Opposite sides of the same coin? Effort gains and effort losses in teams

这个研究项目建立在这样一个观察的基础上，即关于团队中的努力损失和努力收益的研究流目前在很大程度上是相互孤立的。因此，这两个研究流的理论和实证整合是追求在这个项目。作为该项目的首要假设，一方面假设边界条件在概念上密切相关，在此条件下，团队中的努力损失和努力收益会出现（例如，自己对团队绩效的贡献的社会不可或缺性和社会不可或缺性）。另一方面，该项目的目的是测试的假设，即成员花费他们的努力在团队合作在不同的模式：努力损失的团队依赖于自动过程，而努力收益依赖于控制过程（“不同的过程假说”）。在这个研究项目中，团队中的努力损失和努力收益的同时调查在理论上是有意义的，因为它可以有助于两个研究流的理论整合，因为它也能理解这种整合的局限性。从应用的角度来看，整合也是有意义的：只有明确理解特定的边界条件和过程，才能给出关于团队合作激励设计的可靠建议，这些条件和过程是团队中出现努力损失和努力收益的原因。本研究计画的目标是透过一项整合分析与四项实证研究来达成。在这些初步研究中，不同的，但互补的方法将被用来测试不同的过程假设。总之，这些研究可以对本项目假设的有效性进行可靠的评估。

This research project builds on the observation that the research streams on effort losses and effort gains in teams tend to currently exist largely isolated from each other. Therefore, a theoretical and empirical integration of these two research streams is pursued in this project. As the project's overarching hypothesis it is assumed on the one hand, that the boundary conditions are conceptually closely related under which effort losses and effort gains in teams emerge (e.g, social indispensability and social dispensability of the own contribution to the team's performance). On the other hand, the project is aimed at testing the hypothesis that members expend their efforts during teamwork in different modes: Effort losses in teams rely on automatic processes, whereas effort gains rely on controlled processes ("different processes hypothesis"). The simultaneous investigation of effort losses and effort gains in teams within this research project is theoretically meaningful because it can contribute to the theoretical integration of the two research streams and because it also fathoms the limits of this integation. The integration is also meaningful from an applied perspective: Reliable recommendations on the motivating design of teamwork can only be given if the specific boundary conditions and processes are clearly understood, which are responsible for the emergence of effort losses and effort gains in teams. The aspired goals of this research project are pursued by means of a meta-analysis and four empirical primary studies. In these primary studies, different, but complementary methods will be used to test the different processes hypothesis. Together, these studies allow for a reliable assessment of the validity of this project's hypotheses.