No abstract

Research on transactive memory systems (TMSs) implicitly assumes that metaknowledge (i.e., the "knowledge of who knows what") is uniformly distributed among team members.Relaxing this assumption results in a more realistic notion of team cognition in which the distribution of metaknowledge can take different forms. Demonstrating the importance of this conceptual shift, we compare teams in which metaknowledge is concentrated within one central member (a centralized TMS structure) with teams in which metaknowledge is distributed evenly among the members (a decentralized TMS structure). We predicted that centralized metaknowledge can give teams a performance advantage over decentralized metaknowledge, because centralized metaknowledge can allow the central member to function as a catalyst for information exchange and integration. We proposed this catalyst effect to be contingent on the extent to which the distribution of task information among members poses high coordination demands to effectively integrate members' knowledge. In a laboratory team decision making experiment (N = 112) we found the predicted interaction effect between TMS structure and the distribution of task information. Furthermore, the experiment supported our hypotheses about the mediating role of the transactive retrieval process and the ensuing team information elaboration.

We examine whether having previously been self-employed is a negative signal on the job market. In a UK field experiment where two applications of otherwise equally qualified individuals were sent out in response to the same vacancies in human resource management, we find that entrepreneurs systematically receive fewer responses than non-entrepreneurs. Empirical studies that treat market wages as the opportunity cost of remaining self-employed are therefore likely to overestimate alternative earnings to entrepreneurship.

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research-You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain-You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Past research has shown that members of a given culture have consensual and stable perceptions of the affective meanings of many social concepts (Heise, 2010). We define "affective meanings" as semantic structures of concepts grounded in emotional experience (see Osgood, 1962; Osgood, May, & Miron, 1975; Rogers, Schröder, & von Scheve, in press; Schröder & Thagard, 2013). People rely on those meanings as sources of implicit cultural knowledge that constrains day-today social interaction (Heise,