Search

Although we appreciate Guzzo et al. (2022) addressing the issue of Open Science Practices (OSPs) and pointing out potential risks, we believe that their focal article is neither an accurate reflection of OSPs nor of the related perils. In our commentary, we highlight and elaborate the following four (partly) interrelated and problematic issues that run the risk of misrepresenting the usefulness of OSPs: (i) There are very good reasons why OSPs arecurrently discussed, although they are hardly mentioned by Guzzo and colleagues. The perils that the authors perceive are either (ii) exaggerated and dramatized or (iii) simply due to misconceptions related to OSPs on their part. (iv) Guzzo et al. see a dichotomy between different types of science within Industrial, Work, and Organizational (IWO) Psychology and suppose that the usefulness of OSPs is limited to only one of them (i.e., the hypotheticodeductive approach).

Group work can increase individual effort, performance, and positive affect, if group members perceive their own contribution as indispensable for the group product. A vignette methodology was applied to investigate whether group work may also reduce procrastination. The vignettes described a typical academic assignment, while varying the task structure (individual work vs. conjunctive group work vs. additive group work) and group member ability (high vs. low). For each vignette, student participants (N = 443) provided ratings on their perceived indispensability, procrastination of the assignment, and affect. When group member ability was high, procrastination was lower in additive group work as compared to individual work. When group member ability was low, procrastination was lower in conjunctive group work as compared to both individual work and additive group work. As predicted, perceived indispensability mediated the difference in procrastination between conjunctive and additive group work. Moderation analyses further revealed that the effects were more pronounced for high trait procrastinators. Further, both types of group work led to increases in task-related positive affect as compared to individual work. By demonstrating the relevance of group work as a social factor, the results should be useful for the extension of existing programs targeting procrastination, and may inspire measures for preventing procrastination by changes in the study environment.

Contains fulltext : 282355.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) It is well-established that different leadership styles are associated with followers' mental health. However, little is known about the relative strength of the relationship of different leadership styles with followers' mental health. So far, there is no meta-analysis comparing the incremental contribution of different leadership styles to mental health and studying potentially problematic construct proliferation. We included studies that compared at least two leadership styles in view of their relationships with followers' mental health and directly estimated the relative contribution of seven leadership styles (i.e., transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and destructive leadership, as well as leader-member exchange) to followers’ mental health. Using meta-analytical regression models, we compared the strength of the relationships between these leadership styles and followers' overall mental health as well as positive (well-being and psychological functioning) and negative aspects of their mental health (affective symptoms, stress, and health complaints). Fifty-three studies with 217 effect sizes comprising 93,470 participants met the inclusion criteria. Transformational and destructive leadership were the strongest predictors of overall and negative aspects of mental health among followers. In contrast, the strongest predictors of positive mental health outcomes among followers were relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership, followed by transformational leadership. In sum, our results suggest that various leadership styles make unique contributions to explaining followers’ mental health and thus construct proliferation mostly does not pose a major problem when predicting relevant outcomes in this domain of leadership research. Our results are relevant for leadership development programs and for future organizational leadership models. 18 p.

Abstract. While most leadership research takes the perspective of leaders influencing their followers, more recent research focused on the question how followers may influence their leaders. Kelley’s (1992) followership questionnaire was the first to assess followership behavior. To provide a basis for further research on followership in German-speaking countries, we conducted two studies to establish the psychometric properties of a German version of Kelley’s questionnaire. In Study 1, we explored the factorial structure of our translation in a heterogeneous employee sample ( N = 451). In Study 2, we tested for convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity in another heterogeneous employee sample ( N = 413). The results indicate satisfactory psychometric properties for two followership dimensions (i.e., active engagement and independent, critical thinking). Correlations of these two followership dimensions with other constructs were mostly in line with our expectations. We discuss the usefulness of the German followership questionnaire for research and practice.

The basic income (BI) involves regular and unconditional cash payments to all members of a political community, without the requirement or expectation to work in return. Whereas the BI is increasingly discussed by political parties, organizational practitioners, and in other academic disciplines, the field of industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology has so far remained silent on the concept. In this article, we first explain why there is a growing interest in the BI and outline potential reasons why the BI, despite its topical relevance, has not been discussed by IWO psychologists. Next, to initiate the needed discussion on the BI, we outline the most important background information on the concept, including its definition, history, financial aspects, main criticisms, and potential advantages. We further provide first answers to common questions about the BI from an IWO psychology perspective, such as “(Why) would people still work if they received a BI?” We conclude with a discussion of potential positive and negative consequences of the BI as well implications for future theory development, empirical research, and practical applications.

Gender differences in negotiation are typically explained by processes that concern women (e.g., women anticipate backlash for assertive behavior). Research has begun to suggest that processes that concern men (e.g., men want to be seen as “real” men) also help to explain gender differences. However, these 2 approaches typically remain disconnected. Thus, we examined both types of processes in 3 studies examining people’s beliefs about the causes of gender differences in negotiation (total N = 931). Our studies showed that people endorsed to a similar, and sometimes even greater, extent processes that concern men as underlying gender differences in negotiation. Moreover, people’s beliefs about the causes of gender differences in negotiation were related to perceptions of the effectiveness of different diversity initiatives (i.e., interventions to reduce inequities) and willingness to support them.

Women perceive specific strategies developed to support their performance in compensation negotiations as ineffective and are unlikely to use them—suggesting an implementation gap. We examined whether providing theoretical rationales—explaining how specific strategies are meant to work—attenuates this gap. Furthermore, we explored a novel cause of it: women's expectations regarding the perpetuation of gender roles upon using a strategy. In two studies (N = 1,254), we observed that regardless of the provision of the rationales, women expected all examined specific strategies to be less economically effective and most of them to perpetuate gender roles more than regular assertiveness. Moreover, especially women's expectations regarding economic outcomes decreased their intentions to use most specific strategies. Women also expected most specific strategies to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding, which again led to their lower intentions to use them. Altogether, negotiation trainers and educators should consider that explaining how specific strategies are meant to work is not enough to close the implementation gap and to reduce gender inequality in negotiations. To attenuate the implementation gap, they may need to enable women to more fully experience how using specific strategies can improve their negotiation performance., Psychology of women quarterly;47(1)

A pervasive phenomenon in the workplace is that men appear eager to show how “tough” they are as negotiators. We introduce the Masculinity Effects in Negotiations model to explain men’s negotiation behaviors and outcomes. According to the model, men perceive negotiating as an activity through which they can signal their masculinity and pursue social status, but they also recognize that their masculinity might be questioned and that they might lose social status. As a result, men can become enthusiastic but also anxious about negotiations and these emotions lead them to display a number of agentic negotiation behaviors to protect and underscore their masculinity and their social status. Depending on their own and their counterpart’s behavior, men then either succeed or fail to obtain favorable economic negotiation outcomes, which influence their subsequent emotions (e.g., pride or shame). With our model, we advance a novel explanation for gender differences in negotiations and expand the understanding of men’s workplace behaviors and outcomes (e.g., their pay, position, and reputation).

In the current commentary, we want to challenge journals in the Industrial, Work, and Organizational (IWO) Psychology field and the broader Management field to (more strongly) support the use of Open Science Practices (OSPs). We believe that this challenge is necessary because - despite the strong evidence for the usefulness and effectiveness of OSPs - most pertinent journals currently still fail to support their use. Not taking action is, however, not a viable option in view of the problematic state of the pertinent literature. We present our arguments by listing and commenting on common objections against the support for OSPs that we heard in our own research with scientists and journal editors as well as in informal conversations with colleagues.

In integrative as opposed to distributive negotiations, the interests of the negotiation partners can be simultaneously realized to some degree, which results in higher individual as well as joint outcomes. Perspective taking is important to detect and tap into this integrative potential. In negotiations, priority-related information exchange can be seen as a behavioral consequence of perspective taking. Based on findings on the development of perspective taking across the life span, we tested the hypothesis that there are age differences in integrative negotiations. In 2 quasi-experimental studies (Study 1 and 2), participants worked in face-to-face interacting dyads on an apartment rental negotiation. In Study 3, participants read a negotiation transcript that contained all priority-related information. Our results consistently revealed that younger dyads (17-35 years) achieved significantly higher joint outcomes than older dyads (65-85 years; in Study 1 and 2) or age-heterogeneous dyads (in Study 1) and that younger participants proposed more integrative agreements (in Study 3). Differences between younger and older dyads were mediated via information exchange about the negotiation partners' different priorities (Study 2) and via the extraction of relevant information about underlying different priorities (Study 3). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Prior research showed that swimmers swim faster in relay than in individual competitions if they start at later relay positions. This finding is typically explained via the swimmers’ relay position and their associated perception that their individual performance is indispensable for their teams’ performance. Using multilevel modeling, the authors disentangled this situational explanation from alternative accounts focusing on individual differences between swimmers. Two studies empirically supported the situational explanation: When using a within-person approach and, thus, controlling for between-person variance (i.e., individual differences between swimmers), the swimmers’ relay position remained a significant predictor of the increases in effort spent in relays. This finding held when controlling for the on-average higher instrumentality in the relay versus the individual competitions. Thus, the often observed effort gains in swimming relays probably are due to the swimmers’ relay position as a situational explanation and stem from the motivating impact of teamwork versus individual work.

Additional co-authors: Ivan Ropovik, Balazs Aczel, Lena F. Aeschbach, Luca Andrighetto, Jack D. Arnal, Holly Arrow, Peter Babincak, Bence E. Bakos, Gabriel Banik, Ernest Baskin, Radomir Belopavlovic, Michael H. Bernstein, Michal Bialek, Nicholas G. Bloxsom, Bojana Bodroža, Diane B. V. Bonfiglio, Leanne Boucher, Florian Bruhlmann, Claudia C. Brumbaugh, Erica Casini, Yiling Chen, Carlo Chiorri, William J. Chopik, Oliver Christ, Antonia M. Ciunci, Heather M. Claypool, Sean Coary, Marija V. Cˇolic, W. Matthew Collins, Paul G. Curran, Chris R. Day, Anna Dreber, John E. Edlund, Filipe Falcao, Anna Fedor, Lily Feinberg, Ian R. Ferguson, Maire Ford, Michael C. Frank, Emily Fryberger, Alexander Garinther, Katarzyna Gawryluk, Kayla Ashbaugh, Mauro Giacomantonio, Steffen R. Giessner, Jon E. Grahe, Rosanna E. Guadagno, Ewa Halasa, Rias A. Hilliard, Joachim Huffmeier, Sean Hughes, Katarzyna Idzikowska, Michael Inzlicht, Alan Jern, William Jimenez-Leal, Magnus Johannesson, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Mathias Kauff, Danielle J. Kellier, Grecia Kessinger, Mallory C. Kidwell, Amanda M. Kimbrough, Josiah P. J. King, Vanessa S. Kolb, Sabina Kolodziej, Marton Kovacs, Karolina Krasuska, Sue Kraus, Lacy E. Krueger, Katarzyna Kuchno, Caio Ambrosio Lage, Eleanor V. Langford, Carmel A. Levitan, Tiago Jesse Souza de Lima, Hause Lin, Samuel Lins, Jia E. Loy, Dylan Manfredi, Łukasz Markiewicz, Madhavi Menon, Brett Mercier, Mitchell Metzger, Venus Meyet, Jeremy K. Miller, Andres Montealegre, Don A. Moore, Rafal Muda, Gideon Nave, Austin Lee Nichols, Sarah A. Novak, Christian Nunnally, Ana Orlic, Anna Palinkas, Angelo Panno, Kimberly P. Parks, Ivana Pedovic, Emilian Pekala, Matthew R. Penner, Sebastiaan Pessers, Boban Petrovic, Thomas Pfeiffer, Damian Pienkosz, Emanuele Preti, Danka Puric, Tiago Ramos, Jonathan Ravid, Timothy S. Razza, Katrin Rentzsch, Juliette Richetin, Sean C. Rife, Anna Dalla Rosa, Kaylis Hase Rudy, Janos Salamon, Blair Saunders, Przemyslaw Sawicki, Kathleen Schmidt, Kurt Schuepfer, Thomas Schultze, Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Astrid Schutz, Ani N. Shabazian, Rachel L. Shubella, Adam Siegel, Ruben Silva, Barbara Sioma, Lauren Skorb, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, Sara Steegen, L. A. R. Stein, R. Weylin Sternglanz, Darko Stojilovic, Daniel Storage, Gavin Brent Sullivan, Barnabas Szaszi, Peter Szecsi, Orsolya Szoke, Attila Szuts, Manuela Thomae, Natasha D. Tidwell, Carly Tocco, Ann-Kathrin Torka, Francis Tuerlinckx, Wolf Vanpaemel, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Michelangelo Vianello, Domenico Viganola, Maria Vlachou, Ryan J. Walker, Sophia C. Weissgerber, Aaron L. Wichman, Bradford J. Wiggins, Daniel Wolf, Michael J. Wood, David Zealley, Iris Žeželj, Mark Zrubka, and Brian A. Nosek

Does convincing people that free will is an illusion reduce their sense of personal responsibility? Vohs and Schooler (2008) found that participants reading from a passage “debunking” free will cheated more on experimental tasks than did those reading from a control passage, an effect mediated by decreased belief in free will. However, this finding was not replicated by Embley, Johnson, and Giner-Sorolla (2015), who found that reading arguments against free will had no effect on cheating in their sample. The present study investigated whether hard-to-understand arguments against free will and a low-reliability measure of free-will beliefs account for Embley et al.’s failure to replicate Vohs and Schooler’s results. Participants ( N = 621) were randomly assigned to participate in either a close replication of Vohs and Schooler’s Experiment 1 based on the materials of Embley et al. or a revised protocol, which used an easier-to-understand free-will-belief manipulation and an improved instrument to measure free will. We found that the revisions did not matter. Although the revised measure of belief in free will had better reliability than the original measure, an analysis of the data from the two protocols combined indicated that free-will beliefs were unchanged by the manipulations, d = 0.064, 95% confidence interval = [−0.087, 0.22], and in the focal test, there were no differences in cheating behavior between conditions, d = 0.076, 95% CI = [−0.082, 0.22]. We found that expressed free-will beliefs did not mediate the link between the free-will-belief manipulation and cheating, and in exploratory follow-up analyses, we found that participants expressing lower beliefs in free will were not more likely to cheat in our task.

Differentielle Arbeitsgestaltung fur verschiedene Altersgruppen? Ein systematisches Literaturreview zu der moderierenden Rolle von Alter im Kontext von psychosozialen Arbeitsmerkmalen und Gesundhei...

With a mixed-methods approach, this study analyzes how varying the number of issues in business-to-business (B2B) sales negotiations affects negotiation processes and outcomes. A qualitative interview study with B2B negotiators (N = 46) reveals that more issues increase complexity but offer more possibilities for concessions. Sellers see benefits in increasing the number of issues addressed, whereas buyers are ambiguous about whether negotiating more issues will benefit their economic outcomes. A second experimental study (N = 97 dyads) tests whether negotiating a different number of issues (four, eight, or between four and eight) produces different absolute and relative dyadic economic outcomes and sellers' shares of the joint profits in one-on-one negotiations. In absolute terms, more negotiation issues produce larger negotiation pies; fewer issues facilitate more accurate information processing, leading to relatively more integrative agreements. For sellers, increasing the number of issues increases their share of the joint profit, because buyers are more willing to concede on the overall price of the deal.

Women often fare worse in negotiations than men. Negotiation researchers, trainers, and policymakers thus aim to find solutions—such as specific strategies for female negotiators—to reduce gender differences in negotiations. However, if using such a specific strategy is not perceived to yield benefits (e.g., better economic outcomes) as well as to include risks (e.g., unfavorable social evaluations), women should naturally be unlikely to use it. Hence, we examined 218 German women’s perceptions of three specific strategies (i.e., using a relational account, feminine charm, and confrontation) and three conventional strategies (i.e., assertiveness, yielding, and neutral behavior) using a hypothetical negotiation vignette. We found that women expected all three specific strategies to be less economically effective than regular assertiveness, which led to their lower likelihood to project using all three specific strategies. Moreover, all three specific strategies were expected to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding. This expectation also explained women’s lower likelihood to use feminine charm than to yield. Taken together, the specific strategies were perceived as ineffective. Future negotiation research, thus, needs to ensure that the characteristics of specific strategies do not render them unappealing, and trainers and policymakers need to pay attention to potential implementation gaps resulting from the specific strategies’ perceived ineffectiveness.

A long debate in negotiation research concerns the question of whether gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations, in behaviors shown during negotiations, and in negotiation performance actually exist. Whereas past negotiation research suggested that women are less likely to initiate negotiations than men, a recent study by Artz et al. (2018) seems to suggest that women are as likely as men to “ask” for higher pay. However, this finding by Artz et al. (2018) was obtained once the number of weekly hours worked was added as a covariate in the statistical analysis. Following extant work, we suggest that the number of weekly hours worked could be—and, from a theoretical stand-point, perhaps should be—considered a mediator of gender differences. Conducting a Monte Carlo analysis based on the results and statistics provided by Artz et al. (2018) also yielded empirical evidence suggesting that weekly hours could be a mediator. Thus, women may be less likely than men to ask for higher pay, among other potential reasons, because they work fewer weekly hours. Based on this alternative conceptualization of the role of weekly hours, our commentary has theoretical implications for the understanding of gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations and practical implications for the effective reduction of gender inequalities.

Governmental responses to the frequently occurring terrorist hostage-takings, in which authorities must weigh the lives of the hostages against the lives of potential future victims, depend on popular support for governmental policy. Despite this, little is known about how people form their judgement of governmental policies in this moral dilemma. We argue that people typically have incomplete information and their policy support for concessions can be substantially altered by changing the information they receive about different consequences. Across three studies (overall N = 1,547) employing both qualitative and quantitative methods, we found that (a) people show lower support for concessions when they have incomplete information, (b) providing information on the benefits of concessions increases support for concessions, (c) support for concessions under full information increases when the benefits outweigh the costs and when a norm prescribes concessions. The potential implications for policymaking are discussed.

In the present research, we developed NegotiAct, a comprehensive coding scheme for negotiations, comprising 47 mutually exclusive behavioral codes. NegotiAct was derived by systematically integrating (i) 89 extant coding schemes for negotiations, (ii) pertinent findings from negotiation research, and (iii) specific interaction behaviors that were previously not considered in coding schemes for negotiations (e.g., active listening). To facilitate the application of NegotiAct, we designed a coding manual with precise instructions and with definitions and examples for every code. NegotiAct can be customized to address many research questions in experimental settings as well as field research by splitting codes into more specific behaviors. Thereby, differentiated codes can always be traced back to the original codes, preserving comparability across studies and facilitating cumulative research. In combination with interaction analytical methods, NegotiAct enables scholars to detect and investigate specific communication patterns across the negotiation process. As a first empirical validation of NegotiAct, we demonstrate a substantial interrater reliability for 18 videotaped negotiations (κ = .80) and conduct an exploratory validation analysis, studying the relation of multi-issue offers, active listening, and joint gains.

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).

Recent research has shown that many text-based situational judgment test (SJT) items can be solved even when the situational descriptions in the item stems are not presented to test takers. This finding challenges the traditional view of SJTs as low-fidelity simulations that rely on 'situational' (context-dependent) judgment. However, media richness theory and construal level theory suggest that situation descriptions presented in a richer and more concrete format (video format) will reduce uncertainty about inherent requirements and facilitate the perception that the situation is taking place in the here and now. Therefore, we hypothesized that situational judgment would be more important in video situation descriptions than in text situation descriptions. We adapted a leadership SJT to realize a 3 (situation description in the item stem: video vs. text vs. none) x 2 (response format: video response options vs. text response options) between-subjects design (N = 279). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. The removal of video-based situation descriptions in item stems led to an equivalent decrease in SJT scores as the removal of text-based situation descriptions in item stems (video-based version: Cohen's d = 0.535 vs. text-based version: Cohen's d = 0.531). SJT scores were also contingent on the presentation format of both situation descriptions and response options: The highest scores were observed when situation descriptions and response options were presented in the same format. Implications for SJT theory and research are discussed. Practitioner points The presentation format did not moderate the effect of omitting situation descriptions in SJTs - that is, the context dependency of SJT performance did not increase when the SJT was administered in a video-based rather than a text-based format. The elimination of situation descriptions in item stems had a medium effect on overall test scores: SJT scores were significant lower without situation descriptions in comparison to SJT scores with situation descriptions (video-based version: Cohen's d = 0.535 vs. text-based version: Cohen's d = 0.531). It is important to match the stimulus and response formats in SJTs.

Abstract. Although the vast majority of validation studies rely on correlational validity evidence, there is an increased recognition that validity should also focus on whether variations in the focal psychological attribute lead to variations in the measurement outcomes. Therefore, calls have been made that validity evidence should also be gathered through experiments. Existing experimental validation strategies focus on manipulating psychological attributes and their effects on measurement outcomes. In the current manuscript, we present an additional and complementary approach that focuses on manipulating test elements (instead of psychological attributes) that are considered indispensable for test functioning. Examples from personality, situational judgment, emotional intelligence, and reading comprehension domains are presented to illustrate our approach. The presented approach is integrated into existing validation strategies.

Do we really need personal meetings to develop trust within teams? Which factors impact trust emergence within face-to-face and virtual teams? How do high-trust teams interact compared with teams with low team trust? Trust is seen as an important predictor of behavior in teams. However, the psychological mechanisms linking team trust to both its antecedents and its behavioral consequences are not well understood. The present study introduces a new taxonomy of team trust mechanisms by integrating results from a qualitative interview study with prior theoretical and empirical research on team trust. We conducted exploratory interviews based on the critical incident technique with 55 professionals who had substantial teamwork experience. Altogether, 776 behavioral items were collected stemming from 127 team events that were perceived as critical for the emergence of trust in teams. A content analysis revealed five main categories of perceived trustworthiness factors in teams as antecedents of team trust and three main categories of risk-taking behaviors as behavioral consequences in teams. The findings contribute to a better understanding of team trust emergence and related behaviors in teams. Future research should validate the derived taxonomy of team trust with quantitative data.

The current systematic literature review aimed to analyse the associations between temporary agency work (TAW), job satisfaction, and mental health in Europe, as well as to outline a future research agenda. Twenty-eight scientific articles were identified by searching different data bases (i.e. PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science) for the time span from January 2000 to December 2016. Our review reveals first that TAW is not consistently negatively related to job satisfaction. However, job insecurity and working conditions are important mediators in the relation of TAW and lowered job satisfaction. Second, TAW is not consistently related to all investigated types of mental health impairments. However, when focusing on specific outcomes and comparing temporary agency workers to permanent employees, we still find consistent evidence regarding higher levels of depression and fatigue among temporary agency workers. Inconsistent associations between TAW, job satisfaction and mental health can partly be attributed to unfavourable methodological aspects of the included primary studies. To address these aspects, future research should consider applying a standard measurement of TAW, including a minimum of meaningful confounding variables, improving the operationalisation of outcome variables and the study design.

Item does not contain fulltext Meritocratic promotion - promoting the best performing employees - is a pervasive strategy to fill leader positions. However, the predictive validity of this strategy is unclear due to diverging theoretical predictions from different research disciplines and due to inconsistent empirical results. Further, the different disciplines rarely acknowledge and refer to each other, thereby impeding a cumulative understanding of meritocratic promotion. With our systematic review, we intend to initiate an interdisciplinary dialogue by (i) providing an overview of pertinent theoretical approaches including their deviating predictions, (ii) proposing mediators and moderators of the relationship of employee performance and leader performance to improve future research on meritocratic promotion, (iii) assessing the study quality, and (iv) summarizing and discussing empirical findings to advance the understanding of the predictive validity of meritocratic promotion. We conclude by presenting theoretical conclusions, point towards future research directions, and provide guidance for future research, including a checklist. We also discuss practical implications for human resource management. 24 p.

©American Psychological Association, 2020. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000220 To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = 0.37 to 0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.

In this chapter, we review research on the temporal stability of effort gains in teams when compared to working alone, triggered by social comparison and social indispensability processes. After introducing a theoretical framework based on underlying motives of team effort gains, we describe three laboratory studies with student participants and four field studies with existing occupational teams conducted as part of a larger research program. In addition to effort gains in teams across longer time periods, the studies explored potential mediating processes based on self-reports and physiological data. Moreover, the studies also considered strain experiences due to motivating effects of teamwork as a potential “dark side” of effort gains in teams. Finally, moderating factors originated in the situational context (e.g. task structure, social interactions) and in the acting persons (e.g. dispositional preferences for teamwork) are considered. The results confirmed our general proposition that effort gains due to social indispensability are connected with positive experiences in teams and are therefore more enduring over time. Effort gains based on social comparison in teams, in contrast, were not connected with positive experiences on average and occurred only in early phases of teamwork. The chapter concludes with recommendations for the practical support of enduring effort gains in teams and with suggestions for future research in this emerging field.

Owing to a high standardization of performance, sports contexts provide unique conditions to examine effort losses and gains in teams when compared to individual performance outside of the laboratory. By reviewing the existing archival and experimental studies that provided the necessary comparison conditions for confident conclusions (e.g., individual or nominal group condition), we found evidence for both effort losses and gains in sports teams. Social loafing in teams was found in 9 of 12 studies, and these effects were qualified by both working conditions such as the identifiability of individual contributions as well as individual difference factors such as prior participation in team sports. With respect to effort gains in teams, social indispensability effects were found in six studies and intergroup competition effects in two studies. These gains were qualified by working conditions such as outcome valence and the individual difference factor achievement motives. Theoretically, the results are consistent with the Collective Effort Model (e.g., Karau, Markus, & Williams, 2000; Karau & Williams, 2001; see also Karau & Wilhau, this volume) as integrative framework and provide promising implications for existing sports teams.

Contains fulltext : 228242.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void - reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article. 19 p.

This meta-analysis addresses two major issues of our time: the proliferation of technologies and the aging of society. That is, we investigate how chronological age relates to technology acceptance. Pertinent primary studies reported inconsistent results. To integrate this literature, the current meta-analysis includes 144 studies covering different types of technologies and technology users in a random effects model. In line with our theorizing, we found that age was overall negatively related to perceived ease of use (ρ = −.25), perceived usefulness (ρ = −.09), and intention to use a technology (ρ = −.07). These effects were stable over time and thus no mere cohort effects. A meta-analytic mediation model revealed that the links from age to (a) perceived usefulness and (b) intention to use were both fully mediated through perceived ease of use. Furthermore, results were moderated by type of technology, such that age-effects were only evident for technologies that do not address the prevailing needs of older adults. We conclude that age is only related to specific technology perceptions (perceived ease of use) and only for specific technologies. Thus, we challenge prevailing age stereotypes and call for an age-sensitive design of specific technologies.

When negotiations are complex and consequential, organizations usually send teams rather than individuals to the negotiation table because teams are expected to provide additional beneficial negotiation processes and, thus, generate superior outcomes. Similarly, theoretical accounts of integrative negotiations assume higher outcomes for teams than for individual negotiators as a consequence of team-related advantages (e.g., increased information processing and problem-solving capabilities). In this study, we challenge this established assumption and across three negotiations and various empirical tests, we show that the advantages of teams are merely the result of individual-level processes (i.e., one person asking interest-related questions). Moreover, Bayesian estimation supported our claim and rejected the extant account: The probability of the teams achieving better outcomes than the best individuals in commensurate nominal groups (i.e., strong synergy) was up to four times smaller than the probability of the teams not achieving better results than the best individuals in commensurate nominal groups. Finally, in the majority of our analyses, individual negotiators generated better relationship outcomes than teams even though the economic outcomes were comparable. On the basis of these results, we revise the assumption of team-related advantages in integrative negotiations. We discuss the implications of our results for future negotiation research and for the practical assignment of teams or individuals to negotiations. © 2018, The Author(s) 2018.

While people's willingness to work hard can be reduced in teams (i.e., effort losses in teams as compared with individual work), it is less recognized that teamwork can also stimulate additional efforts (i.e., effort gains). Building on and extending existing theory, we (a) suggest an integration of these two research streams, and (b) provide evidence for team-related effort gains in action teams. In a first study, we tested our predictions by reanalyzing a field data set of 302,576 swimming performances in individual and relay races (Neugart & Richiardi, 2013). Consistent with our hypotheses, we observed a linear increase in effort across the relay. The first relay swimmers showed effort losses in the relay as compared with the individual competition whereas the remaining relay swimmers showed effort gains. However, this was only evident (a) when team members could realistically expect meaningful team outcomes in return for their performance, and (b) when the valence of these outcomes was equivalent to individual competitions. If such favorable conditions were not given, we found effort losses in team as compared with individual competitions at all relay positions. Results of a second study (N = 228) showed that the linear increase in effort across the relay was indeed attributable to the team members' serial position and not to their relative strength. Together, the studies demonstrate the motivating potential of teamwork even in the high performance contexts of action teams, such as competitive sports relays, where athletes are already highly motivated in their individual competitions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Replications in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If replications use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replications from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) in which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection and only one of which was “statistically significant” (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate (Gilbert et al., 2016). We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replications. We administered the RP:P and Revised protocols in multiple laboratories (Median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5; Range 3 to 9; Median total sample = 1279.5; Range 276 to 3512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, Revised protocols produced similar effect sizes as RP:P protocols following the preregistered analysis plan (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for Revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than the original studies (r = .37). The cumulative evidence of original study and three replication attempts suggests that effect sizes for all 10 (median r = .07; range .00 to .15) are 78% smaller on average than original findings (median r = .37; range .19 to .50), with very precisely estimated effects.

De Dreu and Gross argue that only asymmetric games allow the motives underlying defense and attack to be disentangled. However, the Prisoner's Dilemma Game Alt matrix (PDG-Alt matrix), a modified symmetric PDG, also allows these motives to be disentangled. Studies using the PDG-Alt matrix produced findings contradicting a central claim of De Dreu and Gross.

In contrast to the truncated view that replications have only a little to offer beyond what is already known, we suggest a broader understanding of replications: We argue that replications are better conceptualized as a process of conducting consecutive studies that increasingly consider alternative explanations, critical contingencies, and real-world relevance. To reflect this understanding, we collected and summarized the existing literature on replications and combined it into a comprehensive overall typology that simplifies and restructures existing approaches. The resulting typology depicts how multiple, hierarchically structured replication studies guide the integration of laboratory and field research and advance theory. It can be applied to (a) evaluate a theory's current status, (b) guide researchers' decisions, (c) analyze and argue for the necessity of certain types of replication studies, and (d) assess the added value of a replication study at a given state of knowledge. We conclude with practical recommendations for different protagonists in the field (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, and funding agencies). Together, our comprehensive typology and the related recommendations will contribute to an enhanced replication culture in social psychology and to a stronger real-world impact of the discipline.

Summary The present meta-analysis investigates the associations between leadership, followers' mental health, and job performance by taking into account different groups of leadership constructs including transformational leadership, relations-oriented leadership, task-oriented leadership, destructive leadership, and leader–member exchange. Six categories of mental health-related outcomes are considered representing both negative and positive mental health states of followers, namely, affective symptoms, burnout, stress, well-being, psychological functioning, and health complaints. Meta-analytic models are used to estimate the association between these categories of leadership and mental health. Our results reveal that transformational leadership, a high quality of relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behavior, as well as a high quality of leader–follower interaction are positively associated with mental health. In contrast, destructive leadership is strongly negatively associated with mental health. In addition, the mediation effects of leadership on job performance via mental health are estimated. Results partially support the mediating role of mental health concerning the relationship between leadership and job performance. Our results emphasize the importance of leadership as an occupational health factor, and they may serve as basis for the planning and designing of occupational health policies and interventions despite existing research limitations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Team trust has often been discussed both as requirement and as challenge for team effectiveness, particularly in virtual teams. However, primary studies on the relationship between trust and team effectiveness have provided mixed findings. The current review summarizes existing studies on team trust and team effectiveness based on meta-analytic methodology. In general, we assumed team trust to facilitate coordination and cooperation in teams, and therefore to be positively related with team effectiveness. Moreover, team virtuality and documentation of interactions were considered as moderators of this relationship because they should affect perceived risks during teamwork. While team virtuality should increase, documentation of interaction should decrease the relationship between team trust and team effectiveness. Findings from 52 studies with 54 independent samples (representing 12,615 individuals in 1,850 teams) confirmed our assumptions. In addition to the positive overall relationship between team trust and team effectiveness criteria (ρ = .33), the relationship between team trust and team performance was stronger in virtual teams (ρ = .33) as compared to face-to-face teams (ρ = .22), and weaker when team interactions were documented (ρ = .20) as compared to no such documentation (ρ = .29). Thus, documenting team interactions seems to be a viable complement to trust-building activities, particularly in virtual teams. (PsycINFO Database Record