The influence of regulatory focus and group vs. individual goals on the evaluation bias in the context of group decision making

Sassenberg, Kai; Landkammer, Florian; Jacoby, Johann

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.009

Cited by 30 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the current study also contributes to the growing body of research testing regulatory focus effects in groups and teams (e.g., Burtscher & Meyer, 2014; Dimotakis, Davison, & Hollenbeck, 2012; Sassenberg, Landkammer, & Jacoby, 2014). We confirm findings from individual-level research indicating that being in a status quo situation has different consequences for promotion- versus prevention-focused individuals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

On the Motivational Basis of Cue Identification in Teams

Burtscher

Levine

Higgins

2018

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although identifying cues indicating a problem represents a crucial aspect of team adaptation, little is known about the conditions under which team members do this correctly. To address this issue, the current study focused on the motivational basis of cue identification by investigating interactive effects of members’ regulatory focus, their contribution redundancy, and the team performance context. Participants working in 105 three-person teams were asked to identify problem cues in a signal detection task. Utilizing a 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) x 2 (performance context: status quo vs. loss) x 2 (contribution redundancy: low vs. high) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) design with contribution redundancy as a within-participants factor, we obtained the predicted three-way interaction: In the status quo condition, prevention-focused, but not promotion-focused, team members were less accurate in identifying problem cues when their contributions were redundant. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the motivational basis of team adaptation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

On the Motivational Basis of Cue Identification in Teams

Burtscher

Levine

Higgins

2018

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, no goal instructions were given (e.g., whether the goal was to solve the riddle alone or together as a group; cf. Sassenberg et al, 2014). Instead, this goal ambiguity should allow the cognitive representation of the previous task to influence this subsequent task (also referred to as applicability; see for example Higgins and Brendl, 1995).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team Sports Off the Field: Competing Excludes Cooperating for Individual but Not for Team Athletes

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both team and individual sports require competition, whereas cooperation is more prevalent in team than in individual sports. In particular, team athletes have to compete (for starting roles) while cooperating (for team success) with the same teammates. For team athletes, competition and cooperative behavior, two mutually exclusive constructs according to earlier psychological research, might therefore be less incompatible than for individual athletes. In Study 1, team athletes attributed a higher demand to compete and cooperate with the same teammates or training partners to their sport than individual athletes to their sport. Study 2 showed that experiencing competition (vs. control) undermines information sharing less for team than for individual athletes. In addition, Study 2 demonstrated that priming competition undermines the accessibility of cooperative thoughts less for team than for individual athletes. Therefore, team athletes might be better at competing without ceasing to cooperate. Implications for collaboration in groups are discussed.

show abstract

“…Landkammer and Scholl (2015) tested this hypothesis and also examined a potential condition under which those high in power could be less selfish, but willing to share their important information with others. As described in the previous section, group goals are a potential means to strengthen the importance of joint (rather than individual) performance and thereby reduce self-serving tendencies (see Sassenberg et al, 2014).…”

Section: Thefocusonowngoalsandtheselfishnessofthose Highinpowermentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Exchange as a Motivated Social Process

Scholl

Landkammer

Sassenberg

2017

The Psychology of Digital Learning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Be it in the case of learning together or cooperating with each other at universities, in schools, at work or during leisure time, individuals usually need to exchange knowledge in order to achieve their goals. Knowledge exchange contributes to joint performance, provided that the knowledge is, indeed, effectively exchanged. Such knowledge exchange often occurs via computer-mediated communication (cmc): e-mails, online chats, blogs, or social networks provide an easy opportunity to exchange information at all times and with a wide range of users. Yet, people do not always exchange knowledge via digital media effectively-although digital media would technically allow them to do so. Why is this the case and how can we foster exchange? This chapter considers knowledge exchange as a socially motivated process. We argue that, at times, people may be motivated to share their information with others, such as when trying to reach a decision together as a group; yet, at other times, people might strategically withhold information from others, such as when trying to keep a personal advantage. This chapter outlines from an experimental, social-psychological approach how specific social constellations between users can elicit such group-or self-serving motives and how these can enhance or hinder knowledge exchange. Finally, we discuss how barriers for knowledge exchange may be overcome in order to facilitate collaboration in cmc (or faceto-face) contexts. Keywords Information sharing • Information exchange • Social processes • MotivationNo matter whether individuals learn together or cooperate at universities, in schools, at work or during leisure time, they usually need to exchange knowledge in order to achieve their goals. For instance, project teams implementing innovations in a company have to share their knowledge to reach an optimal outcome. Students learning together

show abstract

The influence of regulatory focus and group vs. individual goals on the evaluation bias in the context of group decision making

Cited by 30 publications

References 39 publications

On the Motivational Basis of Cue Identification in Teams

On the Motivational Basis of Cue Identification in Teams

Team Sports Off the Field: Competing Excludes Cooperating for Individual but Not for Team Athletes

Knowledge Exchange as a Motivated Social Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About