1. As predicted, participants in the rival condition made significantly more errors than participants in the non-rival condition, t(105) = 2.12, p =.036 Revved up by Rivalry: Thinking about Rivals Encourages Action-Oriented Goal Pursuit Benjamin Converse and David Reinhard University of Virginia Study 2 Conclusion Introduction Self-regulatory strategies involve relatively separable action- oriented and vigilant-oriented processes. Eg. Promotion vs. Prevention focus (Higgins, 1997) Locomotion vs. Assessment (Kruglanski et al., 2000) Activation system vs. Inhibition system (Gray, 1987) Rivalries are competitive relationships that emerge from a history of intense and close competition between two similar parties (Kilduff et al., 2010). We propose that this history results in an increased sense of drive and familiarity that has consequences for goal-pursuit. Given that exposure to relationship partners can affect goal activation, goal appraisal, and targeted preparation to interact (Shah, 2003a, 2003b; Cesario et al., 2006; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003), rivalry may trigger a particular style of goal-pursuit, even outside of competitions. Specifically… We randomly assigned NFL fans (n = 151) to reflect on either a rival NFL team or a high status, non-rival team. Next, participants completed an effort-based task to measure motivation (Gill & Prowse, 2012). These findings suggest that rivalries preferentially activate different motivational processes than non-rival competitors. Specifically, rivals increase motivation in an action-oriented style. These effects occur within and outside of direction competitions. This advances rivalry as a unique component of competition that can affect self-regulatory strategies during goal pursuit. Summary Rivals (vs. non-rivals) prompt an action-oriented style of goal- pursuit during competitions (Study 1) and reflecting on rivals outside of competitions increases motivation (Study 2) in an action-oriented manner (Study 3). Study 1: Within competitions, rivals increased selection of strategies that involve quick action and intuition. Study 2: Outside of competitions, reflecting on rivals increased motivation on a simple, effort based task. Study 3: Outside of competitions, reflecting on rivals increased gut-feeling responses on a task requiring deliberative reasoning. This suggests that rivalries increases motivation in an action- oriented style within and outside of direct competitions. Contact: dar6rf@virginia.edu Fantasy baseball owners (n = 107) reflected on either a rival team owner or a high status, non-rival team owner. Next, they completed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005) to measure (lack of) deliberative reasoning. All questions have an intuitive incorrect answer (e.g. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?). Study 3 Participants in the rival condition completed significantly more sliders than those in the non-rival condition, controlling for laptop/desktop use, F = 3.95, p =.049. Primary Hypothesis - Rivalries will increase motivation in an action-oriented manner within and outside of direct competitions. Study 1 152 “Gamers” (people that competitively play head-to-head video games) imagined an upcoming match against a rival (vs. hypothetical non-rival) opponent. After rating their familiarity with the opponent, participants selected the kind of strategy they would employ in the competition. Participants selected 1 of 2 options: Vigilant strategy: “I am going to act cautiously and observe how my opponent plays.” Action strategy: “I am going to act quickly and rely on instinct.” Studies 2 and 3 examine the consequences of reflecting on rivalry relationships outside of direct competitions. Study 2 provides evidence that rivalry increases motivation through action behaviors outside of competitions. Study 3 tests for a specific, action-oriented response to rivalry. This would help to distinguish the effect from a mere increase in motivation. Participants in the rival condition selected the action- oriented strategy (69.0%) significantly more than participants in the non-rival condition (45.6%), Χ 2 (1, N = 115) = 6.41, p =.011. A binary logistic regression revealed that a stronger sense of familiarity predicted a preference for action- oriented strategies, Wald’s χ 2 = 4.99, p =.026.