Humans are motivated to do their best when competing against others in small groups, but competition on a large scale actually has the reverse effect, a new study suggests.
Scientists at the University of Michigan (I wonder if its Gerald and Karen DeGroot?) have found that the will to compete actually falls when people are in larger groups. Basically, we feel that we have less of a chance of winning, so we decide its not as worth it to try.
One of the things they studied: Students that take SATs in large groups (like in a gym or auditorium) apparently score lower than students that are seated in classrooms. Personally, I took the SAT once in each setting, and I scored over 100 points higher in the smaller group.
This has a number of interesting possible meanings, at least in my opinion.
If this is something that is hardwired into our unconscious minds, as they seem to be suggesting, does that help explain why primative humans naturally formed small communities/family groups? Competition, the key to surviving and advancing in a primative world, was best facilitated by small groups, it would be the members of those groups who had an evolutionary advantage over single individuals and larger populations.
By the same token, if you want to be more motivated to get into shape, maybe this means you should join a smaller gym?
At the very least, its another solid knock against the very idea of a "nationally standardized test", because it furthers the argument that such an idea is basically impossible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment