The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis.
Abstract
This article examines 122 existing studies concerning the effectiveness cooperation with and without intra-group competition, inter-personal competition, and individualistic goal structures, by using a meta-analysis. Three types of met-analysis are performed: vote method, effect-size method, and z-score method. Results indicate that cooperation is superior to competition and individualistic efforts for increasing achievement and productivity, cooperation without inter-group competition is better than cooperation with inter-group competition, and no significant differences occur between interpersonal competition and individualistic efforts on achievement and productivity. The authors conclude that these findings should have significant impacts for education and industry.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“There is significant evidence to indicate that a cooperative goal structure can have the most powerful impact in promoting achievement and productivity (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 2007;Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981).”
From FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS ENGAGED IN A COOPERATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: EVALUATING THEIR ABILITY TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF THEIR OWN CONCEPTIONS ABOUT MATTER (2013) · cites this paper as Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111 · Cited by 9,787
An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x09339057 · Cited by 2,721
Self-citationRestructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups
Cohen, E. G. (1994) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543064001001 · Cited by 2,120
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.12.1181 · Cited by 2,033
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543069001021 · Cited by 1,943
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1981-01
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-62
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2045780317
- Cited by
- 1,588
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 47
- FWCI
- 42.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, competition, achievement, productivity, interpersonal competition, intergroup competition, goal structure, industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
