Latham versus Komaki: A tale of two paradigms

Abstract

Notes that 2 recent field studies (G. P. Latham and J. J. Baldes [see PA, Vol 53:12699] and J. Komaki et al [see PA, Vol 61:9982]) are remarkedly similar not only in their design and techniques but in their results. Surprisingly, contradictory philosophies of psychology were used to describe these studies; a cognitive interpretation was offered by Latham and Baldes, whereas a behavioristic model was employed by Komaki et al. It is argued that even within these 2 models, at least 6 interpretations of the results of these studies can be hypothesized. After critically examining each hypothesis, it is concluded that the most plausible interpretation of the results of both studies is that they were due to the joint operation of goals and feedback, facilitated by informal competition. It is argued that a cognitive interpretation of the studies is more plausible than a behavioristic one. Philosophy of science issues that are entailed in this dispute are discussed. (26 ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)