Sprungmarken

Servicenavigation

Hauptnavigation

Sie sind hier:

Hauptinhalt

Publikationen

Aktuelle Publikationen des Lehrstuhls für Sozial-, Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie

 

 

Together, everyone achieves more—Or, less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams.
Torka, A.-K., Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J. (in press). Together, everyone achieves more—Or, less? An interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000251

With our meta-analysis, we integrated the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure Model (TEEM) to explain when working in a team is a motivating or demotivating experience. We found that teamwork is neither motivating nor demotivating per se. In fact, the way in which teamwork is designed determines whether people show more or less effort during teamwork as compared to individual work. For more effort during teamwork to emerge, people need to have an indispensable contribution to the team performance or need to be able to compare themselves with moderately stronger teammates. Furthermore, we found a difference between objectively and subjectively measured effort: individuals reported when they spent more effort during teamwork, but not when they spent less effort during teamwork. We also found effort losses to be greater in the laboratory than in the field, but we did not find this difference for effort gains.

 

Masculinity at the negotiation table: A theory of men’s negotiation behaviors and outcomes.
Mazei, J., Zerres, A., & Hüffmeier, J. (2021). Masculinity at the negotiation table: A theory of men’s negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 108–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0570

Many men are famous, perhaps even infamous, for their heightened assertiveness in negotiations and other kinds of social interactions. Examples include Jeff Bezos, the influential American businessperson Carl Icahn, and, who would have guessed it, President Donald J. Trump. In this article, we build on past insights from multiple scientific disciplines to propose a theoretical model that explains men’s emotional experience, behaviors, and outcomes in occupational negotiations. Following extant work, one central notion is that men aim to negotiate assertively and successfully in an attempt to show others, and maybe themselves, how “masculine” and “high-status” they are.

 

“We do not negotiate with terrorists!” But what if we did?
Mertes, M., Mazei, J., & Hüffmeier, J. (2020). “We do not negotiate with terrorists!” But what if we did? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 26(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000446

Hostage-takings, in which terrorists abduct innocent people and threaten to kill them unless authorities concede to their demands, cause suffering for many people every year. Authorities often decline to concede because they do not trust terrorists to keep their promises. We analyzed negotiation data from terrorist hostage-takings and found that even partly fulfilling the terrorists’ demands can result in fewer casualties among the hostages. Terrorists often even contribute to conflict resolution by making concessions of their own once they have received parts of what they demanded. Our study shows that conceding to terrorist hostage-takers can be a viable strategy to save lives.

 

Many Labs 5: Testing pre-data-collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability.
Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., Lazarević, L. B., Rabagliati, H., Ropovik, I., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Andrighetto, L., Arnal, J. D., Arrow, H., … Hüffmeier, J., … Torka, A.-K., … Nosek, B. A. (2020). Many Labs 5: Testing pre-data-collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(3) 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920958687

 Critics said that the 2015 Reproducibility Project: Psychology failed to replicate findings because of deficiencies in power and adherence to expert feedback. To address this issue, we selected 10 studies from the 2015 replication project that had been criticized by the original authors and replicated them in two ways. First, we used the original designs with an increased sample size. Second, we used research designs that had previously undergone an expert peer review process. Results revealed that these attempts could not increase replicability of the original findings. Overall, the replicated studies yielded an average effect size that was very similar to that of the 2015 replication project and significantly smaller (78%, on average) from that of the original studies. The findings are evidence against the hypothesis that the earlier failures to replicate were due to failures of the protocols. Thus, our results suggests that the original studies may have exaggerated the existence or size of the findings.

 

Many Labs 5: Registered replication of Vohs and Schooler (2008), Experiment 1
Buttrick, N. R., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Bakos, B. E., Brühlmann, F., Claypool, H. M., Hüffmeier, J., Kovacs, M., Schuepfer, K., Szecsi, P., Szuts, A., Szöke, O., Thomae, M., Torka, A.-K., Walker, R. J., & Wood, M. J. (2020). Many Labs 5: Registered replication of Vohs and Schooler (2008), Experiment 1. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920917931

Vohs and Schooler (2008) found that convincing people that free will is an illusion reduces their sense of personal responsibility. In their study, participants cheated more on a task after reading arguments against free will. However, Embley, Johnson, and Giner-Sorolla (2015) did not replicate this finding. As part of Many Labs 5, we investigated whether difficult arguments against free will and a poor measure of free-will beliefs account for the failure to replicate the results. We used two different protocols to replicate the findings. The first was a close replication of Vohs and Schooler’s Experiment. The second was a revised protocol with an easier to understand manipulation and an improved measure of free will. We found that the revisions did not matter. Free-will beliefs were unchanged by the manipulations, there were no differences in cheating behavior between conditions, and participants who expressed a lower belief in free will were not more likely to cheat in our task.

 

Strategies aimed at reducing gender differences in negotiation are perceived by women as ineffective.
Mazei, J., Mertes, M., & Hüffmeier, J. (2020). Strategies aimed at reducing gender differences in negotiation are perceived by women as ineffective. Sex Roles, 83, 580–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01130-4

A widespread notion is that women may earn less than men because they negotiate their pay less assertively. Make no mistake: The issue is not that women are simply less capable of negotiating assertively. Rather, research has clearly shown that women as compared to men are perceived more negatively if they do so, and these negative perceptions can result in serious drawbacks at work that women rightly aim to avoid. To address this problem, past research has come up with promising strategies that women could use in negotiations. Yet, in our study, we observed that these strategies have characteristics that can let them appear ineffective (although they might actually be effective). As a result, these strategies can end up not being used. Thus, our study suggests that research will need to come up with novel and fresh ideas of how to address the disadvantages that women face in negotiations, so that gender equality is ultimately achieved.



Nebeninhalt

Kontakt

Prof. Dr. Joachim Hüffmeier
Lehrstuhlinhaber
Tel.: 0231 755-2840
Dr. Jens Mazei
Akademischer Rat a. Z.
Tel.: 0231 755-7919