在一起,每个人都取得了更多或更少的成就?团队努力得失的跨学科元分析。

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI:10.1037/bul0000251
Ann-Kathrin Torka, Jens Mazei, Joachim Hüffmeier
{"title":"在一起,每个人都取得了更多或更少的成就?团队努力得失的跨学科元分析。","authors":"Ann-Kathrin Torka,&nbsp;Jens Mazei,&nbsp;Joachim Hüffmeier","doi":"10.1037/bul0000251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This preregistered meta-analysis theoretically and empirically integrates the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams. Theoretically, we built on Shepperd's (1993) framework of productivity loss in groups and Karau and Williams' (1993) Collective Effort model (CEM) and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure model (TEEM), an extended Expectancy × Value framework with the explicit addition of an individual work baseline. Empirically, we included studies that allowed calculating a relevant effect size, which represents the difference between an individual's effort under individual work and under teamwork conditions. Overall, we included 622 effect sizes (N = 320,632). We did not find a main effect of teamwork on effort. As predicted, however, multilevel modeling revealed that the (in-)dispensability of the own contribution to the team performance, social comparison potential, and evaluation potential moderated the effect of teamwork versus individual work on expended effort. Depending specifically on the level of (in-)dispensability and the potential to engage in social comparisons, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams. As predicted, we also found that people's self-reports indicated effort gains when they had objectively shown such gains, whereas their self-reports did not indicate effort losses when they had shown such losses. Contrary to our hypotheses, team formation (i.e., ad hoc vs. not ad hoc teams) and task meaningfulness did not emerge as moderators. Altogether, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams depending on the specific design of teamwork. We discuss implications for future research, theory development, and teamwork design in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"147 5","pages":"504-534"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Together, everyone achieves more-or, less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams.\",\"authors\":\"Ann-Kathrin Torka,&nbsp;Jens Mazei,&nbsp;Joachim Hüffmeier\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/bul0000251\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This preregistered meta-analysis theoretically and empirically integrates the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams. Theoretically, we built on Shepperd's (1993) framework of productivity loss in groups and Karau and Williams' (1993) Collective Effort model (CEM) and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure model (TEEM), an extended Expectancy × Value framework with the explicit addition of an individual work baseline. Empirically, we included studies that allowed calculating a relevant effect size, which represents the difference between an individual's effort under individual work and under teamwork conditions. Overall, we included 622 effect sizes (N = 320,632). We did not find a main effect of teamwork on effort. As predicted, however, multilevel modeling revealed that the (in-)dispensability of the own contribution to the team performance, social comparison potential, and evaluation potential moderated the effect of teamwork versus individual work on expended effort. Depending specifically on the level of (in-)dispensability and the potential to engage in social comparisons, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams. As predicted, we also found that people's self-reports indicated effort gains when they had objectively shown such gains, whereas their self-reports did not indicate effort losses when they had shown such losses. Contrary to our hypotheses, team formation (i.e., ad hoc vs. not ad hoc teams) and task meaningfulness did not emerge as moderators. Altogether, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams depending on the specific design of teamwork. We discuss implications for future research, theory development, and teamwork design in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"volume\":\"147 5\",\"pages\":\"504-534\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000251\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000251","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

这种预先注册的元分析从理论上和经验上整合了团队中努力收益和努力损失的两种研究方向。从理论上讲,我们建立在谢泼德(1993)的团队生产力损失框架和卡劳和威廉姆斯(1993)的集体努力模型(CEM)的基础上,开发了团队成员努力支出模型(TEEM),这是一个扩展的期望x价值框架,明确增加了个人工作基线。根据经验,我们纳入了允许计算相关效应大小的研究,它代表了个人在个人工作和团队工作条件下的努力之间的差异。总的来说,我们纳入了622个效应值(N = 320,632)。我们没有发现团队合作对努力的主要影响。然而,正如预测的那样,多层次模型揭示了个人对团队绩效、社会比较潜力和评价潜力的贡献的可缺性调节了团队合作与个人工作对消耗努力的影响。具体取决于可有可无的程度和参与社会比较的潜力,人们在团队中表现出努力的收益或损失。正如预测的那样,我们还发现,当人们客观地表现出这些收益时,他们的自我报告表明了努力的收益,而当他们表现出这些损失时,他们的自我报告并没有表明努力的损失。与我们的假设相反,团队组成(即,特设与非特设团队)和任务意义并没有成为调节因素。总的来说,人们在团队中表现出的努力收益或损失取决于团队合作的具体设计。我们将讨论对未来研究、理论发展和实践中的团队设计的影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Together, everyone achieves more-or, less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams.

This preregistered meta-analysis theoretically and empirically integrates the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams. Theoretically, we built on Shepperd's (1993) framework of productivity loss in groups and Karau and Williams' (1993) Collective Effort model (CEM) and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure model (TEEM), an extended Expectancy × Value framework with the explicit addition of an individual work baseline. Empirically, we included studies that allowed calculating a relevant effect size, which represents the difference between an individual's effort under individual work and under teamwork conditions. Overall, we included 622 effect sizes (N = 320,632). We did not find a main effect of teamwork on effort. As predicted, however, multilevel modeling revealed that the (in-)dispensability of the own contribution to the team performance, social comparison potential, and evaluation potential moderated the effect of teamwork versus individual work on expended effort. Depending specifically on the level of (in-)dispensability and the potential to engage in social comparisons, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams. As predicted, we also found that people's self-reports indicated effort gains when they had objectively shown such gains, whereas their self-reports did not indicate effort losses when they had shown such losses. Contrary to our hypotheses, team formation (i.e., ad hoc vs. not ad hoc teams) and task meaningfulness did not emerge as moderators. Altogether, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams depending on the specific design of teamwork. We discuss implications for future research, theory development, and teamwork design in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
期刊最新文献
Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Supporting the status quo is weakly associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of the palliative function of ideology across social status groups using a meta-analytic approach. When connecting with LGBTQ+ communities helps and why it does: A meta-analysis of the relationship between connectedness and health-related outcomes. Who am I? A second-order meta-analytic review of correlates of the self in childhood and adolescence. Defining social reward: A systematic review of human and animal studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1