Ernest S. Park

Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Köhler Motivation Gain

Sometimes group work conditions lead to motivation gains rather than to social loafing. Two theoretical explanations for the Köhler motivation gain effect are identified, one stressing social comparison and a second stressing the indispensability of ones effort to the group. The results of three new experiments are reported. Experiment 1 suggested that both explanations are valid and contribute to the Köhler effect. Prior studies suggested that there might be gender differences in the relative importance of these two explanatory processes. Experiment 2 confirmed this suggestion. In Experiment 3, the gender difference was eliminated by priming women with a goal (viz., competition) presumed to be chronically more important to men. It is argued that the relative importance of these two motivational processes will depend on the immediate and chronic importance attached to more personal (viz., to achieve a favorable social comparison) versus collective (viz., to contribute to ones group) goals.

Shared and coordinated cognition in competitive and dynamic task environments: An information‐processing perspective for team sports

Abstract From a groups‐as‐information‐processors perspective, the notion of shared cognition is crucial to the understanding of team performance. This approach is used to comprehend the effectiveness of sports teams. Typically, sports teams are placed in a dynamic environment in which tasks are highly interdependent. Individual actions have to be coordinated with regard to the team objectives and with regard to the opponent teams actions. Although sports are considered behavioral tasks by their nature, performance may be strongly affected by cognitive processes. We review studies and give examples that demonstrate that the degree to which cognitions are shared and coordinated among the members of such teams influences the extent to which the individual actions are coordinated. The sharing and coordinating of cognitions pertain to the attention, information‐processing, and action phases of the decision making and behavior process. We also discuss how feedback and coaching can affect information processing in teams such that coordination of actions is more likely to arise

Identifiability, Performance Feedback and the Kohler Effect

Research, starting with Köhler (1926), has demonstrated a type of group motivation gain, wherein the less capable member of a dyad working conjunctively at a persistence task works harder than comparable individuals. To explore possible boundary conditions of this effect, the current experiment systematically varied the amount and timing of performance feedback group members received. Results showed: (a) continuous feedback of both members’ performance was not necessary for producing the effect; (b) the effect was attenuated, but not eliminated by delaying and restricting feedback, such that group members only learned which of them was the less capable worker (but not how long s/he persisted) sometime after the task trial was completed; and (c) the motivation gain was eliminated in the absence of any performance feedback (i.e. when neither worker could tell who quit first nor how long either had persisted). Some implications of these results for currently viable explanations of the Köhler effect are discussed. It is concluded that the effect is likely to result from several distinct processes.

The role of work habits in the motivation of food safety behaviors

The authors considered work habits within an integrated framework of motivated behavior. A distinction made between automatic and controlled action led to 2 measures of work habits: a habit strength measure reflecting the 4 characteristics of automaticity and a measure of work routines under conscious control. Workers at a turkey processing plant (N = 162) responded to an extensive survey of these work habits measures with regard to food safety. Results indicated that attitudes and subjective norms predicted food safety intentions. These intentions, along with perceived behavior control and work habits, predicted reports of food safety behaviors. A mediation analysis indicated that the work routines measure accounted for the variance in self-reported behavior and mediated any effect of the habit strength measure.

Evaluation Concerns and the Köhler Effect The Impact of Physical Presence on Motivation Gains

This study examined whether increasing evaluation concerns would increase the magnitude of the Köhler effect (i.e., one type of motivation gain that has been documented to occur in small groups). Evaluation concerns were manipulated by having participants work in the physical presence or virtual presence of their coworker. As anticipated, motivation gains were significantly greater for participants who worked in the physical presence of their coworker. These results suggest that evaluation concerns can potentially increase the magnitude of the Köhler effect. Furthermore, the findings have implications for practitioners and researchers interested in the differential impact that face-to-face and virtual mediums have on motivation in groups or teams.

An examination of the stability and persistence of the Köhler motivation gain effect

The current paper reports the findings of an experiment designed to investigate the persistence of motivation gains in small groups. The current study had participants work on a conjunctive task, where they believed that their performance was highly instrumental for the group to perform well. Building on prior work on the Kohler effect, although motivation gains became smaller over time, these gains in effort still remained statistically significant across several work trials. Moreover, the attenuation of the Kohler effect was found to be moderated by the stability of group membership. More specifically, as compared with people who worked with the same partner (i.e., closed groups), gains in effort were found to be more robust for participants who worked with several different partners (i.e., open groups). The current findings help fill an important gap in the motivation gains literature by demonstrating that motivation gains in groups can persist across multiple work trials.

Effects of the Information Environment on Group Discussions and Decisions in the Hidden-Profile Paradigm

Research on the Information Sampling Model (ISM) revealed that information items that are known to all group members at the outset (shared information) are more likely to be mentioned during discussion than information items that are only known to individual members (unshared information) (Stasser & Titus, 1985; Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). In prior studies involving the ISM, groups typically functioned in a very specific information environment: All information items were provided in form of unique cues, which described only one of the choice alternatives among which the groups had to choose. Because this specific information environment may impact group discussions and decisions, we included an experimental condition incorporating common cues. In contrast to unique cues, common cues provide information on each and every choice option. As expected, groups in the common-cue condition showed a weaker sampling advantage for shared information, and chose the hidden-profile alternative more often than groups in the classic unique-cue condition.

Group and individual accuracy in deception detection

Previous research examining the accuracy of deception detection judgments by individuals has concluded that the ability to detect deception is only slightly better than chance. Research has also found that individuals tend to be over‐confident, truth‐biased, and reliant on nonverbal behavior when making veracity judgments. This study (N = 129) tested if differences in deception detection accuracy, truth‐bias, judgmental confidences, and self‐reported cue reliance exist between individual judges and groups of individuals working in collaboration. No significant differences between groups and individuals emerged for accuracy, truth‐bias, or self‐reported cue reliance. Individuals within groups, however, were significantly more confident in their decisions than individuals working alone.

Having to Take a Stand: The Interactive Effects of Task Framing and Source Status on Attitudes

Some research has found that a minority message source is less persuasive than a majority source on personally relevant issues. In that research, participants were forewarned that they would have to report their attitudinal reactions. We hypothesized that if recipients were given an opinion-irrelevant (recall) task instead, source status would not affect attitudes. Participants were asked to read a strong, outcome-relevant, counterattitudinal persuasive essay presented by a minority or majority source under opinion or recall task directions. The minority was less persuasive than the majority in the opinion task condition, and this effect was mediated by source evaluation and favorable cognitive elaboration. No source status effects emerged in the recall task condition.

21. A Theoretical Perspective on Enhancing Coordination and Collaboration in ROV Teams

To understand the importance of coordination and collaboration for ROV teams, let us examine some of the typical tasks that ROV operators might be required to perform (Cooke & Shope, 2004; Gugerty, DeBoom, Walker, & Burns, 1999). To do so, we will use the members of a U.S. Air Force Predator crew as an example. The team consists of three members: an Air Vehicle Operator (AVO) who pilots the aircraft, a Payload Operator (PLO) who operates the surveillance equipment, and a Data Exploitation, Mission Planning, and Communications Operator (DEMPC) who is responsible for mission planning. In the course of a mission, the AVO is responsible for the take off and landing of the aircraft. Because they fly the aircraft from a remote location, AVOs are generally required to use visual input from a camera mounted on the nose of the aircraft to guide their flight. Once in the air, the PLO can operate cameras and sensors mounted on the belly of the plane to gather information. The DEMPC, who is in contact with the upper echelons of the organization, provides the AVO with the desired heading and the PLO with target coordinates.