Cited by 252Social Power and Status DynamicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Ranks and Rivals: A Theory of Competition

Garcia, Stephen M., Tor, Avishalom, Gonzalez, Richard·2006·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

Social comparison theories typically imply a comparable degree of competition between commensurate rivals who are competing on a mutually important dimension. However, the present analysis reveals that the degree of competition between such rivals depends on their proximity to a meaningful standard. Studies 1 to 3 test the prediction that individuals become more competitive and less willing to maximize profitable joint gains when they and their commensurate rivals are highly ranked (e.g., #2 vs. #3) than when they are not (e.g., #202 vs. #203). Studies 4 to 6 then generalize these findings, showing that the degree of competition also increases in the proximity of other meaningful standards, such as the bottom of a ranking scale or a qualitative threshold in the middle of a scale. Studies 7 and 8 further examine the psychological processes underlying this phenomenon and reveal that proximity to a standard exerts a direct impact on the basic unidirectional drive upward, beyond the established effects of commensurability and dimension relevance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167206287640

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Prior empirical research shows that higher-ranked individuals behave more competitively than lower-ranked individuals.

    “Indeed, prior empirical research shows that higher-ranked individuals behave more competitively than lower-ranked individuals (Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006).”

    From Relative Feedback Increases Disparities in Effort and Performance in Crowdsourcing Contests (2022) · cites this paper as Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 51 · Cited by 252

Authors
Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Gonzalez, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Haifa (IL)
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2006-07
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
970-982
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W1985741886
Cited by
252
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
12.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of legislation (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
social comparison, competition, joint gains
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Competitive Behavior, Decision Making, Drive, Economics, Female, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Male, Psychological Theory, Social Perception, Midwestern United States, Multivariate Analysis

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