Recent research has demonstrated that group motivation gains due to social indispensability are not restricted to the research laboratory but can be found in existing groups performing meaningful tasks. Our own previous research showed that freestyle swimmers at the 2008 Olympics swam faster in the relay than in the individual competition when swimming at the relay’s later positions. Using aggregated data of freestyle and medley relays from the final heats of the four most recent Olympic Games, we show that high specificity of information on the partners’ performance is a precondition for indispensability effects to occur. As expected, motivation gains in the relay as compared to the individual competition were demonstrated for swimmers at relay positions 2–4, but only in freestyle relays where effort and efficiency of preceding swimmers could be reliably assessed by swimmers. In medley relays, where such feedback is more ambiguous, no motivation gains occurred.
AuW. T.ChenX.-P.KomoritaS. S. (1998). A probabilistic model of criticality in a sequential public good dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 274–293. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2795
2.
BoxG. E. P. (1949). A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria. Biometrika, 36, 317–346.
3.
ErevI.BornsteinG.GaliliR. (1993). Constructive intergroup competition as a solution to the free rider problem: A field experiment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 463–478. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1993.1021
4.
EverettJ. J.SmithR. E.WilliamsK. D. (1992). Effects of team cohesion and identifiability on social loafing in relay swimming performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 311–324.
5.
GeisterS.KonradtU.HertelG. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37, 449–489. doi: 10.1177/1046496406292337
6.
HertelG.KerrN. L.MesséL. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 580–601. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.580
7.
HertelG.KonradtU.OrlikowskiB. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1–28. doi: 10.1080/13594320344000228
8.
HertelG.NiemeyerG.ClaussA. (2008). Social indispensability or social comparison: The why and when of motivation gains of inferior group members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1329–1363. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00350.x
9.
HüffmeierJ.HertelG. (2011). When the whole is more than the sum of its parts: Group motivation gains in the wild. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 455–459. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.004
10.
HüffmeierJ.KrummS.KanthakJ.HertelG. (2012). “Don’t let the group down”: Facets of instrumentality moderate the motivating effects of groups in a field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533–538. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1875
11.
KarauS. J.WilliamsK. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681
12.
KarauS. J.WilliamsK. D. (2001). Understanding individual motivation in teams: The collective effort model. In TurnerM. E. (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 113–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
KerrN. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.819
14.
KerrN. L.HertelG. (2011). The Köhler group motivation gain: How to motivate the “weak links” in a group. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 43–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00333.x
15.
KerrN. L.MesséL. ASeokD. H.ParkE. S.SambolecE. J. (2005). Identifiability, performance feedback and the Köhler effect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 375–390. doi: 10.1177/1368430205056466
16.
KerrN. L.MesséL. ASeokD. H.SambolecE. J.LountR. B.ParkE. S. (2007). Psychological mechanisms underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 828–841. doi: 10.1177/0146167207301020
17.
MesséL. A.HertelG.KerrN. L.LountR. B.Jr.ParkE. (2002). Knowledge of partner’s ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: Exploration of the Köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 935–946. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.935
18.
OsbornK. A.IrwinB. C.SkoksbergN. J.FeltzD. L.(2012). The Köhler effect: Motivation gains and losses in real sports groups. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0026887
19.
PaulusP. B.DzindoletM. T.PoletesG.CamachoL. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78–89. doi: 10.1177/0146167293191009
20.
PearceJ. L.GregersenH. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838–844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.838
21.
PostmesT.SpearsR.LeeA. T.NovakR. J. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747–763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747
22.
RinkF.EllemersN. (2007). Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: The norm congruity principle. British Journal of Management, 18, 17–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00523.x
23.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
24.
StevensJ. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
StroebeW.DiehlM.AbakoumkinG. (1996). Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In WitteE. H.DavisJ. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 37–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
TauerJ. M.HarackiewiczJ. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 849–861. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.849
27.
Van DickR.TissingtonP. A.HertelG. (2009). Do many hands make light work? How to overcome social loafing and gain motivation in work teams. European Business Review, 21, 233–245. doi: 10.1108/09555340910956621
28.
WeberB.HertelG. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 973–993. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.973
29.
WelchB. L. (1947). The generalization of student’s problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34, 28–35.
30.
WilliamsK. D.KarauS. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570–581. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.570
31.
WittchenM.SchlerethD.HertelG. (2007). Indispensability effects in a sequential task: Motivation gains during anonymous cooperation on the Internet. International Journal of Internet Science, 2, 12–27.
32.
WittchenM.van DickR.HertelG. (2011). Intergroup competition as a trigger of motivation gains in groups: A review and process analysis. Organisational Psychology Review, 1, 257–272. doi: 10.1177/2041386611398166
