M. Buckert et al. studied physiological stress responses to an economic lad paradigm, but what would happen if we applied these findings long term? The physiological responses measured where only measured before, during, and a small about of time after the participants were done the game. Not all stress responses are easily detectable when dealing with the short-term effects of stress, such as the physiological sympathetic system responses measured in this experiment. In the context of modern-day life, people are consistently placed under this type of forced tournament game condition consistently throughout their days over a long period of time. If these experiments were applied over such a time period, we could gain value of being able to connect how these consistent forced tournament game situations elicit stress responses which are more realistic to peoples lives.
Short term some physiological stress responses measured in the experiment were not significant such as the cortisol levels due to the short-term measure of the experiment. When stress is present in the body over a long period of time physiological stress responses becomes intensified such as cortisol levels, measured in one’s saliva are higher. Real life daily stressors tend to be stronger than the stressor used in the experiment, and thus it is reasonable to infer that real-life stressors would elicit similar physiological responses but to a higher degree. The long-term health effects of these intensified physiological responses is what could be useful in determining the effect of forced tournament game conditions in modern day life.
This also begs the question of how consistent stress would affect our likelihood for self-selection onto competitive environments. Along with the factor of coping styles, active coping style or passive coping style. The long-term effects of stress have the possibility of being more harmful than short term stress and so as a method to maintain proper health an individual may feel that additional competition, in the context of the forced tournament game setting, is more so a threat than a challenge. Which according the M. Buckert et al. would predict a decrease in people willing to self-select into competitive environments.
In relation to Bateson, who view cooperation as superior over competition as it is the basis of human life, she might consider competition as a threat. If competition is a viewed as a threat according to M. Buckert et al. Batson would be more likely to refrain from self-selection into competitive environments.
Hutcheons would relate those who perceive competition as a challenge to those who are possibly more likely to act wolfishly in a discourse setting. Those who would be willing to act in highly competitive ways such as the wolfish behaviour Hutcheons mentioned, would clearly be more likely to view competition as a challenge rather than a threat. Thus reinforcing M. Buckerts et al. claim that those who view competition as a challenge are more likely to self-select into competitive environments (involve themselves in wolfish behaviour).
In Blaise Appolinarys reading response to J. Tepper, linked above, he argued than in the long run competition in the market will present overall benefits unless done incorrectly. To justify this, they stated that competition is what motivated J. Tepper to get to the level he is at today. J. Tepper in this sense could be said to view competition as a challenge that he used to motivated himself, and that is why he has reaped such benefits. Although it is interesting to consider that if J. Tepper viewed competition as a thread rather than a challenge, his approach to the markets and possibly his success may have been very different. From this it might be possible to say that in some naturally competitive environments such as a business market active coping strategy are most useful in obtain success.