It is in human nature to win, which in result gives a great pleasure.
Why competition matters
That is good. Competition helps promote better safety, innovation and technology—and lower prices. Workers benefit too. With ten companies, even if you don't have good labour laws, there is an ...
Essay on Competition: Is It Really Good for Us?
Competition always implies that a person needs to make an effort in order to achieve the desired result, for instance, to win tender or a race. It requires spending not only physical, but emotional energy. By overcoming personal limitations, a person becomes psychologically stronger, which can positively contribute to future achievements.
Competition in the Society: Positive and Negative Effects Essay
Discussion. Diversity is one of positive effects of competition on the society. There is a variety of products and services bringing the increase of consumer satisfaction. Diversity is embedded on innovation or creativity that every firm adopts, so as to enjoy competitive advantage. Prices of products and services are reduced, thus affecting ...
Pros and Cons of Competition
Pros of Competition. Competition primarily involves peoples struggle to outshine their opponents in whatever they are doing be it in business, school, or work. In a healthy competing environment, individuals or organizations; whether they are tangible goods producers, for example, producers of pain killers, or service offering, for example ...
Why Competition is Good for Students
Play is the answer to how anything new comes about. Healthy competition when guided, however, can endow students with a bounty of benefits: 1. Children get to learn about themselves. It was the spirit of competition that first revealed to us our respective strengths and weaknesses. Even in losing do we, by coping with the negative emotional ...
6 Benefits of Essay Writing Competitions
After honing your analysis skills with essay competitions, you will have shown that you can. 3. Writing is better than reading. One of the best reasons to do an essay competition is the sheer satisfaction of finishing a piece of high-quality written work. It's something you can be proud of - and for good reason.
The power of competition: Effects of social motivation on attention
Introduction. Social motivation has been defined as a drive for a particular goal based on a social influence (Hogg and Abrams, 1990).Although research has examined correlative relationships between competition and learning (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Zimmerman, 1989; Oldfather and Dahl, 1994; Wentzel, 1999), few studies have examined how the presence of a competitor directly influences ...
The Importance of Competition for the American Economy
By Heather Boushey and Helen Knudsen. Healthy market competition is fundamental to a well-functioning U.S. economy. Basic economic theory demonstrates that when firms have to compete for customers ...
The Pros and Cons of Competition Among Employees
The Pros and Cons of Competition Among Employees. by. Anna Steinhage, Dan Cable, and. Duncan Wardley. March 20, 2017. Summary. New research shows that the way in which leaders communicate about ...
The Importance Of Competition In My Life
The Importance Of Competition In My Life. Competition is and will always be a part in our life, and is a component that regularly effects life experiences. We will always be motivated by the idea of winning, to get something, to achieve and to beat others. During my high school years, it seemed as if my life revolved around competition which ...
10 Ways Competitions Enhance Learning
So, without further adieu, we give you the 10 top personal benefits of Educational Competitions: 1. Improving Teamwork and Collaboration. One of the most common concerns and misconceptions regarding educational competitions is the "Competition vs. Collaboration" debate. We mistakenly think that competition is the antonym to collaboration (see ...
Competition and the Economy: Economic Perspectives
In most of the societies where competition is an important factor in the economy, there is also a regulation of competition. The need for such a regulation is connected to the fact that non-perfect markets open the door to various abuses. ... An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 3rd ed. New York: New York University ...
Importance Of Competition In Sports Essay
COMPETITION IN SPORTS Competition is good among athletes because it has great impact in self -discipline, attitude towards the opponent, and it can be the... Essays Topics
PDF Why is Competition Important?
competition. Specifically, competition laws are enacted to prevent anti-competitive business practices, abuse of market power and anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. healthy competition, consumers will ultimately win. Competition helps the poor1 Markets with enough competition benefit the poor directly. First, a competitive market can ...
Competition and why it matters
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 bans business behaviours that damage competition. It is illegal for businesses to collude in a cartel or to impose minimum resale prices. A range of other behaviours break the law if they substantially lessen competition. Businesses can seek an exemption for anti-competitive conduct.
Essay Competition
Discourse, debate, and analysis Cambridge Re:think Essay Competition 2024 This year, CCIR saw over 4,200 submissions from more than 50 countries. Of these 4,200 essays, our jury panel, consists of scholars across the Atlantic, selected approximately 350 Honourable Mention students, and 33 award winners. The mission of the Re:think essay competition has always been to encourage critical […]
How to Win Essay Writing Competitions: Top Tips and Strategies
One of the most important steps in preparing for an essay writing competition is to thoroughly research your topic. Ensure that you understand the key concepts, arguments, and perspectives related to the subject matter. Use credible sources such as academic journals, books, and reputable websites to gather information and support your arguments.

Essays About Competition: Top 6 Examples and 10 Prompts

6 Helpful Essay Examples

Is Competition Good? Understanding Its Impact and Benefits

What Is Competition?

Why Do We Compete?

The Virtues and Downsides of Competition

How Competition Affects Our Brains

Should I Compete?

Related Reading

IELTS Model Essays: Competition v Cooperation (IELTS 19)

Essay 1 Plan

Essay 2 Plan

Essay 4 Plan

Essay 5 Plan

Practice Exercises 1

Practice Exercise 2

Practice Exercise 3: Hard!

Share this:

Related Posts

Privacy Overview

The Role and Importance of Competitive Spirit in Our Lives

Works Cited

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Competition

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Why competition matters

More from Open Future

“Making real the ideals of our country”

How society can overcome covid-19

Telemedicine is essential amid the covid-19 crisis and after it

We can harness peer pressure to uphold social values

Even noxious ideas need airing—censorship only makes them stronger

Society doesn't think ahead but we can trick ourselves into doing better

Argumentative Essay on Competition’s Pros and Cons

Let Us Be a Part of Your Writing Success!

Grab our 3 e-books bundle for $27 FREE

Pros and Cons of Competition Essay

Introduction

6 Benefits of Essay Writing Competitions

5. They don’t require any funding or background knowledge

6. Now is the best time to enter!

Next steps for passionate writers

References and Further Reading:

Recommended articles

Best Universities to Study Medicine in the World

What Is A Year Abroad?

The Ultimate Guide To Summer Internships

The power of competition: Effects of social motivation on attention, sustained physical effort, and learning

Introduction

Experiment 1

Participants

Effort Bar Task

Results and Discussion

Experiment 2

Working Memory Task

General Discussion

Individual and Gender Differences

Limitations

Conflict of Interest Statement

Acknowledgments

Mobile Menu Overlay

The Importance of Competition for the American Economy

Stay Connected

The Pros and Cons of Competition Among Employees

Partner Center

10 Ways Competitions Enhance Learning

Signup Newsletter

Quick Links

Connect with us on social media

Competition and the Economy: Economic Perspectives

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

The Official List of Re:Think 2024 Winners