Motivation and Emotion

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09845-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

The influence of competition and performance goals on decoding

complex emotions
Steven G. Young1 · Andrew J. Elliot2

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The present research examines the processes through which competitive contexts influence performance in an understudied
domain: social perception. In two experiments (one preregistered), we test how competition (relative to control) influences
performance on a measure of emotion decoding: The Reading-the-mind-in-the-Eyes (RME) task. Specifically, we examine
whether performance-approach (PAP) and performance-avoidance (PAV) goals (as well as mastery-approach [MAP] and
mastery-avoidance [MAV] goals) affect the competition-performance relation in this domain. The results indicate no direct
effect of competition on RME performance, but that competition promotes the pursuit of both PAP and PAV goals. Moreover,
we find that both PAP and PAV goals are positively related to RME performance in a competitive, but not control, context.
Mediational analyses indicate that PAP goals, in particular, are the process through which competition indirectly influences
RME performance. These findings integrate several different heretofore separate literatures, and lay the foundation for excit-
ing new work in this overlooked area.

Keywords  Competition · Social perception · Performance-approach · Performance-avoidance · Achievement goals

Competition, Performance Goals,
and Social‑Emotional Competence
Interpersonal competition is commonplace. In academic,
business, and athletic contexts, people often compete with
one another for valued outcomes, both material and social.
Given its ubiquity, it is not surprising that the link between
competition and psychological, biological, and behavioral
outcomes is well-studied. For example, empirical work has
documented relations between trait or induced competition
and risk behavior, cardiovascular activity, testosterone lev-
els, performance attainment, cheating behavior, substance
abuse, intrinsic motivation, creativity, product innovation,
job commitment, and so on (e.g., Hangen et al. 2016; Hou-
ston et al. 2015; Lochbaum and Gottardy 2015; Mehta et al.
2009; Ten Velden et al. 2009).
* Steven G. Young
steven.young@baruch.cuny.edu
1 and achievement motivation literature, respectively. Then,
Baruch College and The Graduate Center, City University
of New York, New York, NY, USA
2
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
What is surprising is the dearth of research on the influ-
ence of competition on social perception. In interpersonal
competition, one’s performance is compared to that of
another person or persons to determine the relative outcome
(Deutsch 1949; VandenBos 2015). As a result, acquiring
information about one’s opponent is critical to success dur-
ing competition, as this information can help calibrate one’s
effort and tactics (e.g., Thagard 1992). Thus, it is likely that
competition has important implications for our perception
of others and, specifically, the identification of emotions.
However, it is also critical to examine how competition
will impact the identification of emotions. To address this
question, we turn to the hierarchical model of achievement
motivation (e.g., Elliot 2006 ; Murayama and Elliot 2012).
This framework posits that competition activates perfor-
mance-approach (PAP i.e., doing better relative to others)
and performance-avoidance goals (PAV, i.e., avoiding doing
worse than others), which have been shown to mediate per-
formance on various outcomes under competition (Elliot
and Murayama 2008). Below, we provide an overview of
the extant relevant research in the competition literature
we present novel hypotheses that consider the impact of

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

competition and mediating influence of achievement goals
states on complex emotion decoding.
Competition and emotion decoding
Although there is little extant research on this issue, a few
relevant studies have been conducted. Schultheiss and Hale
(2007) demonstrated that people high in the implicit power
motive (i.e., a concern with having an impact on others
and dominating them) orient toward faces signaling low
dominance and away from faces signaling high dominance.
Welling et al. (2013) found that winning (relative to losing)
an intrasexual competition increases men’s preferences for
feminine female faces. Ruscher and Fiske (1990) observed
that people in a competition (relative to control) context
form more individuated impressions of other participants.
Sacco and Hugenberg (2008) documented that people subtly
primed with competition-relevant words (relative to control
words) exhibit an improved ability to distinguish between
facial expressions of emotions such as happiness and anger.
We sought to extend the nascent work on competition
and emotion decoding by investigating the relation between
competition and the ability to decode complex emotional
states of others from subtle cues, specifically, their eyes. The
eyes (more precisely, the eye-region of the face) are known
to convey information about emotion, from which perceivers
draw inferences about others’ feelings, thoughts, and inten-
tions (Calder et al. 2002; Stevenson et al. 2012). Eye gaze, in
particular, is thought to signal important social information
(Olderbak et al. 2015), and the ability to “read the mind in
the eyes” is a foundational component of theory of mind
(Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). In a competitive context, the
ability to accurately interpret information conveyed by the
eyes of others seems highly functional; it can provide valu-
able information about what others are feeling and thinking
(Levine et al. 2018; Sacco and Hugenberg 2008), and it can
help to both gauge one’s standing compared to others and to
anticipate the behavior of others (Hoorens and Van Damme
2012). This information can then be used to regulate one’s
own affect, cognition, and behavior in the competition.
Importantly, being able to “read the mind in the eyes” has
been shown to be sensitive to manipulations of perceiver
motives. In one example, performance on a standardized
Reading-the-Mind-in-the-Eyes (RME) task (Baron-Cohen
et al. 2001) was more accurate for faces that were members
of participants’ ostensible social ingroup (Stevenson et al.
2012), an effect attributed to perceivers directing attention
to the most socially relevant individuals in the environment
(see also Young and Wilson 2018). In accord with these past
results documenting connections between competitive states
and attention to social cues (e.g., Schultheiss and Hale 2007;
Welling et al. 2013) and the impact of perceiver motivation
and attention on RME performance specifically (Stevenson
13
Motivation and Emotion
et al. 2012), we posit that individuals in a competition (rela-
tive to control) context will be particularly attuned to subtle
social cues, thereby facilitating performance on the popular
RME task (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001).
Competition, performance goals, and RME
performance
An important process-based question is how competition
might influence the ability to decode complex emotional
states from the eyes. As noted above, to do so we draw on
the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. The the-
oretical framework distinguishes between dispositional or
evoked motivational tendencies and the specific goals used
to guide these more general motivational tendencies (Elliot
2006). During competition, competitive traits or evoked
states are posited to prompt the adoption of performance
goals focused on how one is doing relative to others (Muray-
ama and Elliot 2012). Two types of performance goals are
identified: performance-approach (PAP) goals (i.e., striving
to do well compared to others) and performance-avoidance
(PAV) goals (i.e., striving to avoid doing poorly compared
to others). Competition is posited to positively predict both
PAP and PAV goals, because both goals focus on normative
competence and both goals can be used to concretely chan-
nel one’s general competitive tendencies. These performance
goals, in turn, are posited to have a direct, proximal influence
on performance outcomes (see Elliot and Murayama 2008).
Thus, to fully examine the impact of competition on social
outcomes, including decoding complex emotions, it is neces-
sary to incorporate these specific performance goals into the
research (rather than some other, less theoretically relevant
goals), as they are commonly activated by competition and
exert important effects on performance.
In the research conducted to date on these goals, the per-
formance outcomes that have been studied have been linked
primarily to analytical tasks such as school exams, occupa-
tional activities, and problem- or puzzle-solving. On these
types of tasks, PAP goals have been found to enhance per-
formance, whereas PAV goals have been found to undermine
performance (for meta-analyses, see Huang 2012; Muray-
ama and Elliot 2012). Given that the two performance goals
have opposing influences, they cancel each other out, lead-
ing to an overall null relation between competition and per-
formance outcomes that masks the indirect effect via these
goals.
In the present research, we use a social, rather than
intrapersonal, task—namely the aforementioned RME
task—to study the influence of competition (relative to
control) on decoding complex emotions via the two per-
formance goals. Both PAP and PAV goals are inherently
social, in that both use others as a standard of comparison
Motivation and Emotion
(Elliot et al. 2017) and information about others’ feelings,
thoughts, and intentions is equally relevant to the two
types of goal pursuit. That is, both outperforming others
(PAP) and avoiding being outperformed by others (PAV)
should prompt participants to attend carefully to others’
mental and emotional states, and this enhanced attention
should facilitate task performance. Accordingly, both PAP
and PAV goals may mediate performance on the RME
task. This leads to the prediction that PAP and PAV goals
will have a positive influence on RME performance, then
an overall link between competition and RME perfor-
mance may be observed, as well as mediational links via
the two performance goals. This is a novel prediction that
stems from the current focus on social performance, rather
than performance on exams or puzzles which are subject
to opposing influences of PAP and PAV goals (e.g., Huang
2012; Murayama and Elliot 2012).
These predictions follows logically from several points.
First, research showing competition affects social outcomes
(e.g., Sacco and Hugenberg 2008; Welling et  al. 2007),
as well as work showing that perceiver motives modulate
RME accuracy (Stevenson et al. 2012), converge on the idea
that competition should affect RME performance. Second,
the performance goal literature offers a clear rational for
examining the impact of PAP and PAV goals, which are
commonly activated by competition and known to affect
performance outcomes (albeit on non-social tasks). Thus,
the current work integrates various literatures and extends
work on PAP and PAV goals to the social domain (see also
Kaplan and Maehr 2007). In the present research, Experi-
ments 1 and 2 examine whether PAP and PAV goals mediate
the influence of competition (relative to control) on RME
performance.
In addition to performance goals, individuals can pursue
mastery goals in achievement contexts. Mastery goals are
also differentiated in terms of approach and avoidance, but,
unlike performance goals, mastery goals primarily use the
self or the task itself as a standard of comparison rather
than others (although others may be used as information to
help establish what performance level reflects task mastery;
Poortvliet and Darnon 2010). Mastery-approach (MAP)
goals focus on doing well relative to one’s past performance
or the absolute requirements of the task, whereas mastery-
avoidance (MAV) goals focus on not doing poorly relative to
one’s past performance or the absolute requirements of the
task (Elliot et al. 2017). Mastery goals are not as relevant to
competition contexts as performance goals (Murayama and
Elliot 2012) and, likewise, mastery goals are not as good a
fit to the interpersonal RME task as performance goals. We
assessed the two mastery goals (as well as the two perfor-
mance goals) in Experiment 2 of the present research, but
we expected null results for these more intrapersonal goals.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of mastery goals is valuable for
documenting the specificity of PAP and PAV goal effects
(i.e., discrimination) within competition settings.
The present research
In Experiment 1 of the present research, participants were
placed in either a competition or control condition, com-
pleted the RME task, and then reported their PAP and PAV
goals. In a second, pre-registered, experiment, we modified
the procedure such that participants reported on their per-
formance and mastery goals prior to, rather than after, com-
pleting the RME task. For both experiments, the sample size
was set a priori, all data were collected before any analyses
were conducted, and all manipulations, variables analyzed,
and data exclusions are reported.
Experiment 1
Our specific hypotheses for Experiment 1 are as follows:
1. Competition (relative to control) will positively predict
performance on the RME task. If this effect is not sig-
nificant, it could be due to different performance goal
processes. At the extreme, PAP and PAV goals could
have opposite effects of similar magnitude on the RME
task, which would produce a null effect of competition
on RME performance with no trend in either direction.
Another possibility is that the two performance goals
could influence RME performance in the same direc-
tion, but a weaker PAV effect (i.e., smaller positive
correlation with RME performance compared to PAP
goals) could dilute the effect of competition on RME
performance to the point that it manifests as a trend or
tendency rather than significant effect.
2. Competition (relative to control) will positively predict
both PAP and PAV goals.
3. PAP and PAV goals will both positively predict perfor-
mance on the RME task.
4. PAP and PAV goals will both mediate the relation
between competition and performance on the RME task.
Method
Participants
We used G*Power (Faul et al. 2009) to determine our sample
size in a design with a single between-subjects manipula-
tion of condition and two individual difference predictors,
assuming a small-to-medium effect size (f 2 = 0.25) and tar-
geting 0.80 power (p = 0.05). This produced a target sam-
ple of 179. In order to account for exclusions, we recruited
13

188 participants. Eighteen participants were excluded for
using a mobile device (despite instructions to the contrary),
less-than-chance performance on the RME task (indicating
guessing or misunderstanding of the task), or both, leaving
a final sample of 170 ­(Mage = 36.65, SD = 10.55; 129 female;
131 White, 15 Black, 9 Asian, 10 Latinx, 5 “other”).
Procedure
Participants were recruited through Mechanical Turk
(MTurk), a crowdsourcing platform commonly used by
researchers for participant recruitment (see Buhrmester
et al. 2011). All workers were from the United States and
completed the experiment in exchange for 50 US cents. They
were informed that the study was about how people form
impressions of others, and that they would complete a task
that involved looking at the eye region of faces and guessing
which emotion the persons were experiencing from a list of
four options. After providing informed consent, participants
were randomly assigned to either a competition or control
condition. In the competition condition, participants read:
“We are interested in how motivation influences perfor-
mance, so please try hard to identify the emotions when we
show them to you in a little bit. When completing the experi-
ment your goal should be to try your best to outperform
other workers. In other words, try to be better at identifying
the emotional expressions than other workers completing
the task.” In the control condition, participants read: “We
are interested in how motivation influences performance, so
please try hard to identify the emotions when we show them
to you in a little bit. When completing the experiment your
goal should be to try your best.”
After random assignment to experimental condition,
participants proceeded to complete the Reading-the-mind-
in-the-Eyes (RME) task (Baron-Cohen et al. 2001), a com-
monly used measure of social cognitive engagement that is
sensitive to situational motivation (e.g., Soto et al. 2010).
The RME consists of one practice image and 36 test images,
each showing the eye region of a face. Participants are asked
to identify the mental-emotional state of the target in each
photo, choosing from four options. The dependent measure
is accuracy (i.e., total number of correct responses), ranging
from 0 to 36 (perfect performance).
Lastly, participants completed the performance goal items
from the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised (Elliot
and Murayama 2008). We adapted the measure by adding
“in this experiment” to all items and focusing the perfor-
mance goal items on MTurk workers instead of students.
This measure includes six total questions, with each goal
subscale consisting of three items: PAP goals (e.g., “I am
striving to do well compared to other workers in this experi-
ment”), PAV goals (e.g., “My goal is to avoid performing
poorly compared to other workers in this experiment”). The
13
Motivation and Emotion
questions were answered on a 1–5 Likert-type scale, with
higher scores indicating greater endorsement of a particular
goal. Individual questions were blocked by subscale (i.e., all
three question measuring PAP goals were shown together),
but the order of subscales was randomized. The reliably for
both subscales was high (all Cronbach’s α > 0.90). Prelimi-
nary analyses indicated that PAP and PAV goals were posi-
tively correlated, r = 0.59, p < 0.001.
Results
We first tested for a direct effect of condition on RME per-
formance. This did not reveal a difference between com-
petition (M = 25.20, SD = 6.97) and control (M = 23.78,
SD = 6.95) groups, t (168) = 1.33, p = 0.186, d = 0.20.
Next, we tested whether competitive contexts affected
either achievement goal, relative to control. In examin-
ing PAP goals we found a significant difference between
competition (M = 4.13, SD = 1.08) and control (M = 3.6,
SD = 1.19), t (168) = 3.04, p = 0.003, d = 0.46. For PAV goals
we also found a significant difference between competition
(M = 3.87, SD = 1.23) and control (M = 3.27, SD = 1.31), t
(168) = 3.08, p = 0.002, d = 0.47.
Next, we regressed RME accuracy onto condition
(effects coded; -1 = competition, 1 = control) and PAP goals
(mean-centered). This revealed a significant effect of PAP,
b = 0.192, t = 2.47, p = 0.015 (and a non-significant effect
of condition, b =  − 0.15, t =  − -1.87, p = 0.062). A separate
regression with condition and PAV goals (mean-centered)
entered as predictors of RME accuracy did not find that
PAV goals, b = 0.12, t = 1.53, p = 0.128, predicted RME
performance (there was no effect of condition, b = -0.30,
t =  − -1.65, p = 0.10).
We conducted an additional regression with both PAP
and PAV goals included in the model simultaneously; this
produced a non-significant effect for PAP goals, b = 0.18,
t = 1.93, p = 0.056, and a non-significant relation for PAV
goals, b = 0.02, t = 0.18, p = 0.851 (there was no significant
effect of condition, b =  − 0.15, t =  − 1.88, p = 0.062).
Indirect effects
Although the direct effect of competition (vs. control) on
RME performance was modest, we nevertheless tested
whether either PAP or PAV goals mediated accuracy on
the RME, consistent with our a priori predictions. Notably,
there is theoretical and statistical justification for examin-
ing mediation in the absence of a direct effect (e.g., Rucker
et al. 2011; Zhao et al. 2010), especially when the mediator
is affected by experimental condition, as was the case in
this experiment for both performance goals. Furthermore,
an analysis of bivariate correlations in each condition (see
Table 1) revealed that PAP and PAV goals were correlated
Motivation and Emotion
Table 1  Bivariate correlations between each goal and RME perfor-
mance in the competition and control conditions in Experiment 1. *
p < .05
Competition Control
PAP Goals .334*  − .004
PAV Goals .272*  − .050
with performance in the competition condition, but not
the control condition; in fact, both PAP goals (Z = 2.24,
p = 0.013) and PAV goals (Z = 2.10, p = 0.035) were more
strongly related to RME performance under competitive than
control contexts. Based on these findings, we have evidence
that our experimental manipulation affected the theoretical
mediators, and those mediators were associated with perfor-
mance only in the competition condition; patterns consistent
with a mediated effect (Zhao et al., 2010).
To test for mediation we used model 4 of the PROCESS
macro (Preacher and Hayes 2010) in SPSS, running 5000
bootstrapped samples. The first analysis included condi-
tion as the direct effect, PAP goals as the indirect effect,
and RME as the dependent measure. This found evidence
that PAP goals mediated RME accuracy, as the confidence
interval did not contain zero CI [0.03–0.69]. However, when
running the same mediational model with PAV goals as the
indirect effect, there was no evidence for mediation, as the
confidence interval did contain zero CI [− 0.03 to 0.49].
Discussion
Experiment 1 revealed several noteworthy effects. First,
there was not an overall effect of competition (relative to
control) on RME performance. However, both PAP and PAV
goals were activated by competition. For both goals, there
was a positive correlation between goal activation and RME
performance in the competition condition that was absent
in the control condition. This supports our hypotheses that
competition would engender an interest in others’ mental-
emotional states and that both PAP and PAV goals would be
related to performance when competing. Mediation analyses
found that PAP goals mediated the relation between condi-
tion and RME performance, but PAV goals did not. This
indicates that PAP goals, in particular, mediate task perfor-
mance during competition.
Overall, the results of Study 1 illustrate the value of
extending the competition and performance goal litera-
tures to an emotion decoding task. Finding that both PAP
and PAV are positively correlated with RME performance
in the competition condition represents a unique finding,
as these two goals normally work in opposition to each
other (i.e., PAP typical improves performance, while
PAV typically impairs performance). When examining
mediation, we found that only PAP goals mediated the
relation between competition and RME accuracy.
We proceeded to design a follow up experiment closely
based on the methods employed in this first experiment,
with three notable exceptions. First, we moved the meas-
urement of goals in Experiment 2; rather than measuring
goals after the RME task, we moved the assessment so
that they were measured immediately following the experi-
mental manipulation and before the RME task. This order
is more consistent with the theoretical model in which
competition activates approach and avoidance goals, which
then exert an influence on performance. Second, as noted
earlier, mastery goals, as well as performance goals, may
be active in competition contexts. Although these intrap-
ersonal goals are unlikely to impact RME performance, we
nevertheless included them in Experiment 2 for explora-
tory purposes and to test for discrimination between per-
formance and mastery goals. Third, we pre-registered
Experiment 2 (AsPredicted.org #5660).
Experiment 2
In our pre-registration plan for Experiment 2 we outlined
several hypotheses regarding how competition was expected
to affect RME performance, activation of performance goals
(but not mastery goals) under competitive contexts, and the
potential for mediation by performance (but not mastery)
goals. Our specific pre-registered hypotheses are similar to
those for Experiment 1, but with the inclusion of MAP and
MAV goals. They are:
1. Competition (relative to control) will positively predict
performance on the RME task. In our pre-registration we
additionally noted that if this effect is not significant, it
could be due to different performance goal processes.
At the extreme, PAP and PAV goals could have opposite
effects of similar magnitude on the RME task, which
would produce a null effect of competition on RME per-
formance with no trend in either direction. Another pos-
sibility (not explicitly delineated in the pre-registration),
is that the two performance goals could influence RME
performance in the same direction, but a weaker PAV
effect could dilute the effect of competition on RME
performance to the point that it manifests as a trend or
tendency rather than significant effect.
2. Competition (relative to control) will positively predict
both PAP and PAV goals. Competition will be unrelated
to MAP and MAV goals.
3. PAP and PAV goals will both positively predict perfor-
mance on the RME task. MAP and MAV goals will be
unrelated to performance on the RME task.
13

4. PAP and PAV goals will both mediate the relation
between competition and performance on the RME task.
Mediation is not predicted for MAP and MAV goals.
Method
Participants
To accommodate the additional factors (i.e., MAP and MAV
as predictors), we conducted a new a priori power analysis
using G*Power (Faul et al. 2009). The experiment had two
experimental conditions and two additional continuous pre-
dictors, and we assumed an effect size of f 2 = 0.25 (a small
to medium effect) and targeted 0.80 power (p = 0.05). The
analysis indicated a target sample size of 395 participants.
We oversampled in anticipation of data omissions, recruit-
ing 425 total participants. Our a priori data omissions were
identical to Experiment 1. Specifically, we excluded par-
ticipants whose performance on the RME task was at or
below chance, as this indicates inattentive responding or lack
of comprehension; likewise, we removed participants who
completed the experiment on a mobile device despite being
instructed not to do so, as the RME stimuli can be difficult
to view on such devices; and we removed three participants
who failed to complete the experiment. Our final sample was
384 participants ­(Mage = 36.12; SD = 11.14; 218 female; 272
White, 40 Black, 36 Asian, 20 Latina/o, 6 “other”).
Procedure
Participants were MTurk workers who completed the
experiment for 50 US cents. The induction of competition
vs control states was identical to Experiment 1. Following
this experimental manipulation, participants completed the
performance and mastery goal items from the Achievement
Goal Questionnaire-Revised (Elliot and Murayama 2008).
As in Experiment 1, we adapted the measure by adding “in
this experiment” to all items and focusing the performance
goal items on MTurk workers instead of students. The
measure included the same six questions used in Experi-
ment 1 to measure PAP and PAV goals, plus an additional
six questions, with 3 items assessing MAP goals (e.g., “My
goal is to do as well as possible in this experiment”) and
MAV goals (e.g., “My aim is to avoid doing worse than I
possibly could in this experiment”) (see Appendix for all
goal items). Participants responded on a 1 (strongly disa-
gree) to 5 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale. Individual
items were again blocked by subscale (i.e., all 3 PAP goal
items were presented together), but the ordering of the sub-
scales was randomized. Internal consistency was satisfac-
tory, as seen by Cronbach’s alphas: PAP goals = 0.93; PAV
goals = 0.97; MAP goals = 0.85; and MAV goals = 0.92).
Preliminary analyses found that PAP and PAV goals were
13
Motivation and Emotion
Table 2  Means of Performance-approach (PAP), Performance-
avoidance (PAV), Mastery-approach (MAP), and Mastery-avoidance
(MAV) goals in each experimental condition. Standard deviations are
in parentheses
Competition Control
PAP Goals 4.54 (.77) 4.18 (1.09)
PAV Goals 4.14 (1.17) 3.92 (1.30)
MAP Goals 3.42 (.80) 3.37 (.95)
MAV Goals 3.55 (1.41) 3.39 (1.43)
correlated, r = 0.454, p < 0.001, as were MAP and MAV
goals, r = 0.313, p < 0.001.
After reading the experimental manipulation and respond-
ing to the achievement goal items, participants proceeded
to complete theRME task (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001).1 The
dependent measure is RME performance (i.e., the total num-
ber of accurate identifications), ranging from 0 to 36.
Results
All analyses were pre-registered, unless otherwise specified.
We first tested for a direct effect of experimental condition
on RME performance. Contrary to our pre-registered predic-
tion, but consistent with Experiment 1, this did not reveal a
significant difference between the competition (M = 24.63,
SD = 6.20) and control (M = 24.32, SD = 6.39) conditions,
t(358) = 0.44, p = 0.626, d = 0.04.
Next, we examined whether the manipulation of competi-
tion affected achievement goals. Means and standard devia-
tions are reported in Table 2. As in Experiment 1, we found
that competition increased PAP goals, relative to control,
t(334.8) = 3.807, p < 0.001, d = 0.38 (adjusted due to hetero-
geneous variance). For PAV goals, there was not a signifi-
cant effect, t(381) = 1.68, p = 0.092, d = 0.18. As expected,
for MAP goals, the competition and control groups did not
differ, t(382) = 0.49, p = 0.621, d = 0.06; the same was true
for MAV goals, t(380) = 1.13, p = 0.267, d = 0.11.
We then conducted a series of regression analyses with
RME performance as the outcome variable, and condi-
tion (effect coded: − 1 = control; 1 = competition) and each
achievement goal (mean-centered) included as predictors
(Table 2). The analysis including condition and PAP goals
revealed that PAP goals were a positive predictor of RME
performance, b = 0.208, t(183) = 4.07, p < 0.001 (there was
no effect of condition, b =  − 0.015, t =  − 0.295, p = 0.768). A
separate regression with condition and PAV goals, revealed
that PAV goals were not a significant predictor of RME
performance, b = 0.095, t(181) = 1.85, p = 0.065 (there was
1
  In the pre-registration, we mistakenly stated that the Baron-Cohen
et al. measure has 32 items – this mistake has been corrected herein.
Motivation and Emotion
Table 3  Bivariate correlations between each goal and RME perfor-
mance in the competition and control conditions. * p < .05
Competition Control
PAP Goals .334* .116
PAV Goals .190* .007
MAP Goals .267* .230*
MAV Goals .042 .023
no effect of condition, b = 0.015, t = 0.285, p = 0.776). We
also conducted a regression entering the two performance
goals as simultaneous predictors of RME performance.
PAP goals remained a significant predictor in this analysis,
b = 0.21, t(181) = 3.62, p < 0.001; no effect of PAV goals
was observed, b = 0.003, t(181) = 0.057, p = 0.955 (there
was no effect of condition, b = 0.02, t =  − 0.341, p = 0.733)
(Table 3).
In a series of ancillary analyses, we conducted the same
analyses described in the preceding paragraph, but this time
for mastery goals. When tested individually, MAP goals
were a predictor of RME scores, b = 0.241, t(181) = 4.84,
p < 0.001 (there was no effect of condition, b = 0.019,
t(181) = 0.38, p = 0.704), but MAV goals were not, b = 0.03,
t(181) = 0.63, p = 0.527 (there was no effect of condition,
b = 0.02, t(181) = 0.395, p = 0.693). When the two mastery
goals were entered as simultaneous predictors, MAP goals
continued to positively predict RME performance, b = 0.254,
t(181) = 4.83, p < 0.001, while MAV remained unrelated,
b =  − 0.047, t(181) =  − 0.895, p = 0.371 (there was no effect
of condition, b = 0.018. t = 0.367, p = 0.714.)
Test of indirect effects
Although we did not find evidence that competition affected
performance relative to control, the pre-registration anal-
ysis plan included tests of mediation by each of the four
goals, and conducting these tests provides an opportunity
to directly compare the findings from Experiments 1 and 2.
First, an analysis of bivariate correlations in each condition
(not pre-registered; see Table 2) revealed that PAP and PAV
goals were correlated with performance in the competition
condition, but not the control condition. As in Experiment 1,
PAP goals (Z = 2.24, p = 0.025) were more strongly related to
RME performance under competitive than control contexts;
this was not the case for PAV goals (Z = 1.80, p = 0.072).
Unexpectedly, MAP goals were positively correlated with
RME scores in both conditions; there was no difference in
the relation between MAP goals and RME scores across
conditions (Z = 0.48, p = 0.62). MAV goals were unrelated
to RME performance in both conditions, with no difference
in the relation between conditions (Z = 0.18, p = 0.853).
We proceeded to run tests of mediation (pre-registered
for the performance goals, not pre-registered for the mastery
goals) using model 4 of Preacher and Hayes’ (2010) PRO-
CESS macro in SPSS, with 5000 bootstrapping samples each.
As in Experiment 1, including PAP goals as a mediator of the
relation between condition and RME scores yielded evidence
for mediation, as the confidence interval of the indirect effect
did not contain zero, CI [0.09–0.44]. Also consistent with our
first experiment, testing PAV goals as a mediator failed to
reveal a significant indirect effect, CI [− 0.02 to 0.15]. In line
with predictions, neither indirect effect of MAP (CI [− 0.11 to
0.20]) nor MAV goals (CI [− -0.03 to 0.07] was significant.
Discussion
Experiment 2 was designed to replicate Experiment 1 and
extend it by modifying the placement of the goal measures
and adding an assessment of MAP and MAV goals. The results
largely confirmed what we found in Experiment 1. There was
again no direct effect of condition on RME performance.
Additionally, we found that competition, relative to control,
activated PAP goals, although this was not the case for PAV
goals (unlike Study 1). Again, both of these goals positively
correlated with performance in the competition, but not con-
trol, condition, replicating the interesting positive link between
PAV and RME performance. When examining mediation, we
again found that PAP goals had an indirect effect on RME
performance, but PAV goals did not. Given the larger sample
size in Experiment 2 and the fact these effects replicated with
an important change to the procedure (placing the goal assess-
ment before the RME assessment), we believe these results to
be robust and generalizable. PAP goals impact performance on
the RME in the competition condition and provide a mecha-
nism through which induced competitive states facilitate the
ability to decode complex emotional displays.
Novel results in Experiment 2 were obtained for MAP
and MAV goals. Unexpectedly, MAP goals were a positive
predictor of RME performance in both the competition and
control contexts. This suggests that MAP goals represent a
general appetitive investment in competence per se, regard-
less of situational contingencies or incentives. That is, these
goals may be seen as relatively intrinsic forms of regulation
that are directly attuned to task requirements (Dweck 1986),
and are likely to facilitate performance on any task that is
at least moderately interesting and challenging (such as the
RME task).
General Discussion
Across two experiments, the present research offers several
noteworthy findings that help integrate heretofore distinct lit-
eratures. First, we found that competition, relative to control,
13

activates PAP goals (significantly) and PAV goals (signifi-
cant in one experiment, but not the other). This finding is
consistent with prior empirical work (Murayama and Elliot
2012) and with the conception of achievement goals as tools
to help regulate general motivational (in this case competi-
tive) tendencies (Elliot 2006). Second, we found that both
PAP and PAV goals positively correlated with performance
on the RME task in a competitive context. Comparing the
size of the correlations across Experiments 1 and 2, there
were essentially identical effects for PAP goals (r = 0.34 in
both experiments), but a descriptively smaller correlation
between PAV goals and RME performance in Experiment 2
(r = 0.19) relative to Experiment 1 (r = 0.27). In each case,
these reflect small to medium sized correlations by con-
ventional standards (Cohen 1988). This finding extends the
scope of performance outcomes associated with achieve-
ment goals to the domain of social-emotional competence.
Especially noteworthy, the current research identifies an
instance in which PAV goals can be beneficial for psycho-
logical functioning. This is a rare and unique outcome, given
that PAV goals have largely been found to impair achieve-
ment outcomes (Elliot and Hulleman 2017). Third, although
we did not observe a direct effect of condition on RME
performance, we did find that competition had an indirect
influence on RME performance that was mediated by PAP
goal pursuit. Accordingly, the current experiments expand
the range of performance outcomes that are mediated by
PAP goals under competition contexts to the interpersonal
domain (i.e., the decoding of complex emotions).
Following guidelines outlined by Zhao and colleagues
(2010), our pattern of results produces what is deemed indi-
rect-only mediation. As detailed in their paper, this provides
convincing support for mediation, even in the absence of a
direct effect. In fact, Zhao et al. (2010) argue that the only
result necessary to claim mediation is documenting a signifi-
cant indirect (i.e., mediational) pathway between a predic-
tor, mediator, and outcome variable (cf. Baron and Kenny
1986). Thus, the present results support our prediction that
competition will lead to the adoption of performance goals,
which will then impact RME performance. This is uniquely
the case for PAP goals.
The inclusion of mastery goals in Experiment 2 revealed
that MAP goals were positively correlated with RME per-
formance in both control and competition conditions. This
was unexpected, due to the nature of mastery goals (i.e., they
are generally focused on the self or task-derived standards
of mastery, not on the performance of others). Although
we did not predict this effect, we nevertheless believe it is
readily interpretable and suggests that mastery goals may
motivate strong performance on virtually any task. The fact
that the RME task measured complex emotion decoding was
merely incidental, as MAP goals presumably would facilitate
performance on a range of dependent measures. Another
13
Motivation and Emotion
possibility is that MAP goals encourage using others in the
environment for informational purposes about the task. In
essence, the internal motivation to do well may increase
attention to social cues insofar as those cues are viewed as
relevant to task performance (e.g., Poortvliet and Darnon
2010).
The present research integrates the literature on interper-
sonal competition with the literature on social perception.
To date, these literatures have been largely distinct, and the
sparse research that has been conducted has not attended
to processes that might link competition and social percep-
tion. Herein we identified the pursuit of achievement goals,
particularly PAP goals, as one such important process. The
achievement goal literature is voluminous in and of itself,
and is largely separate from both the competition and (espe-
cially) social perception literatures. As such, our work inte-
grates three distinct and mature research literatures – those
focused on competition, social perception, and achievement
goals. More broadly, our research is consistent with theories
linking motivation to social perception (e.g., Bodenhausen
and Morales 2013), including the formative New Look (e.g.,
Bruner 1992) and contemporary Social Vision approaches
(e.g., Adams et al. 2017). In particular, our findings comple-
ment empirical work emphasizing the motivated decoding
of facial information (Young et al. 2012), including complex
emotions and intentions conveyed by the eyes (Stevenson
et al. 2012).
We believe the present research will be generative in that
it lays a nice foundation for future empirical work in this
area. One avenue for future research would be to extend the
independent variable to include cooperation. Like competi-
tion, cooperation is highly interdependent (Deutsch 1949)
and may facilitate a broad set of social perception outcomes,
including decoding complex emotional displays, and may
even do so via achievement goal (especially MAP goal) pur-
suit. Future research would also do well to examine different
types of performance-based goals as candidate mediator var-
iables, such as goals focused on making a positive impres-
sion (e.g., Daumiller et al. 2018). Another future research
avenue is to apply the analysis herein to the societal level.
Sommet et al. (2019) recently showed that perceived eco-
nomic competition positively predicts economic PAP and
PAV goal pursuit at the U.S. zip code level; it would be fasci-
nating to test whether this model can be extended to encom-
pass RME performance at the zip code level as well. With
regard to the dependent variable, future work could focus
on a broader range of social tasks. Particularly promising
candidates might be to use emotion identification tasks that
(a) focus on interpersonally-relevant emotions, such as pride
and shame, and/or (b) provide separate indicators of positive
and negative emotion identification, as PAP and PAV goals
may particularly facilitate the recognition of like-valence
emotions (positive and negative, respectively).
Motivation and Emotion
Follow up work would also do well to address limitations
of the present research. One limitation is that the targets
in the RME task were not framed as competitors, which
may have weakened the observed effects. Subsequent work
in which participants decode the emotions of their actual
opponents would provide a valuable test of the research
questions at hand. A second limitation is that our competi-
tion and control manipulations may have contained some
PAP goal- (emphasizing doing better than others) and MAP
goal- (doing one’s best) relevant content, respectively. These
manipulations were similar to others used in the literature
(e.g., Hagen et al. 2016; Murayama and Elliot 2012; Worchel
et al. 1997), but nevertheless, future research may wish to
use other manipulations focused on varying task incentives
or using more subtle primes to induce competition (e.g.,
Sacco and Hugenberg 2008) and simply emphasizing the
importance of full effort for the control group. A third limi-
tation is that the targets in the RME task are all Caucasian,
and RME performance has been shown to be influenced by
variables such as culture and social class (Dodell-Feder et al.
2020). Attending to these weaknesses of the RME task, and
supplementing this task with other indicators would be an
important step in future work. Finally, the stimuli used in our
experiment were static images. Emotion displays in daily life
are, of course, dynamic (Parkinson 2005), and a more eco-
logically valid test of our ideas would include animated dis-
plays of genuine emotion expressions unfolding over time.
In closing, the present research represents a unique syn-
thesis of research on interpersonal competition, achievement
goals, and social perception. This synthesis extends competi-
tion research by linking it to the surprisingly overlooked area
of social perception; broadens achievement goal research by
linking performance-based goals to social, rather than ana-
lytical, performance; and enriches social perception research
by connecting it to distinct, underlying forms of motiva-
tion and self-regulation. We believe that there is much to be
learned, on both the conceptual and empirical fronts, from
this integration, and encourage other researchers to focus on
these promising connections, accordingly.
Appendix
The complete list of items used for each goal measure in the
current research is provided below.
Performance‑approach (PAP)
My aim is to perform well relative to other workers in this
experiment.
I am striving to do well compared to other workers in this
experiment.
My goal is to perform better than the other workers in
this experiment.
Performance‑avoidance (PAV)
My aim is to avoid doing worse than other workers in this
experiment.
I am striving to avoid performing worse than other work-
ers in this experiment.
My goal is to avoid performing poorly compared to other
workers in this experiment.
Mastery‑approach (MAP)
My aim is to completely master the task in this experiment.
I am striving to understand this experiment as thoroughly
as possible.
My goal is to do as well as possible in this experiment.
Mastery‑avoidance (MAV)
My aim is to avoid doing worse than I possibly could in this
experiment.
I am striving to avoid an incomplete understanding of
the experiment.
My goal is to avoid learning less than it is possible to
learn in this experiment.
References
Adams, R. B., Albohn, D. N., & Kveraga, K. (2017). Social vision:
Applying a social-functional approach to face and expression
perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26,
243–248.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I.
(2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version:
A study with normal adults, and adults with asperger syndrome
or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, 42, 241–251.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality,
data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Morales, J. R. (2013). Social cognition and
perception. In H. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (pp.
225–246). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bruner, J. S. (1992). Another look at new look. American Psycholo-
gist, 47, 780–792.
Calder, A. J., Lawrence, A. D., Keane, J., Scott, S. K., Owen, A. M.,
Christoffels, I., et al. (2002). Reading the mind from eye gaze.
Neuropsychologia, 40, 1129–1138.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
13

Dodell-Feder, D., Ressler, K., & Germine, L. T. (2020). Social cogni-
tion or social class and culture? On the interpretation of differ-
ences in social cognitive performance. Psychological Medicine,
50, 133–145.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human
relations, 2, 129–152.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance
motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111–116.
Elliot, A. J., & Hulleman, C. S. (2017). Achievement goals. In A. Elliot,
C. Dweck, & D. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation, second edition: Theory and application (pp. 43–60).
New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., Jury, M., & Murayama, K. (2017). Trait and perceived
environmental competitiveness in achievement situations. Journal
of Personality. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12320​.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achieve-
ment goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 100, 613–638.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statisti-
cal power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and
regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Hangen, E. J., Elliot, A. J., & Jamieson, J. (2016). The opposing pro-
cesses model of competition: Effects of competition on cardiovas-
cular responses and risk-taking. Motivation Science, 2, 157–170.
Hoorens, V., & Damme, C. V. (2012). What do people infer from social
comparisons? Bridges between social comparison and person per-
ception. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 607–618.
Houston, J. M., Harris, P. B., Howansky, K., & Houston, S. M. (2015).
Winning at work: Trait competitiveness, personality types, and
occupational interests. Personality and Individual Differences,
76, 49–51.
Huang, C. (2012). Discriminant and criterion-related validity of
achievement goals in predicting academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 48–73.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects
of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19,
141–184.
Levine, E. E., Barasch, A., Rand, D., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A.
(2018). Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 702–719.
Lochbaum, M., & Gottardy, J. (2015). A meta-analytic review of the
approach-avoidance achievement goals and performance rela-
tionships in the sport psychology literature. Journal of Sport and
Health Science, 4, 164–173.
Mehta, P. H., Wuehrmann, E. V., & Josephs, R. A. (2009). When are
low testosterone levels advantageous? The moderating role of
individual vs. group competition. Hormones and Behavior, 56,
158–162.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The competition–performance
relation: A meta-analytic review and test of the opposing pro-
cesses model of competition and performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 138, 1035–1070.
Olderbak, S., Wilhelm, O., Olaru, G., Geiger, M., Brenneman, M. W.,
& Roberts, R. D. (2015). A psychometric analysis of the reading
13
Motivation and Emotion
the mind in the eyes test: toward a brief form for research and
applied settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1503.
Poortvliet, P. M., & Darnon, C. (2010). Towards a more social under-
standing of achievement goals: The interpersonal effects of mas-
tery and performance goals. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 19, 324–328.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011).
Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and
new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Com-
pass, 5, 359–371.
Ruscher, J. B., & Fiske, S. T. (1990). Interpersonal competition can
cause individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 832–843.
Sacco, D. F., & Hugenberg, K. (2008). Cooperative and competitive
motives enhance perceptual sensitivity to angry and happy facial
expressions. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 382–395.
Schultheiss, O. C., & Hale, J. A. (2007). Implicit motives modulate
attentional orienting to facial expressions of emotion. Motivation
and Emotion, 31, 13–24.
Sommet, N., Elliot, A. J., Jamieson, J., & Butera, F. (2019). Income
inequality, perceived competitiveness, and approach-avoidance
motivation. Journal of Personality, 87, 767–784.
Stevenson, M. T., Soto, J. A., & Adams, R. B., Jr. (2012). More than
meets the eye: The role of self-identity in decoding complex emo-
tional states. Emotion, 12, 882–886.
Ten Velden, F. S., Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. (2009). Goal expecta-
tions meet regulatory focus: How appetitive and aversive competi-
tion influence negotiation. Social Cognition, 27, 437–454.
Thagard, P. (1992). Adversarial problem solving: Modeling an
opponent using explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 16,
123–149.
VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2015). American Psychological Association
dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Welling, L. L. M., Persola, L., Wheatley, J. R., Cárdenas, R. A., & Puts,
D. A. (2013). Competition and men’s face preferences. Personality
and Individual Differences, 54, 414–419.
Worchel, S., Shebilske, W. L., Jordan, J. A., & Prison, R. (1997). Com-
petition and performance on a computer-based complex percep-
tual-motor task. Human Factors, 39, 410–416.
Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2012).
Perception and motivation in face recognition: A critical review of
theories of the cross-race effect. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review, 16, 116–142.
Young, S. G., & Wilson, J. P. (2018). A minimal ingroup advantage
in emotion identification confidence. Cognition and Emotion, 32,
192–199.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron
and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal
of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.