Identifiability, Performance Feedback and the Köhler Effect

Abstract

Research, starting with Köhler (1926), has demonstrated a type of group motivation gain, wherein the less capable member of a dyad working conjunctively at a persistence task works harder than comparable individuals. To explore possible boundary conditions of this effect, the current experiment systematically varied the amount and timing of performance feedback group members received. Results showed: (a) continuous feedback of both members’ performance was not necessary for producing the effect; (b) the effect was attenuated, but not eliminated by delaying and restricting feedback, such that group members only learned which of them was the less capable worker (but not how long s/he persisted) sometime after the task trial was completed; and (c) the motivation gain was eliminated in the absence of any performance feedback (i.e. when neither worker could tell who quit first nor how long either had persisted). Some implications of these results for currently viable explanations of the Köhler effect are discussed. It is concluded that the effect is likely to result from several distinct processes

“… been down so long …”: Perpetual vs. intermittent inferiority and the Köhler group motivation gain in exercise groups.

“…To our knowledge, the basic effect has failed to emerge only under fairly unusual conditions-specifically, when no one, including the experimenter/supervisor, can detect which group member is inferior (Kerr et al, 2005); for females only, when their superior partner had previously ostracised them ; or when there are large partner age differences for a task where such age differences might imply large ability differences as well (Seok, 2004). Meta-analyses of this literature (Weber & Hertel, 2007) further document the robustness of the effect.…”

To pay or not to pay? Do extrinsic incentives alter the Köhler group motivation gain?

“…5 Hence, we suspect that our persistence results can be better understood by focusing on the likely effect of extrinsic incentives on each of the psychological processes that have been shown to contribute to the Köhler effect. First, an invidious social comparison of performance can be motivating (e.g., Seta, 1982)-it can lead to performance goal revision (Stroebe et al, 1996) or to a competitive goal (Kerr et al, 2005). But the availability of an extrinsic incentive could undermine this process.…”

Social ostracism and group motivation gain

“…Psychol. 38, 736-746 (2008) (Hertel, Kerr, Scheffler, Geister, & Messé, 2000b;Stroebe et al, 1996), perhaps via interpersonal competition (Kerr et al, 2005), or perhaps via using the performance of the comparison other to help define some level of performance required to obtain favorable social evaluations (Seta, 1982). This mechanism does not require that the one with whom one compares be a fellow group member-for example, with whom one is interdependent, has shared goals and/or a shared social identity.…”

“…It remains unclear precisely what the key valued outcome is; it could be optimizing group performance, not handicapping one's more capable teammates, avoiding a negative self-or other-evaluation, or some combination of these (cf. Kerr et al, 2005). The primary empirical evidence for such a dual-mechanism explanation comes from studies (e.g., Hertel et al, in press;Kerr et al, 2007) that observe effort under different work conditions-(1) the original, conjunctive group task conditions, where the least capable member is the ''weak link'' and the group's level of success is primarily dependent upon his/her level of performance, and (2) coactive work conditions in which social comparison with others also reveals that one is the least capable worker, but where there is no performance group (i.e., all workers are outcome-independent individuals).…”

“…The present study focuses on one such group motivation-gain phenomenon, the Köhler effect (Köhler, 1926)-a tendency of less able workers to perform better when members of a team working under conjunctive task demands (where the performance of the least capable member defines the group's level of performance; Steiner, 1972) than when working individually. Our immediate focus is on whether and how this motivation gain is affected by the social ties among group members-specifically, how being ostracized by the rest of one's team affects one's willingness to work especially hard for the team.Several studies of the Köhler effect have now established the effect's robustness (e.g., Hertel et al, 2000a;Stroebe et al, 1996), determined a number of boundary conditions and moderators (e.g., Messé, Hertel, Kerr, Lount, & Park, 2002;Kerr, Messé, Park, & Sambolec, 2005;Lount, Messé, & Kerr, 2000), and most importantly, begun to identify the psychological processes that underlie it (e.g., Hertel et al, 2000a, Exp. 2; Hertel, Niemeyer, & Clauss, in press;Kerr, Messé, Seok, Sambolec, Lount, & Park, 2007).…”