JOLIRNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(3&4), 630-639

Copyright 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Construction of a Hypercompetitive
Attitude Scale
Richard M. Ryckman, Max Hammer,
Linda M. Kaczor, and Joel A. Gold
University of Maine

Theory testing in the area of hypercompetitiveness has been impeded by the lack
of an adequate psychometric instrument. Four studies were conducted as part of
an initial research program designed to remedy this deficiency by constructing an
individual difference measure of general hypercompetitive attitude with satisfactory psychometric properties. In Studies 1 and 2, a 26-item scale was derived
primarily through item-total correlational analysis; it demonstrated adequate
internal and test-retest reliabilities. The remaining two studies were concerned
with determining the construct validity of the scale. In line with theoretical
expectations based on Horney's theory of neurosis, subjects who perceived themselves as hypercompetitive were less psychologically healthy. The potential usefulness ofthe scale in therapeutic, athletic, school, and business settings is discussed.

According to the neoanalyst Karen Horney (1937, chapter 10), hypercompetitiveness refers to an indiscriminate need by individuals to compete and
win (and to avoid losing) at any cost as a means of maintaining or enhancing
feelings of self-worth, with an attendant orientation of manipulation, aggressiveness, exploitation, and denigration of others across a myriad of situations. She
believed that such an exaggerated competitive attitude was a central feature of
American culture and had a detrimental impact on the individual's development and functioning. In discussing the strong link between neurosis and
competition, she (Horney, 1937) noted that:
[O]ur modern culture is based on the principle of individual competition, [and] the
. . . individual has to fight with other individuals ofthe same group, has to surpass
them and, frequently, [to] thrust them aside. The advantage of the one is
frequently the disadvantage ofthe other. The psychic result... is a diffuse hostile
tension between individuals. [This] competitiveness, and the . . . hostility that
accompanies it, pervades all human relationships. Competitive stimuli are active

RYCKMAN, HAMMER, KACZOR, GOLD

631

from the cradle to the grave . . . [and present] a fertile ground for the development
of neurosis, (pp. 284-287)
Although Horney's words were written in the 1930s, prominent contemporary
writers on the topic are convinced that hypercompetitiveness continues to be an
integral feature of American life and an important mental health problem
(Aronson, 1980; Kohn, 1986). As Kohn (1986) put it:
No one in a culture as competitive as ours is unfamiliar with the experience of
being flooded with shame and self-doubt upon losing some sort of contest. And
when we add the phenomenon of anticipating loss to the occasions of actually
losing, it becomes clear that tbe potential for humiliation, for being exposed as
inadequate, is present in every competitive encounter. . . . Tbe more importance
tbat is placed on winningin tbe society, in tbe particular situation, or by tbe
individualtbe more destructive losing will be. (p. 109)
Research indirectly buttresses these views (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,
1983; D. W. Johnson, Maruyama, R. Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Slavin,
1980). D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson (1987), for example, conducted a
meta-analysis of 133 research studies of adults comparing the effectiveness of
competitive versus cooperative efforts on individuals' self-esteem and interpersonal relationships and found that, in comparison to subjects performing under
cooperative conditions, competitive subjects had poorer self-concepts and more
negative interpersonal relationships. We assume that the competitive conditions
in at least some of these studies engendered hypercompetitive feelings and acts
toward opponents.
Despite these findings, progress in understanding the origins and consequences of hypercompetitiveness, as well as its reduction/elimination, has been
impeded by a lack of adequate assessment instruments. Lakie (1964), for
example, constructed a scale based on the "win-at-any-cost" philosophy of
athletics, but its psychometric properties were found to be inadequate. As Shaw
and Wright (1967), in their review of the psychometric merit of the scale, stated:
"[Its] reliability is . . . probably unsatisfactory for the study of individual
attitudes. More evidence of validity is [also] badly needed" (p. 951).
The only other scale that attempted to assess hypercompetitiveness is Martin
and Larsen's (1976) Competitive-Cooperative Attitude Scale. This scale is more
directly pertinent to the current psychometric effort than Lakie's scale because it
attempts to measure general hypercompetitiveness. Unfortunately, although its
internal consistency is satisfactory, no test-retest reliability data are available
and only minimal information about its construct validity was reported. Thus,
given the importance of hypercompetitiveness as a societal problem and the fact
that a reliable and valid measure tbat assesses a general hypercompetitive
attitude is unavailable, we decided to conduct a preliminary program of research
to remedy the situation.

632

HYPERCOMPETITIVE ATTITUDE SCALE

STUDY 1
Method
Subjects and procedure. We generated an initial pool of 90 items based
largely on Horney's (1937) definition of hypercompetitiveness. This pool was
narrowed to 65 items by eliminating those with ambiguous, overly difficult, or
redundant wording. Each of the 65 5-point items had the following response
alternatives: never true of me (1), seldom true of me (2), sometimes true of me (3), often

true of me (4), and always true of me (5). In order to control for acquiescence
response set, half of the items were stated so the Response 5 indicated a strong
hypercompetitive attitude, whereas the remaining half were stated so that the
Response 5 indicated a weak hypercompetitive attitude. All items were scored in
the direction of hypercompetitiveness, with higher scores indicating stronger
hypercompetitive attitudes.
This item pool was then administered to 320 undergraduate students (138
males and 182 females) enrolled in introductory psychology classes at the
University of Maine, along with the abbreviated version of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964;
Reynolds, 1982). The mean age of subjects was 18.10, with a range from 17 to 38
years {SD = 2.29). They participated on a voluntary basis in order to earn extra
academic credit in their introductory psychology class.
Results
Item selection and internal consistency reliability. Correlations between
social desirability total scores and individual items were computed. Items were
eliminated if they correlated highly with social desirability (r > .30) and if they
showed restriction of response range; 27 items remained.
The internal consistency of the Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale (HCA) was
computed on the 27 items via coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Because the
corrected item-total correlation of one item was low (r = .26), it was eliminated.
The final 26-item scale had an alpha of .91, which reflects strong internal
consistency. Item-total correlations ranged from .35 to .70, with an average r of
.49. (See Table 1 for a listing of the items.)

STUDY 2
Method
Subjects and procedure. The next step was to assess the long-range stability
of the 26-item scale. Thus, the 26-item HCA scale was administered to 104

RYCBCMAN, HAMMER, KACZOR, GOLD

633

TABLE 1
Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale Items
1.
2.
(R)3.
4.
(R)5.
(R)6.
7.
8.
9.
(R)10.
11.
12.
(R)13.
14.
(R)i5.
(R)16.
17.
(R)18.
(R)19.
(R)20.
21.
22.
23.
(R)24.
(R)25.
(R)26.

Winning in competition makes me feel more powerful as a person.

1 find myself being competitive even in situations which do not call for competition.
I do not see my opponents in competition as my enemies.
I compete with others even if they are not competing with me.
Success in athletic competition does not make me feel superior to others.
Winning in competition does not give me a greater sense of worth.
When my competitors receive rewards for their accomplishments, I feel envy.
I find myself turning a friendly game or activity into a serious contest or conflict.
It's a dog-eat-dog world. If you don't get the better of others, they will surely get the better
of you.
I do not mind giving credit to someone for doing something that I could have done just as
well or better.
If I can disturb my opponent in some way in order to get the edge in competition, I will
do so.
I really feel down when I lose in athletic competition.
Gaining praise from others is not an important reason why I enter competitive situations.
I like the challenge of getting someone to like me who is already going with someone else.
I do not view my relationships in competitive terms.
It does not bother me to be passed by someone while I am driving on the roads.
I can't stand to lose an argument.
In school, I do not feel superior whenever I do better on tests than other students.
I feel no need to get even with a person who criticizes or makes me look bad in front of
others.
Losing in competition has little effect on me.
Failure or loss in competition makes me feel less worthy as a person.
People who quit during competition are weak.
Competition inspires me to excel.
I do not try to win arguments with members of my family.
I believe that you can be a nice guy and still win or be successful in competition.
I do not find it difficult to be fully satisfied with my performance in a competitive
situation.

Note. (R) = item score reversed.

undergraduate students (53 males and 51 females) enrolled in introductory

psychology courses. They volunteered to participate in order to earn extra
academic credit. These same subjects were retested with the HCA scale 6 weeks
later.
Results
The test-retest reliability for the 101 subjects who completed the scale twice was
satisfactory, r(99) = .81, p < .001. The means and standard deviations for the
first and second administrations were M = 72.07 (SD = 14.12) and M = 71.87
{SD = 12.18), respectively.

634

HYPERCOMPETITIVE ATTITUDE SCALE

STUDY 3
lUethod
Subjects and procedure. In order to establish the validity of the scale, two
separate samples of male and female subjects were drawn from different University of Maine undergraduate psychology classes and were asked to complete the
HCA scale, along with a battery of personality tests.
The first sample (n = 70) completed the Win-at-any-Cost Sports Competition
Scale (Lakie, 1964), the Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), and the
Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1975). The Win-at-any-Cost Sports Competition Scale is a 22-item
scale that includes such items as "College C lowered the admission requirements
for men awarded athletic scholarships" and "Player A during a golf match made
noises and movements when Player B was getting ready to make a shot."
Subjects responded to these items on a 5-point scale anchored as follows: strongly
disapprove (1), disapprove (2), undecided (3), approve (4), and strongly approve (5).

Higher scores reflect a greater "win-at-any-cost" attitude. The Self-Esteem Scale

is a 10-item instrument that assesses differences in subjects' self-esteem levels.
Sample items include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself and "I feel that
I have a number of good qualities." Items have 4-point response alternatives
anchored as follows: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree

(4). All items were scored in the direction of higher self-esteem, with higher
scores reflecting higher self-esteem. The Neuroticism scale contains items such
as: "Does your mood often go up and down?", "Do you often feel fed up?", and
"Are you an irritable person?" "Yes" responses to these items reflect neurotic
tendencies.
The second sample (n = 49) completed the Competitive-Cooperative Attitude Scale (Martin & Larsen, 1976), the Neuroticism Scale (Eysenck &. Eysenck,
1975), and the abbreviated version ofthe Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (Crowne &. Marlowe, 1964; Reynolds, 1982). The CompetitiveCooperative Attitude Scale is a 28-item instrument with a 5-point response
format: strongly disagree (1), slightly disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3),

slightly agree (4), and strongly agree (5). It contains items such as: "The more I win,
the more powerful I feel" and "Your loss is my gain." Higher scores reflect
stronger hypercompetitiveness. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
is a 13-item true-false measure of subjects' tendencies to seek social approval by
endorsing items that are socially desirable. Sample items are: "I am always
courteous, even to people who are disagreeable" and "no matter who I'm talking
to, I'm always a good listener." Scores can range firom 0 to 13, with higher scores
indicating a higher need for social approval.

RYCKMAN, HAMMER, KACZOR, GOLD

635

Results
Sample 1 data analysis. As expected, HCA scale and Win-at-any-Cost
Sports Competition Scale scores are positively correlated, r(68) = .24, p < .05,
providing preliminary support for the HCA scale's convergent validity. This
correlation was low, however, presumably because the reliability of Lakie's scale
is unsatisfactory and possibly because it is a sports-specific rather than a general
measure of hypercompetitive attitude.
Horney's theory states that hypercompetitive individuals are neurotic and
have low self-esteem, so we expected a positive correlation between HCA scale
and Neuroticism scale scores and a negative correlation between HCA scale and
Self-Esteem scale scores, r(68) = .48, p < .001 and r(68) = - . 3 4 , p < .01,
respectively. Interestingly, Win-at-any-Cost Sports Competition Scale scores
did not correlate significantly with either neuroticism, r(68) = .01, oir
self-esteem scores, r(68) = .10.
Sample 2 data analysis. As expected, the new, general HCA scale shows
stronger convergent validity, r(47) = .48, p < .001, with the general
Competitive-Cooperative Attitude Scale. The HCA scale's validity is bolstered
further by the lack of a correlation with social desirability bias, r(47) = .01.
HCA scale scores are, once again, associated with neuroticism scores, r(47) ==
.28, p < .05, whereas Competitive-Cooperative Attitude scores are
uncorrelated with neuroticism, r(47) = .08.

STUDY 4
Horney's theory of neurosis provides the nomological network to test the
validity of the hypercompetitiveness construct. She believed that
hypercompetitiveness had its roots in the harsh disciplinary practices and
treatment used by parents to train their children early in life. Such a set of
unhealthy interactions and experiences include brutality, humiliation, derision,
neglect, and flagrant hypocrisy by their parents causing these individuals to feel
powerless, insignificant, and mistrustful of others. At base, they become convinced that everybody is malevolent and that their best chance for survival is to
regard everyone with distrust unless they have proven themselves honest. To
overcome their feelings of powerlessness and low self-esteem, they "harden"
themselves by stifling their positive feelings toward others. According to
Horney, they also are driven by needs for "vindication, revenge, and triumph"
over others. They are convinced that they must be superior to all others. They
become hostile, dogmatic, arrogant, aggressive, and derisive in their treatment
of other people. Regarding sexuality, for example, Horney maintained that
hypercompetitive individuals had intense needs to prove themselves superior by

636

HYPERCOMPETITIVE ATTITUDE SCALE

subduing and bumiliating their partners. This incessant and indiscriminate

striving for mastery permeates virtually every area of their lives (Horney, 1937,
pp. 195-197).
This theorizing leads to the prediction that individuals with strong
hypercompetitive attitudes will be more "macho" than individuals with weak
hypercompetitive attitudes because macho individuals tend to have calloused
and derogatory sexual attitudes toward women and to see violence as being
manly (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984). Also in line with the theory, we expect them to
be more mistrustful and, once again, to have lower self-esteem and higher
neuroticism. Finally, Horney's theory implies that individuals witb strong
hypercompetitive attitudes will score lower on a general measure of optimal
psychological health than individuals with weak hypercompetitive attitudes.
Method
Subjects and procedure. To test these predictions, three separate samples of
subjects were drawn from different undergraduate psychology classes and were
asked to complete tbe HCA scale, along with several other personality tests.
The first sample of 52 subjects (27 males and 25 females) completed the
neuroticism part of the EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) and the Personal
Orientation Inventory (POI; Shostrom, 1963). The POI is a popular measure of
self-actualization. It is a 150-item paired-opposites instrument, containing items
such as: "I believe that man is essentially evil and cannot be trusted" versus "I
believe that man is essentially good and can be trusted" and "I have a problem
fusing sex and love" versus "I have no problem fusing sex and love." Choice of
the second alternative in each of the just-noted items reflects self-actualization
tendencies.
The second sample of 47 subjects (15 males and 32 females) completed the
Interpersonal Trust Scale (Rotter, 1967), the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960),
the Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), an abbreviated version of the POI
Qones & Crandall, 1986; Shostrom, 1963), and the Neuroticism scale of the
EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The Interpersonal Trust Scale is a 23-item
instrument designed to assess individual differences in interpersonal trust. It
includes such items as "Hypocrisy is on the increase in our society" and "Many
major national sports contests are fixed in one way or the other." Items for tbis
scale had the following response alternatives: strongly disagree (1), mildly disagree
(2), agree and disagree equally (3), mildly agree (4), and strongly agree (5). All items

were scored in the direction of mistrust, with higher scores indicating greater
mistrust of others. The Dogmatism Scale is a 40-item scale assessing intolerance
and rigidity of an individual's belief system and contains such items as: "There
are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who
are against the truth," and "In a heated discussion I generally become so
absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what others are

RYCKMAN, HAMMER, KACZOR, GOLD

637

saying." Items had the following response alternatives: strongly disagree (1),
disagree (2), neutral/indifferent (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). All items were

scored in the direction of dogmatism, with higher scores indicating greater

dogmatism. The abbreviated version ofthe POI is a scale tbat utilizes 15 items
from the 150-item instrument. Jones and Crandall's (1986) research has shown
that it correlates very strongly witb the original self-actualization measure and is
reliable and valid.
Tbe third sample of 46 undergraduate males completed the Macho Inventory
(Mosher &. Sirkin, 1984). It is a 30-item instrument with a forced-choice format
consisting of three subscales: (a) calloused sexual attitudes toward women, (b)
violence as manly, and (c) dangerous activities as exciting. Only the first two
components were relevant for our investigation, so we eliminated the third
component from further consideration. The Calloused Sexual Attitudes Scale
(10 items) includes such items as: "All women deserve the same respect as your
mother" versus "Some women are good for only one thing" and "I only want to
have sex with women who are in total agreement" versus "I never feel bad about
my tactics when I have sex." The Violence Scale (10 items) contains such items
as: "I hope to forget past unpleasant experiences with male aggression" versus "I
still enjoy remembering my first real fight" and "If you insult me. 111 try to turn
the other cheek" versus "If you insult me, be prepared to back it up." Endorsement of the second statement for each of these items reflects a macho orientation. All items were scored in the macbo direction, with higher scores indicating
stronger calloused attitudes toward women and the perception of violence as
manly.
Resxolts
Sample 1 data analysis. As expected, hypercompetitive attitude scores were
related positively to neuroticism scores, r(50) = .41, p < .01, and negatively
with self-actualization scores, r(50) = .46, p < .001.
Sample 2 data analysis. Once again, hypercompetitive attitude scores were
related positively to neuroticism scores, r(45) = .50, f> < .001, and negatively to
actualization scores, r(45) = .64, p < .001, thereby increasing our confidence
in these results. Correlational analysis also indicated that, as predicted,
hypercompetitive attitude scores were linked directly to mistrust scores, r(45) ==
.29, p < .05, and dogmatism scores, r(45) = .46, p < .001, and negatively to
self-esteem scores, r(45) .30, p < .05.
Sample 3 data analysis. As anticipated, hypercompetitive attitude scores
were linked positively to calloused sexual attitudes toward women, r(44) = .37,
p < .01, and to perceptions that violence is manly, r(44) = .51, f < .001.

638

HYPERCOMPETITIVE ATTITUDE SCALE

DISCUSSION
The four studies just presented provide strong preliminary evidence for the
reliability and validity of the newly developed HCA Scale. Both test-retest and
alpha reliabilities were satisfactory. The HCA scale also shows construct
validity, yielding significant associations with numerous individual difference
variables in expected theoretical directions. Horney proposed that
hypercompetitiveness was maladaptive, and our results strongly support her
interpretation. Specifically, hypercompetitive individuals were found to be high
in neuroticism and low in self-esteem and optimal psychological health; this
finding was cross-validated in various samples of subjects. Hypercompetitive
people also were found to be high in both dogmatism and mistrust. Individuals
who possessed strong hypercompetitive attitudes also held derogatory and
insulting sexual attitudes toward women and a reported propensity to use
violence when threatened.
Given this support for the scale's psychometric soundness, it could be utilized
by professionals for diagnostic and assessment purposes in a number of situations. For example, given its associations with psychopathology, identification
of the levels of hypercompetitiveness in clients could focus therapists' attention
on a social problem area that may have been relatively ignored because of the
unavailability of ari appropriate instrument. It also could be used to assess
changes in these attitudes as a result of therapeutic iriterventions aimed at their
elimination.
In athletic settings, coaches could utilize the scale to identify individuals who
could benefit from special instruction to remedy the mistaken attitude that the
purpose of participating in athletics is to win at any cost and to disparage one's
opponents. Changes in athletes' attitudes could also be assessed following these
educational efforts. In similar fashion, teachers and guidance counselors at the
high school and college levels might be able to employ the measure to determine
the extent to which hypercompetitiveness has an impact on their students'
academic and social self-concepts and to gauge the amount of change in such
attitudes following educational efforts.
Finally, although business and industry do bire individuals wbo are competitive and motivated to succeed, it is highly doubtful that they would be eager to
hire hypercompetitive individuals who tend to be manipulative, aggressive, and
exploitative in their transactions with co-workers and the general public.
Therefore, the instrument should prove useful to management personnel in
their recruitment and retainment practices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Society for Personality
Assessment Annual Meeting in San Diego, March 22-24, 1990.

RYCKMAN, HAMMER, KACZOR, GOLD

639

REFERENCES
Aronson, E. (1980). The social animal. San Francisco: Freeman.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrihi, 16,
297-334.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New
York: Wiley.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San
Diego, CA: EDITS.
Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative
learning experiences the answer? In L. Brickman (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 4, pp.
5-54). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Johnson, D. W., &. Johnson, R. T. (1987). Research shows the benefits of adult cooperation.
Educatiorud Leadership, 45(3), 27-30.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, C , & Skon, L. (1981). The effects of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.
Jones, A., &. Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(1), 63-73.
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lakie, W. L. (1964). Expressed attitudes of various groups of athletes toward athletic competition.
Research Quarterly, 35, 497-503.
Martin, H. J., & Larsen, S. (1976). Measurement of competitive-cooperative attitudes. Psychological
Reports, 39, 303-306.
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Jourruxl of Research
in Personality, 18, 150-163.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of a reliable and valid short form of the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and
personality systems. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35,
651-665.
Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shostrom, E. L. (1963). Persona! Orientation Inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing
Service.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.

Richard M. Ryckman
Department of Psychology
University of Maine
Orono, ME 04469
Received February 6, 1990