Image Source: Warframe: Next Potential Prime Frame Coming After Hydroid Prime. 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4tvUvwEeLg. Accessed February 23, 2019.
Priming and framing are two common methods for information delivery in articles. Priming leads competition to designated point through providing relevant information of that particular point. Meanwhile, framing alters how a situation will be received by wording differently. In both articles by Buckert et al and Rigdon, priming and framing influence the behavior of competition participants. Nevertheless, their effects can be positive or negative. Positive priming and framing evokes active coping style because competitors regard competition as challenge, while negative ones lead to worse performance due to the perception of threat. As a result, priming and framing are supposed to aim at generating challenge over threats.
Buckert et al conclude from the experiment that different person perceive competition in various ways. The reasons lay on different culture background and personalities that different people have. Those background has already shaped how people would perceive competition. Prior to using any priming and framing tactics, the receiver of competition has been under the influence of priming caused by their past experience. Furthermore, when Buckert et al discuss the experiment results, they build up their claims on many other authoritative claims as their normative structure to make the claims more reliable. At the same time, those proofs that priming and framing are affecting the result of competition also become more trustworthy with the normative structure. In this case of different background and personality as the priming factor, Buckert et al list a series of experts, such as Gneezy et al in 2009 and Goette et al in 2015, to back up the claim that culture and personality affects how people understand competition. In my case, they also strengthens the reliability of my interpretation that priming has existed prior to any planned priming and framing measures. Then it further shows the importance to give proper framing and priming so that positive outcomes would come out of it.
Second, the experiment participants tend to choose competitive payment scheme over piece rate when they win on the previous competitive payment round which are mandatory. This is another example of priming. Those who win over the second competitive round are primed with rewards. They tend to bring the winning mentality to third round. By choosing the competitive scheme, they have the opportunity to maximize their rewards. In this case, winners of second rounds regard the competitive payment scheme as a challenge that can bring extra rewards. Thus, it shows that positive priming motivates competitors to actively participate in competition.
On the other hand, Rigdon and D’Esterre focus on how priming changes the probability and nature of cheating. It turns out that competitive priming increases cheating when reporting opponent grades without surveillance. According to the discovery by Buckert et al, this competitive priming generates threats since participants tend to sabotaging their competitors. Thus, systematic measures should be taken in real life to transform the competition from negative threats to positive challenge so as to motivate competitors.
Also, @colevonniessen3796 brought up social schema in the post Social Schemas: Our Baseline Assumptions. He pointed out that social schema is a default framing of situations. Also, he mentions it is important for people to keep an eye on whether the competition is productive in the default mode of action. In other words, it is important to motivate positive competition rather than negative threats.
In conclusion, in modern economic and business field, it is not always good to put competitive priming and framing on people. Instead, scientific and systematic priming and framing needs to be developed so that it brings positive challenge.