The Kohler Effect: Motivation Gains and Losses in Real Sports Groups

Transcription

1 See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: The Kohler Effect: Motivation Gains and Losses in Real Sports Groups Article November 2012 DOI: /a CITATIONS 9 READS authors, including: Brandon Irwin Kansas State University 13 PUBLICATIONS 125 CITATIONS Deborah Feltz Michigan State University 182 PUBLICATIONS 4,897 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Brandon Irwin on 21 July The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2 Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology 2012 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 00, No. 00, /12/$12.00 DOI: /a The Köhler Effect: Motivation Gains and Losses in Real Sports Groups Kaitlynn A. Osborn and Brandon C. Irwin Michigan State University Nikolaus J. Skogsberg Northeastern University Deborah L. Feltz Michigan State University Two investigations aimed to document motivation gains and losses (the Köhler effect and social-loafing effects) in real-life group work. Specifically, using archival data, motivation changes were analyzed from individual to additive group competition in collegiate swim, and high school track and field relays. Results showed that inferior group members had significantly greater motivation gains than noninferior teammates in preliminary and final swim races. Motivation gains also were significantly higher in the final compared to the preliminary race. Similar results were replicated with the track and field athletes with the weakest member of the team showing larger difference scores from individual to group competition compared to middle-ranked and higher-ranked teammates. On the whole, both studies provide ecological support for the Köhler effect, and that inferior team members showed the greatest motivation gains. No significant differences were found to support social-loafing effects within the same groups, but performances of superior group members tended to be slower. Keywords: Köhler effect, social facilitation, social loafing The motivational influence of performance in groups has been a heavily studied topic in social psychology literature. This research has typically focused on motivation losses in groups, with particular interest in the phenomenon of social loafing, or the tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working in a group than when working individually (Baron & Kerr, 2003; Karau & Williams, 1993; Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). However, more recently, the literature has shifted toward examining the opposite phenomenon motivation gains. The motivation literature is composed of a variety of theories, and the majority of these Kaitlynn A. Osborn, Brandon C. Irwin, and Deborah L. Feltz, Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University; Nikolaus J. Skogsberg, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University. We thank Norbert Kerr for his insightful comments during the preparation of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kaitlynn A. Osborn, Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, 134 IM Sports Circle, East Lansing, MI osbornk4@msu.edu theories are based on a cognitive view of motivation. Within this perspective, thoughts are proposed as the antecedents in which motivation intensity and direction are derived (Roberts, 1992). The Köhler motivation gain effect and social compensation are two such phenomena. Social compensation occurs when superior group members increase individual effort to make up for the lack of ability or effort of less-capable group members in a highly valued task (Williams & Karau, 1991). The Köhler effect occurs when less-capable group members increase their efforts on group tasks, particularly in highly interdependent tasks. The current study seeks to investigate when motivation gains and losses occur from individual to group competition in real-world sports teams and if explanations for motivation gain or loss phenomena observed in basic social psychology research can inform such an investigation. The Köhler motivation gain effect occurs when less-capable individuals perform better when performing a task with others, as compared to when performing a task individually (Baron & Kerr, 2003). First discovered by Otto 1

3 2 OSBORN, IRWIN, SKOGSBERG, AND FELTZ Köhler in the 1920s, there have been a variety of studies dedicated to examining this effect (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985; Kerr, Messé, Park, & Sambolec, 2005; Kerr & Sullaway, 1983; Weber & Hertel, 2007). For example Hertel, Kerr, and Messé (2000) used a motor persistence task in which participants held a metal bar at arm s length for as long as possible. In the group condition, partners held the bar over a rope, so when one partner quit both partners had to stop because the first arm to touch the rope stopped the timer. When participants performed in both an individual and a group condition, less capable participants held the bar longer in the group condition than they did in the individual condition. The Köhler motivation gain effect focuses on the effort of a task as a measure of motivation. Much of the literature reviewed interprets performance differences as direct evidence of motivation gains or losses when such an inference cannot be assumed without direct measurement of motivation. Motivation gains are inferred from performance differences, which, in turn, are inferred to be determined by effort, and then inferred to be evidence of motivation. Even though this may be seen as a weakness, it is difficult to measure motivation directly because it is a cognitive process. The motivation gain of the Köhler effect, however, has shown to be task-dependent (Weber & Hertel, 2007). Based on Steiner s task taxonomy (1972), there are at least three different types of tasks relevant for examining group motivation phenomena: conjunctive, coactive, and additive. A conjunctive task is one in which the performance of the group is based on the weaker member s performance. In a coactive task, group members are performing the task at the same time but their performances are independent of each other. An additive task is one in which the group s performance is defined by the sum of the group members performances. Although Köhler motivation gains have been documented in additive and coactive tasks (which have many real-world and sports team analogs), previous findings suggest that conjunctive group tasks, performed with moderately superior partners, will result in the largest motivation gain for the weakest performing group member (Weber & Hertel, 2007). Two plausible explanations for the Köhler effect have been proposed (Kerr et al., 2007). The first suggests that it is one s indispensability in the successful completion of a group task that motivates one to increase his or her efforts. In such a case, motivation gains should be strongest in conjunctive tasks, meaning that a group s performance will only be as strong as that of its weakest member (Hertel, Niemeyer, & Clauss, 2008; Kerr et al., 2007). Thus, inferior group members should exhibit the greatest increases in effort in group tasks, because the group s performance will rely entirely on their performance. A second mechanism suggests that it is the opportunity for social comparison that elicits motivation gains. That is, in the presence of superior group members, inferior group members may (a) revise personal performance goals upward or (b) make successful competition his or her performance goal (Kerr et al., 2007). Either way, it is the opportunity for social comparison that permits these processes to occur. It is likely that both the social comparison and indispensability mechanisms are occurring simultaneously in group tasks, although the strongest motivation gains have been found in conjunctive tasks, especially so for women (Kerr et al., 2007; Weber & Hertel, 2007). Women have been found to focus on relational aspects in groups more so than men, hence, this may be why women show more motivation for conjunctive tasks. Several boundary conditions, when in place, have produced the largest motivation gains. For instance, it is important for group members to receive feedback about the group s performance (Seta, 1982). When knowledge of one s partner is not available, the effect attenuates (Kerr et al., 2005). Second, the greatest increases in motivation occur when the weaker group member s performance is roughly 1.4 times lower than other group members (Messé, Hertel, Kerr, Lount, & Park, 2002). If the discrepancy between the weakest and most capable member is too large, motivation losses (or free-riding) has been found to occur (Hertel et al., 2008). In addition, Feltz, Irwin, and Kerr (2011) recently found that motivation attenuates as a result of too high of a discrepancy. Finally, sex has been found to moderate motivation gains. Women have shown higher motivation gains under additive task demands compared to coactive demands and even higher gains under conjunctive task demands. This suggests that, although a group outcome is sufficient to produce motivation gains in women, they are particularly sensitive to

4 KOHLER EFFECT 3 conjunctive tasks demands, unlike men. Men have been shown to exhibit motivation gains when information is provided about a superior coworker (i.e., coactive tasks), whether they are participating in a group or not. These sex findings indicate that social comparison may be more salient for men whereas indispensability is more salient for women (Weber & Hertel, 2007). The study of motivation gain phenomena in sports teams is limited. Hüffmeier and Hertel (2011) studied Olympic archival data and found motivation gains in relay events. Individuals who swam in the later positions in the relay (third and fourth) showed greater motivation gains by swimming faster in the relay event compared to their individual swim event. Hüffmeier and Hertel explained these motivation gains as an increase in perceived indispensability for those later relay members. They also found evidence that the fastest individual tended to go last in the relay. Although this might lead to a social compensation explanation as to why the last member gained motivation (i.e., had to make up for previous performances), much of the literature concerning relays has actually found social-loafing effects. Even though motivation gain literature in sports is infrequent, there have been a variety of studies examining social loafing. These socialloafing studies have taken real sports teams and created ad hoc relays but have found contradictory results (Everett, Smith, & Williams, 1992; Williams, Nida, Baca, & Latané, 1989). Williams et al. (1989) found a social-loafing effect when team members were unidentifiable and therefore not held accountable for their performance. Everett et al. (1992) replicated this study, but did not find a social-loafing effect. Social loafing may occur when a group is comprised of individuals with different abilities. More capable individuals might revise their performance goals lower to match those of their teammates, resulting in less effort. Other research has shown that social loafing can be reduced when these factors (i.e., anonymity, low cohesion) are eliminated. Using a rowing task, Hardy and Crace (1991) found that when the task is personally involving, intrinsically motivating and personally meaningful to the subjects, social-loafing effects are not found. Similarly, Hertel, Deter, and Konradt (2003) found that, when performing a divisible task in which successful completion of the group task requires an equitable performance level from each member, social loafing is eliminated. When these different conditions, as outlined by Karau and Williams (1993), are eliminated or minimized, the social-loafing effect is not as evident, suggesting that task conditions are particularly influential in determining whether motivation gains or motivation losses will occur. Although researchers examining social loafing have used real teams, some previous Köhler effect research has been done solely with ad hoc groups in laboratory settings (Hertel et al., 2008; Kerr et al., 2005; Kerr et al., 2007; Lount, Park, Kerr, Messé, & Soek, 2008; Weber & Hertel, 2007). While these findings have provided a theoretical basis for motivation gains, it is necessary to look to real groups and to evaluate whether these same gains exist. Additionally, both the Köhler effect and the social-loafing effects have not been investigated within the same study. Studying both these mechanisms within one study allows for a better understanding of which group members demonstrate motivation gains and losses. Sports groups, and in particular relay teams, are logical populations to turn toward to further investigate these phenomena. Relay events, such as a in track, are examples of additive tasks. However Kerr et al. (2005) specified that relays have certain characteristics that allow them to function differently from other additive tasks. First, relays are divisible tasks, where each member of the relay has to finish his or her leg satisfactorily in order to have an acceptable overall performance. Second, relays are sequential; one member has to finish his or her leg of the relay before the next member can start his or her part. Indeed, Hertel et al. (2003) found motivation gains in a divisible computer-mediated cognitive task in which additive task groups had slightly higher performances than those performing under individual conditions. These studies suggest that additive tasks, when performed divisibly, may increase identifiability, which could lead to motivation gains above and beyond what would be expected when performing a task simultaneously. Second, when additive tasks are performed sequentially (and one cannot start until the previous teammate finishes), this adds an extra layer of indispensability; not only is an individual s performance part of the entire team s performance, but his or her teammates also cannot start until that individual has completed his

5 4 OSBORN, IRWIN, SKOGSBERG, AND FELTZ or her part of the task. These trends should be observed in relay performances where each athlete must complete his or her own performance effectively in order to contribute to a successful overall group performance. The current article includes two studies that investigate motivational changes in real sports teams. The data sets comprised archival records. Study 1 examined motivation gains and losses in the U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 200-yard freestyle swimming relay teams. Study 2 examined the same phenomena, but in high school track and field triads, performing in either the shot put or discus events, both of which were additive tasks. Although all three sports swimming, shot put, and discus involve acertainlevelofproficiency,theyalsocanbe considered effort-based tasks once proficiency is established (e.g., high school and collegiate levels of competition). Therefore, the differences in performances can be based on effort and from that, we can infer motivation changes. Previous research on the Köhler effect has typically been conducted using dyads, in which motivation gains have been examined for the weaker member. In our studies, we had four (swimming) and three (field) member teams, enabling us to analyze motivation for each member compared to other members within the group. Based on previous research, we first set forth hypotheses comparing the strongest and weakest members: Hypothesis 1: The weakest member will show a larger motivation gain, compared to the strongest group member, in moving from the individual to the relay performance. Hypothesis 2: The strongest group member will show a motivation loss, depending on the importance of the meet (importance of finals preliminary relays). The relay teams included more than two group members (dyads), therefore, a number of other interesting possibilities exist regarding motivation gains and losses. For example, in a team of three, how does the motivation of the second-ranked member compare to that of the first and third? Although it is not entirely clear whether a mid-ranked member would behave perhaps more like the strongest member (i.e., a low motivation gain or perhaps even a motivation loss) or the weakest member (i.e., a large motivation gain), we reasonably expected that he or she would fall somewhere in between, but this has not been examined in previous research. Further, because previous studies (e.g., Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011) have shown differences in performance between positions, we were also interested in motivation differences by position. Thus, we further posed the following exploratory questions: 1. How will the performance of the midranked member(s) change in comparison to stronger and weaker members? 2. Will there be performance-change differences from individual to relay, depending on position in the relay? Study 1 Participants and Design Participants were 68 college-aged swimming athletes (44 women, 24 men) competing in the 2009 NCAA Division I swimming championships. Seventeen four-person relay teams swam in the 200-yard ( m) freestyle relay. The swimmers times were examined in a (Rank [1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th] Sex [male, female] Task [individual, relay-preliminary, relay-final]) design. Within each relay team, the fastest member was assigned Rank 1 and the slowest was assigned Rank 4. Procedure The times for each participant were collected from both their preliminary and final relay splits at the NCAA Division I swimming championship. A split time is the time that each individual athlete swims within the relay. These times were compared with each individual s fastest individual performance for the season. The fastest individual performance was taken from either the same meet, the conference championship that was prior to the NCAA championship, or a time off the top times list for the university that the athlete attended. Relay times were collected from archival data auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/cal/sports/wswim/auto_pdf/a-09wsmdvncaares or

6 KOHLER EFFECT /fullmeetresults.html. Due to the collection of times from the archival data, limited demographic information was available for the relay participants. All names and university associations were dropped as soon as splits were collected and were not used in any of the analyses. Both the preliminary and the final relay swim times were collected because of the differences between the two sessions. Relays at a championship meet are weighted more than individual events, so they can make a large difference in team scores at the end of a meet. All relays swim in the preliminary swim. The fastest 16 relays (based on the time swam in the preliminary sessions) compete in the finals session. These 16 relay teams are then awarded points based on how they finish in the finals session (once again based on the time swam). The finals session swims are more important because teams are racing for points. Relay splits tend to be faster because of faster reaction times (RTs) on a relay take off compared to a regular flat start. To account for this difference, each individual s RT from the relay exchange (defined as the time from when the swimmer in the water touches the wall to when the swimmer s feet leave the block to start the next leg) were added to his or her relay split time. These RTs were reported along with their relay times on the archival data site. These split times from the relay were compared to the individual s fastest individual performance. Sex was examined as a moderating variable. Results A4 2 3(Rank[1,2,3,4] Sex [male, female] Task Type [individual, relay-preliminary, relay-final]) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted, using swim performance as the dependent variable. First, there was a significant rank main effect, F(3, 65) 5.68, p.002, p Tukey post hoc analysis showed that the fourth-ranked members performed worse (M 21.61, SD 1.36) than the first- (M 21.27, SD 1.43, p.011) and second- (M 21.29, SD 1.45, p.024) ranked team members. There were no other significant differences in performance between ranks. Second, there was significant task type main effect, F(2, 65) 24.27, p.01, p A 95% confidence interval (CI) using estimated marginal means indicated that performing the task individually, M 21.18, CI [21.10, 21.27], was slower than performing in the relaypreliminary, M 21.01, CI [20.93, 21.10], which was then slower than performance in the relay-final, M 20.85, CI [20.74, 20.97] (see Table 1 for raw score means and standard deviations). Third, these main effects were superseded by a Task Type Rank interaction, F(6, 62) 7.58, p.01, p (see Figure 1). According to 95% CIs, the weakest members in each group (fourth ranked) performed better in both the relay-preliminary, M 21.13, CI Table 1 Estimated Marginal Performance Means and Confidence Intervals Between Ranks and Sex, Across Tasks Rank Task M SE Lower limit 95% CI Upper limit First ranked Second ranked Third ranked Fourth ranked Note. Task 1 individual, Task 2 relay-preliminary, Task 3 relay-final. CI confidence interval.

7 6 OSBORN, IRWIN, SKOGSBERG, AND FELTZ Figure 1. Performance across tasks by rank for swim athletes. [20.95, 21.31], and relay-final, M 20.88, CI [20.65, 21.10], than in their individual performance, M 21.64, CI [21.47, 21.80], supporting hypothesis 1. The third-ranked members swam faster in both relay performances than in the individual performance (see Table 1), and the second-ranked members swam better in their relay-final performance than in the individual performance (although only marginally better), and there was no difference between their individual performance and the relaypreliminary performance. The first-ranked members performances were no better or worse in either relay than in their individual performances (final, d 0.04; relay, d 0.023). Although an improvement in performance appeared to be the norm for most group members in moving from the individual to relaypreliminary and final performances indeed, there was a significant linear trend in improved performance across tasks, F(65, 2) 51.82, p.001 hypothesis 2, in which we predicted a motivation loss for the strongest group members, was not supported. There was also a main effect for sex, F(66, 2) 4.63, p.012, where men, M 19.62, CI [19.49, 19.77], performed better than women, M 22.42, CI [22.32, 22.51]. This was superseded by a significant Task Type Sex interaction, F(6, 62) 4.63, p.012, p Women showed greater changes (i.e., improvements) in performance across tasks than men ( vs , respectively; see Table 2). Because previous studies (e.g., Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011) have shown differences in performance between positions, we also ran a (Position Sex Task) repeatedmeasures ANOVA with task type as the withinsubjects factor. A main effect was found for task, F(62, 3) 23.61, p.001, p , which replicated the same pattern from the previous analysis (individual preliminaries finals). This main effect, however, was superseded by a Task Position interaction, F(67, Table 2 Estimated Marginal Means of Performance Between Sexes, Across Tasks Sex Task M SE Lower limit 95% CI Upper limit Female Male Note. Task 1 individual, Task 2 relay-preliminary, Task 3 relay-final. CI confidence interval.

8 KOHLER EFFECT 7 6) 5.89, p.001, p Based on 95% CIs, those who swam second, third and fourth all did significantly better in the preliminaries and finals than in their individual race. Those who went first tended to do worse in the preliminaries and finals, but not significantly (see Table 3). A chi-square analysis revealed that higher-ranked members tended to swim first (67% of first-ranked members swam first) in their teams and the lowest-ranked members tended to swim last (70% of third- and fourthranked members swam last, 35% each), 2 (9) 35.24, p.001, V There was also a significant Task Sex interaction, F(67, 6) 4.50, p.013, p , and the pattern replicated those of the previous analysis. Discussion In this study, we found that swimmers swam faster in their relay swims than in their individual performances. However, this increase was due primarily to the inferior relay members. Inferior relay members, defined as those having the slowest individual performance time, showed greater motivation gains overall than did their noninferior relay members. Because motivation is defined as a cognitive process, a motivation gain is inferred from performance differences. These performance differences are seen to be a product of effort and evidence of motivation. Inferior members swam faster in the relay than in their individual races compared to superior relay members. Motivation gains were also significantly greater in the relay final swims than in the relay preliminary swims, suggesting that task importance has motivational consequences in these events. Although additive tasks have sometimes produced either motivation losses (Kerr & Bruun, 1983) or marginal motivation gains (i.e., bordering on significance) (Weber & Hertel, 2007), such losses from the inferior member were not evident in this study. In fact, we found the opposite effect. The observed motivation gains might have occurred because swimming relays are both divisible and sequential (Kerr et al., 2005). This type of divisible, additive task, might increase both identifiability and indispensability so that the successful completion of the task requires equitable contributions from each team member. Thus, relay members have to depend on one another for the relay to succeed overall, so this interdependency allows for motivation gains to occur. There were sex differences present in this study. Women showed greater motivation gains than men in the preliminary round, suggesting that feelings of indispensability are salient for women even when the task is less important. Motivation gains were only evident for men during the finals relay swim, suggesting that task importance moderates the motivation gain effect for men in sequential and divisible additive tasks. This also supports previous research (Weber & Hertel, Table 3 Estimated Marginal Means of Performance by Position in Relay and Task Relay position Task M SE Note. Lower limit 95% CI Upper limit 1 Individual Preliminaries Final Individual Preliminaries Final Individual Preliminaries Final Individual Preliminaries Final CI confidence interval.

9 8 OSBORN, IRWIN, SKOGSBERG, AND FELTZ 2007) in which men were more affected by social comparison. Our results did not support hypothesis 2, where we predicted the strongest relay member would show a motivation loss. Although these swimmers did in fact swim slower in the relay-preliminary and relay-final condition compared to their individual time, this was not a significant difference. However, the pattern for the strongest relay members was clearly in the opposite direction from that of the weaker members. Thus, even when tasks are divisible and interdependent (i.e., additive) and when individual performances are identifiable, superior group members may be susceptible to motivation losses. One reason for this might be social comparison, where stronger individuals compare themselves to weaker individuals and revise their performance goals downward, or at least may not revise them upward. Lastly, the results of this study replicate the results found in Hüffmeier and Hertel (2011) in which the later positioned individuals (i.e., second, third, and fourth) swam faster in the relay conditions than they did in the individual condition. However, first-ranked members also tended to swim in the first position of the relay, whereas the weaker members (third- and fourth-ranked individuals) tended to go last on the relay. Swimmers who swim earlier may feel less indispensable to perform because swimming in the first position grants the performer some leeway to underperform given that there are three subsequent performances that might make up for his or her inferior performance. However, swimming last is your team s last chance at performing well. The performance of the anchor may very well be the most memorable of all the performers (the recency effect), which may heighten evaluation concerns. Future research should explore this possibility. Additionally, because the third- and fourth-ranked members competed in the fourth position at the same percentage, and because the fourth-ranked member still showed a larger motivation gain, this lends support for the processes of the Köhler effect. This extends the previous findings of Hüffmeier and Hertel (2011). Participants Study 2 Participants were 156 high school-aged track and field athletes competing in track meets in the State of Washington, made up of 52 threeperson teams. Teams comprised boys (n 87) and girls (n 69), including freshman (n 30), sophomores (n 47), juniors (n 37), and seniors (n 42). Data were collected for discus and shot put events from relay-style meets, in which athletes competed both individually and in teams. Data were used from the same relay meet across a 3-year span. If an athlete competed in the same meet in multiple years, teams with that athlete were only used once, so that no team was counted that had an athlete having competed in more than one relay meet. Procedure Archival data were collected from Teams were composed of shot put and discus triads. The relay format required each team to select three of their bestperforming athletes to compete as a threeperson team. The summed total distance of each athlete s best throw determined the team s score. All scores were rounded to the nearest inch. Shot put and discus throws were then standardized, so that data would be on the same scale for comparison. Individual performance scores from the most recent individual event prior to the relay gala were used as a baseline for motivation and to rank each member within a team as either the best, middle, or weakest. When individual baseline scores were not available from a race prior to the relay gala, an individual score from an event immediately following the relay gala was used. Athletes that faulted in either the individual or relay event were not included in the study. Likewise, because differences in performance were of main interest, if a team had at least one person who faulted (scored 0) on either their individual or relay throw, the team was excluded from the analysis. Sex was examined as a potential moderating variable. Results To test hypotheses 1 and 2, a (Rank [best, middle, weakest] Sex [male, female] Task Type [individual, relay]) repeated-measures ANOVA was performed with the last factor as a within-subjects factor. Performance (distance of throw) was the dependent

10 KOHLER EFFECT 9 variable. Performance scores were standardized within sports and across tasks. There were significant main effects for rank, F(1, 51) 44.42, p.001, p , and sex, F(1, 49) , p.001, p (see Table 4). The main effects were superseded by a significant Rank Task Type interaction, F(2, 49) 3.08, p.049, p (see Figure 2). The weakest team members performed better in the relay task than the individual task (performance difference relay-individual z score 0.08) while the strongest and middle team members performed worse in the relay (raw performance relay-individual difference z score and 0.02, respectively), although not significant. For the weakest members, these z scores translate into roughly 2.36 and 7.53 m for the shot put and discus, respectively. For the strongest members, the z scores translate into roughly 2.65 and 8.47 m for the shot put and discus, respectively. Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported while hypothesis 2 was not. Discussion Participants showed motivation gains from individual to group competition. The lowestranked individuals displayed the highest motivation gain from individual to group competition. The middle- and highest-ranked member also showed a motivation loss, although this was not significant. There were no other moderating variables. The inferior or lowest-ranked member of the relay team displayed the highest motivation gain from individual to relay competition. This finding was expected, and corroborates the results from a host of other studies in the motivation literature (Weber & Hertel, 2007). Additive tasks can trigger both the indispensability and social comparison processes, and because we do not have any psychological data, it is impossible to point to a single explanation for these motivation gains (Kerr et al., 2005). The most capable member of the relay teams and the middle-ranked member both decreased their performance in the relay condition compared to the individual condition, but this was not significant. With such a small group size (three persons), identifiability and accountability of individual performance were probably very high, however, the most capable group member might realize that he or she is already far superior to the rest of the team, and therefore does not need to increase effort. Previous research has shown results with sex differences in motivation changes. Specifically in additive tasks, it was predicted that boys will display higher motivation gains compared to girls because of social comparison and the mere presence of others, due to the competitive and individualistic nature of boys (Kerr et al., 2007). The current study resulted in no sex differences in the magnitude of motivation gains. Table 4 Estimated Marginal Performance Mean Z Scores Across Individual and Relay Events Task M SE Lower limit 95% CI Upper limit Rank Best All Middle All Weakest All Sex Male All Female All Rank Best Middle Weakest Note. Task 1 individual, Task 2 relay. CI confidence interval.

11 10 OSBORN, IRWIN, SKOGSBERG, AND FELTZ Figure 2. Performance across tasks by rank for track athletes. It is difficult to interpret the above, because of the archival nature of the data. The task demands of the relay competition are new to these athletes. This type of group task might contribute to feelings of intergroup competition, which might not be as salient in an individual version of the task. If these feelings of intergroup competition are more pronounced, it could have affected performance in the group task compared to competition individually. General Discussion Both studies sought to examine whether the motivation gains of inferior group members would be evidenced in real-life groups. Specifically, two different populations of sports relay teams were examined for the presence of motivation changes from individual to group competition. Statistically, in both studies, the motivation gains of inferior members were significantly greater than those of the other group members from individual to group competition. Although the most capable group members in both studies did not display significant motivation losses from individual to group competition, their performances tended to be slower and showed a clearly different pattern from those of inferior members. Thus, the results of these two studies provide a real-world extension of findings originally gleaned only in the lab. To our knowledge, these studies provide the first example(s) of the Köhler motivation gain effect and a trend toward a social-loafing effect within the same group. Although both these processes have been studied in groups independently, our studies provide the first inclination that these processes may occur simultaneously within a real group. For years, researchers have been attempting to understand the complex nature of motivation in sports, partly in hopes of formulating a way to increase athletes motivation to perform (Roberts, 2001). The results from the current studies corroborate results from many other previous studies with inferior group members increasing motivation from individual performance to group performance in both of the studied samples (Weber & Hertel, 2007). However, the possibility that both these processes can occur in a single group is paramount for increasing the understanding of motivation in groups, and how this motivation can be affected by various factors. The effect sizes from both these studies are similar to those found in other archival motivation literature (Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011). Despite these small effect sizes, in both swimming and throwing, performances can be determined by tenths of a second or inches, respectively, and therefore these effects may be critical to an athlete s performance. After interpreting the results from these two different additive tasks, it is possible that both social comparison and indispensability pressures were at work. Also, the mere presence of others, along with presentation concerns and impression management, might have worked together to influence the relative motivation of the individual competitors. In all, these studies provide a solid first step in

12 KOHLER EFFECT 11 showing that results of the Köhler motivation gain effect actually do extend out into the real world. Study Limitations The first limitation in these studies is that these motivation gains were measured indirectly and the times and scores used were taken from archival data. This could have affected the validity of the individual s best performance and could have influenced the results that were obtained. Because motivation was defined as a cognitive process, it is difficult to measure motivation directly. Instead, performance differences were used as a proxy for motivation because those performance differences were measured as an inference to effort. Although this might be seen as a weakness, other motivation literature has also used these performance differences as a measure of motivation (Feltz et al., 2011; Weber & Hertel, 2007). Additionally, both studies used a small sample size due to the criteria for obtaining data. These results were also found from one performance. The performance times and scores that were used may not be the best indicator of how well these individuals usually perform in this type of situation. However, due to the importance of the events, these athletes should have been training to perform at their best and these times and scores should be comparable to those types of performances. Another important limitation concerns a possible ceiling effect for the fastest member. This athlete has already reached a high level of performance and it is more difficult for that individual to maintain or improve his or her performance than it is for weaker or inferior athletes. It may have been that the strongest athlete was not loafing because of his or her teammates but rather because he or she could not sustain their previous or best performance. Although athletes also may have been affected by a variety of other performance-related obstacles, including fatigue, illness, injury, or potential differences in their technical skills from prior performances, it is unlikely that the strongest athletes in their relays would be systematically affected in these ways while the weakest ones would not. Because there are a number of limitations, ideas for future research can hopefully solve some of the posed issues. Conclusion First, in terms of future directions, employing a longitudinal design can better assess when performance differences are greater throughout a season (i.e., beginning vs. end or preliminary vs. championship). Also, investigating motivation gains in other sports or activities that involve both an individual and a team component is a logical next step to identify a wider application. To further delve into the underlying thought processes and explanations of motivation changes, the inclusion of a variety of self-report measures is necessary (i.e., the importance of the performance to the individual, self-efficacy, etc.). Specifically, avarietyofpersonalityvariablescanbeassessed, along with social orientations, attitudes, and dispositions (i.e., relational orientations in women). Also, surveying individuals about the subjective underlying explanations of the Köhler effect will give researchers an understanding of whether athletes are aware of these processes. This can provide researchers with a better idea of which specific process is having a greater affect on motivation, especially in additive tasks, which trigger multiple processes. The findings from the current investigations show that weaker team members are more motivated when working with others than when working alone. Coaches should be aware that both motivation gains and losses can occur in the same group and they should be prepared for those results. Specifically, making individual contributions visible and holding individuals accountable for what they do for the team are both key motivation strategies. Also, tailoring these strategies to individual athletes, to best meet their needs is necessary, with women more affected by indispensability pressures and men more by social comparison. Structuring tasks within practice settings (i.e., pairing athletes with moderately more capable athletes) and framing competitions in ways that tap into these underlying processes should help to better motivate individual athletes when competing in group competitions. References Baron, R. S., & Kerr, N. L. (2003). Group process, group decision, group action (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

13 12 OSBORN, IRWIN, SKOGSBERG, AND FELTZ Everett, J. J., Smith, R. E., & Williams, K. D. (1992). Effects of team cohesion and identifiability on social loafing in relay swimming performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, Feltz, D. L., Irwin, B. C., & Kerr, N. K. (2011). Match making: An examination of discrepancy in ability as a moderator of motivation gains in partnered exercise games. Manuscript submitted for publication. Hardy, C. J., & Crace, R. K. (1991). The effects of task structure and teammate competence on social loafing. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2003). Motivation gains in computer-supported groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, doi: /j tb01876.x Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, doi: / Hertel, G., Niemeyer, G., & Clauss, A. (2008). Social indispensability or social comparison: The why and when of motivation gains in inferior group members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, doi: /j x Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). When the whole is more than the sum of its parts: Motivation gains in the wild. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, doi: /j.jesp Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, doi: / Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Freerider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, doi: / Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). Role expectations in social dilemmas: Sex roles and task motivation in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, doi: / Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., Park, E. S., & Sambolec, E. J. (2005). Identifiability, performance feedback, and the Köhler effect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, doi: / Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., Seok, D.-H., Sambolec, E. J., Lount, R. B., Jr., & Park, E. S. (2007). Psychological mechanisms underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, doi: / Kerr, N. L., & Sullaway, M. E. (1983). Group sex composition and member task motivation. Sex Roles, 9, doi: /bf Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, doi: / Lount, R. B., Jr., Park, E. S., Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., &Seok,D.-H.(2008).Evaluationconcernsandthe Köhler effect: The impact of physical presence on motivation gains. Small Group Research, 39, doi: / Messé, L. A., Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Lount, R. B., Jr., & Park, E. S. (2002). Knowledge of partner s ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: An exploration of the Köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, doi: / Roberts, G. C. (1992). Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Roberts, G. C. (2001). Advances in motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Seta, J. J. (1982). The impact of comparison processes on coactors task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, doi: / Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, doi: / Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, doi: / Williams, K. D., Nida, S. A., Baca, L. D., & Latané, B. (1989). Social loafing and swimming: Effects of identifiability on individual and relay performance of intercollegiate swimmers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, doi: / s basp1001_7 Received June 7, 2011 Revision received November 4, 2011 Accepted November 7, 2011 View publication stats