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

这个研究项目建立在对团队中努力损失和努力收益的研究流的观察之上，这些研究流目前在很大程度上是相互孤立的。因此，本项目将对这两个研究流进行理论和实证的整合。作为项目的首要假设，一方面，边界条件在概念上是密切相关的，在这些边界条件下，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可有可无性）。另一方面，该项目的目的是测试团队成员在不同模式下花费努力的假设：团队中的努力损失依赖于自动过程，而努力收益依赖于受控过程（“不同过程假设”）。在这个研究项目中对团队的努力损失和努力收益的同时调查在理论上是有意义的，因为它可以促进两种研究流的理论集成，并且因为它也了解了这种集成的限制。从应用的角度来看，这种整合也是有意义的：只有在清楚地了解特定的边界条件和过程的情况下，才能给出关于团队合作激励设计的可靠建议，这些边界条件和过程是导致团队中努力损失和努力收益出现的原因。本研究项目的预期目标是通过元分析和四项实证研究来实现的。在这些初步研究中，将使用不同但互补的方法来检验不同过程假设。总之，这些研究允许对该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.