3 ms·

Yes, and it's not just in schools. Drawing from SDT (self-determination theory), one of the main predictors for motivation is a psychological need called 'comp

by divan 3y ago

Yes, and it's not just in schools. Drawing from SDT (self-determination theory), one of the main predictors for motivation is a psychological need called 'competence' (perception of whether your actions lead to the feeling of growth or accomplishment). Different actions and situations can send either a positive competence signal to a person (and increase motivation) or a negative one (and decrease motivation). These things are measurable. The main issue with competitions is that they send positive competence signal to one person (winner) and negative to everyone else. Like you trained for months, and now you've lost. This leads to increased dropout rates in sports, which are especially pronounced in kids. Norwegians asked the question – instead of spending money and effort to try to engage people and kids in sports, maybe we should ask a question, 'Why do they drop out in the first place' and prevent those? Competitions came as one of the strongest predictors of dropping out of sports, hence the policy.

vladms 3y ago
Depends on the competition format a bit. You can also have rankings and while they are not ideal either, probably it will not be as bad as "send positive competence signal to one person (winner)". For example if you do a single elimination tournament of course people eliminated in first round will get bored and not interested (you can't even make a proper ranking) Focusing on winners only is a societal choice though. I have met people (in countries were a lot of people like doing sport) that were practicing a sport and joining competitions for years even though they were not very competent in that sport - because it was their hobby and they just enjoyed being there.
- divan 3y ago
  Yes, and we're talking about statistically measurable things. There is plenty of room to experiment with different reward systems in competitions. For example, in Finland, there is an alternative figure skating judging system for kids' competitions, and they have medals (1,2, and 3 place), but everyone else is the rest. Thus they send a positive competence signal to the winner and a relatively weak negative competence signal to others (i.e. no one is labeled "worst", plus everyone gets some prize reward). Tennis' Play&Stay program for kids under 10 years old is also a good example – they use different tournament structures, so no one feels like they lost.

by divan 3y ago

vladms 3y ago

Depends on the competition format a bit. You can also have rankings and while they are not ideal either, probably it will not be as bad as "send positive competence signal to one person (winner)". For example if you do a single elimination tournament of course people eliminated in first round will get bored and not interested (you can't even make a proper ranking) Focusing on winners only is a societal choice though. I have met people (in countries were a lot of people like doing sport) that were practicing a sport and joining competitions for years even though they were not very competent in that sport - because it was their hobby and they just enjoyed being there.

divan 3y ago
Yes, and we're talking about statistically measurable things. There is plenty of room to experiment with different reward systems in competitions. For example, in Finland, there is an alternative figure skating judging system for kids' competitions, and they have medals (1,2, and 3 place), but everyone else is the rest. Thus they send a positive competence signal to the winner and a relatively weak negative competence signal to others (i.e. no one is labeled "worst", plus everyone gets some prize reward). Tennis' Play&Stay program for kids under 10 years old is also a good example – they use different tournament structures, so no one feels like they lost.