|
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize."
(1 Corinthians 9:24) |
"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others."
(Philippians 2:3-4) |
Overview
At first, these two Bible verses may seem contradictory. Paul is telling the believers at Corinth to compete fiercely while telling the believers at Philippi to place themselves last? Unless Paul had placed a sports bet on the Corinthians (an unlikely scenario), the answer is in the rest of 1 Corinthians 9.
Paul is not talking about competing against others, but rather against one's self. "No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." (verse 27). Unfortunately, most of the competition in our world is not of this kind. Rather than competing against our own worldly desires, we often find ourselves competing against others for those worldly desires.
But competition is not always selfish. In a free market society, competition among organizations serves to maximize societal welfare (at least in theory) as firms strive to provide the best products, workplaces, and financial returns to their stakeholders. In contrast, cooperating with others for their benefit can seem like a more direct route to placing others' interests before our own. But cooperating with others for their betterment can be equally challenging.
The competitive folks may not be very fun on game night, but their ability to “get the job done” may make them seem like competent, trusted contributors to their organizations and Christ's kingdom. Cooperators, on the other hand, might be perceived as more friendly, but with more ambiguity surrounding their efficiency and effectiveness. And then there's an interesting psychological quirk; how we perceive each type of person may depend on how competitive or cooperative we ourselves are.
So we asked an interesting psychological question. Which type of person is perceived as more trusted, friendly, and competent, the competitive person or the cooperative person? And does the competitiveness or cooperativeness of the perceiver make a difference?
Paul is not talking about competing against others, but rather against one's self. "No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." (verse 27). Unfortunately, most of the competition in our world is not of this kind. Rather than competing against our own worldly desires, we often find ourselves competing against others for those worldly desires.
But competition is not always selfish. In a free market society, competition among organizations serves to maximize societal welfare (at least in theory) as firms strive to provide the best products, workplaces, and financial returns to their stakeholders. In contrast, cooperating with others for their benefit can seem like a more direct route to placing others' interests before our own. But cooperating with others for their betterment can be equally challenging.
The competitive folks may not be very fun on game night, but their ability to “get the job done” may make them seem like competent, trusted contributors to their organizations and Christ's kingdom. Cooperators, on the other hand, might be perceived as more friendly, but with more ambiguity surrounding their efficiency and effectiveness. And then there's an interesting psychological quirk; how we perceive each type of person may depend on how competitive or cooperative we ourselves are.
So we asked an interesting psychological question. Which type of person is perceived as more trusted, friendly, and competent, the competitive person or the cooperative person? And does the competitiveness or cooperativeness of the perceiver make a difference?
The Experiment
We ran a within-subjects experiment with 205 people on the online research platform Prolific to test whether a competitive person vs. a cooperative person is viewed as more or less trustworthy, nice, and smart, and whether these results differ based on participants’ own competitiveness or cooperativeness.
Participants were instructed to read a few brief descriptions of people, then answer a few survey questions about each person. We used two hypothetical people for this experiment, “Stephen” and “Sophia,” randomizing one of them to be described as competitive and the other cooperative. We also randomized the order in which Stephen’s and Sophia’s descriptions were presented.
For the competitive manipulation, we used one of the following descriptions, either “[Stephen/Sophia] is a very competitive person. S/he always strives to win. At work, s/he is known for trying to beat the competition” or “[Stephen/Sophia] embodies the word ‘Competition.’ S/he is persistent at trying to beat his/her competitors, both at work and in life.” For the cooperative manipulation, we used one of the following descriptions, either “[Stephen/Sophia] is a very cooperative person. S/he always strives to bring people together for mutual benefit. At work, s/he is known for trying to get everyone to collaborate” or “[Stephen/Sophia] embodies the word ‘Cooperation.’ S/he is persistent at trying to bring others together for mutual benefit, both at work and in life.”
Below is an example illustrating one combination that participants could have seen. Each text was preceded by the following sentence: "Below is a brief description of a person."
Participants were instructed to read a few brief descriptions of people, then answer a few survey questions about each person. We used two hypothetical people for this experiment, “Stephen” and “Sophia,” randomizing one of them to be described as competitive and the other cooperative. We also randomized the order in which Stephen’s and Sophia’s descriptions were presented.
For the competitive manipulation, we used one of the following descriptions, either “[Stephen/Sophia] is a very competitive person. S/he always strives to win. At work, s/he is known for trying to beat the competition” or “[Stephen/Sophia] embodies the word ‘Competition.’ S/he is persistent at trying to beat his/her competitors, both at work and in life.” For the cooperative manipulation, we used one of the following descriptions, either “[Stephen/Sophia] is a very cooperative person. S/he always strives to bring people together for mutual benefit. At work, s/he is known for trying to get everyone to collaborate” or “[Stephen/Sophia] embodies the word ‘Cooperation.’ S/he is persistent at trying to bring others together for mutual benefit, both at work and in life.”
Below is an example illustrating one combination that participants could have seen. Each text was preceded by the following sentence: "Below is a brief description of a person."
Stephen is a very competitive person. He always strives to win. At work, he is known for trying to beat the competition.
Sophia embodies the word “Cooperation.” She is persistent at trying to bring others together for mutual benefit, both at work and in life.
Following each description, participants were asked “To what extent do you think each of the following words describe [Stephen/Sophia]? (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much)” on a 1-7 scale, with the words “Trustworthy,” “Friendly,” and “Smart” listed below. The order of these words was randomized to prevent order effects.
We also measured participants’ own competitive and cooperative personalities, using a demographic survey at the end of the activity. Participants were asked, “To what extent do you think each of the following words describe you? (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much)” on a 1-7 scale. Among the words were “Competitive” and “Cooperative” with the order of words again randomized.
We also measured participants’ own competitive and cooperative personalities, using a demographic survey at the end of the activity. Participants were asked, “To what extent do you think each of the following words describe you? (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much)” on a 1-7 scale. Among the words were “Competitive” and “Cooperative” with the order of words again randomized.
Results
To begin our analysis, we used paired sample t-tests to test for significant differences in how trustworthy, nice, and smart our competitive and cooperative persons were perceived. We found that Stephen and Sophia were perceived as much less trustworthy when described as competitive (avg. = 3.34) vs. cooperative (avg. = 5.65), a huge difference of 69% (p < 0.001), illustrated in the figure below.
Similar results were found for how nice Stephen and Sophia were perceived. However, the difference was much more muted for how smart they were perceived. Participants rated Stephen and Sophia as significantly nicer when they were described as cooperative (avg. = 6.13) relative to competitive (avg. = 3.42), a difference of 79% (p < 0.001). However, although participants still perceived our cooperative person (avg. = 5.44) as smarter than our competitive person (avg. = 5.07) (p < 0.001), this difference of 7% was much lower. The figure below presents these results graphically.
To test whether these differences vary based on participants’ own competitive or cooperative personalities, we conducted a series of interaction tests using linear mixed effects regression models. In summary, the more competitive a participant was, the smaller their difference in ratings between our competitive and cooperative person. For participants with more cooperative personalities, this difference would be larger (in favor of the cooperative person). As examples, we highlight the interactions for competitive personality between perceptions of trustworthiness and smartness.
In terms of perceived trustworthiness, we’d expect the difference between our competitive and cooperative person (in favor of cooperative) to decrease by approximately 0.22 points for each additional point (1-7 scale) of participants’ competitive personality (p = 0.002). Based on this model, a participant who is not competitive at all (1 out of 7) would be expected to rate our cooperative person as 3.00 points more trustworthy than our competitive person. However, this difference for a participant who is very competitive (7 out of 7) would only be 1.66 points. The graph below presents the raw ratings of perceived trustworthiness (y-axis) of our cooperative and competitive persons (lines with standard error bars), by participants’ competitive personality (x-axis).
For perceived smartness, despite a much smaller difference in our main results, our model suggests that the difference between our competitive and cooperative person (in favor of cooperative) decreases by about 0.13 points for each additional point (1-7 scale) in participants’ competitive personality (p = 0.023). Accordingly, we’d expect a participant who is not competitive at all (1 out of 7) to rate our cooperative person as 0.77 points smarter than our competitive person. However, this difference goes away for a participant who is very competitive (7 out of 7), a mere 0.01 points in favor of the competitive person. The graph below presents the raw ratings of perceived smartness (y-axis) of our cooperative and competitive persons (lines with standard error bars), by participants’ competitive personality (x-axis).
More details regarding our methodology and statistical analysis can be found here.
Conclusion
The results clearly suggest an advantage to those who cooperate rather than compete, at least in terms of perceptions of trustworthiness and niceness. And this is particularly true when our perceivers lean more cooperative themselves. It may matter less for perceptions of how smart we are, particularly when the audience is more competitive. But the overwhelming evidence here suggests that when in doubt, err on the side of cooperation.