Social Loafing in Group Projects

What determines outcomes at the group level according to the text?

What loss occurs when group members are not optimally motivated?

What determines the potential performance of a group according to the text?

Which dimension is part of the framework for group performance described in the text?

What are affective outcomes as defined in the text?

What happens when group members do not combine their contributions optimally according to the text?

How is actual performance calculated based on the text?

Which factor might be incompatible with overall group goals based on the text?

What can lead to a final product better than what individual group members could create on their own according to the text?

What is a key factor underlying motivation loss according to the text?

How can social loafing be eliminated?

What predicts that people will perform well when they expect favorable outcomes?

In what situation does choking occur according to the self-efficacy theory?

What type of motivation loss occurs when group members perceive their contribution as dispensable?

In what scenario do participants who could be evaluated perform better than those who could not on a simple task?

How does the self-efficacy theory explain the difference in performance between participants who can and cannot be evaluated?

What can attenuate or eliminate social loafing even when contributions cannot be evaluated?

What is essential for evaluation according to the text?

According to the theory mentioned, what is assumed to result in high motivation?

What additional steps are included in the group context mentioned in the text?

How does the expectancy-value account described in the text view motivation?

What is emphasized in recent research on group expertise according to the text?

What complicates the process of identifying and utilizing members' expertise in groups?

What does the paper mentioned mainly focus on?

What type of perspective is highlighted in Bunderson's work about recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups?

What is the key factor that leads to higher-quality solutions and decisions according to the text?

What is one of the challenges faced by work groups due to the heterogeneity of distributed knowledge?

What is a potential way to eliminate social loafing according to the text?

Which theory predicts that people will perform well when they anticipate favorable outcomes like praise?

What factor does the self-efficacy theory suggest leads to people performing poorly when they anticipate criticism?

What scenario results in participants who could be evaluated performing worse on a difficult task?

What type of motivation loss occurs when group members perceive their contribution as dispensable?

Which factor can attenuate or eliminate social loafing even in the absence of individual contribution evaluation?

What determines whether social facilitation and social loafing occur according to the text?

What type of task performance improvement is observed when comparing participants who could and could not be evaluated on a simple task?

What does the theory assume about motivation?

What does the expectancy-value account mentioned in the text assume about motivation?

What challenge do work groups face due to the heterogeneity of distributed knowledge according to the text?

In recent research on group expertise, what has been identified as a key theme for better group performance?

What is a non-trivial process complicating the identification and utilization of group members' expertise according to the text?

What leads to higher-quality solutions and decisions in work groups?

What do groups in recent research perform better at according to the text?

What complicates the process of identifying experts in work groups according to past research highlighted in the text?

What is the main focus of the study mentioned in the text?

In team member dyads, when is an actor's upward performance comparison associated with more harming of the target?

Where is a significant portion of the variance in interpersonal harming behavior located according to the study?

When does the relationship between upwards comparison and interpersonal harming in teams with less cooperative goals become negative?

According to the study, what moderates the relationship between social comparison and interpersonal harming in team member dyads?

What theoretical concept was used to explain the psychological processes leading to interpersonal harming?

In which type of groups was the relationship between upwards comparison and harming found to be negative?

Social facilitation effects are more likely to occur when:

What distinguishes the distraction conflict theory from self-efficacy theory in terms of the effects of the presence of others?

In terms of self-efficacy theory, what does efficacy expectancy reflect?

What does the Distraction Conflict Theory suggest happens when attention is divided between an audience and a task?

What is the main impact of high self-efficacy on an individual's task expectations?

How does the distraction conflict theory explain the phenomenon of social facilitation and inhibition?

What distinguishes efficacy expectancy from outcome expectancy according to self-efficacy theory?

What does Distraction conflict theory propose as the reason behind social facilitation and inhibition?

According to Cottrel et al., when does the social facilitation effect occur?

What distinguishes Self-efficacy theory from other theories mentioned in the text?

According to Self-efficacy theory, what does efficacy expectancy reflect?

What does Self-efficacy theory suggest about high self-efficacy individuals?

How does Social facilitation effect vary based on an audience according to the text?

What is one implication of an attentional conflict according to Distraction conflict theory?

What is suggested about the effects of the presence of others based on Sanna's argument?

What happens when attention is divided between performing a task and external stimuli?

According to Zajonc's drive theory, the presence of others increases generalized drive or arousal, which enhances all of the following EXCEPT:

What did Bond and Titus discover regarding Zajonc's theory about arousal due to the presence of others?

In what type of tasks does Zajonc's drive theory suggest that the dominant response would generally be inappropriate?

According to Zajonc's drive theory, what happens when the dominant response is incorrect or inappropriate for a given situation?

What aspect of group performance is influenced by the mere presence of others according to Zajonc's drive theory?

Which part of Zajonc's drive theory was found to have a very small effect by Bond and Titus?

In what type of task would the enhanced drive from the presence of others likely lead to performance deterioration?

'The presence of others sometimes leads to improved performance (social facilitation) and sometimes to deteriorated performance (social inhibition)' - Which theoretical concept aligns with this observation?

What is the main focus of the expert influence approach in group expertise?

What does Lam et al.'s study contradict regarding influence in groups?

What increases the chances of groups identifying expert members better?

According to Lam et al., what is interpersonal harming primarily a result of?

How does the transactive memory approach contribute to group task performance?

What does Lam et al.'s study contribute to understanding about interpersonal harming?

How does Lam et al.'s study view interpersonal harming in co-worker dyads?

What happens when group members lack cues about who might know what in the distributive knowledge approach?

What is unique about the approach of Lam et al.'s study in examining interpersonal harming?

Which theory emphasizes that groups improve decision quality when cues about individual expertise are given?

Why are groups initially poor at identifying experts according to the text?

How does Lam et al.'s study contribute to understanding workplace behavior?

What does Lam et al.'s study aim to explore in relation to interpersonal harming?

What principle from the status characteristics theory guides group expertise processes?

What is one key contribution of Lam et al.'s study to workplace research?

How do groups improve their recognition of expert members over time according to the text?

'Harming high performers' discusses interpersonal harming in work teams from a perspective that focuses on:

What aspect of the expert influence approach leads to better group decisions?

What concept explains the motivation loss that occurs when group members exert less effort when working in a group compared to when working alone?

Which theory suggests that people are motivated to perform upward social comparisons and compare themselves with others who are slightly better than themselves?

What type of loss contributes to the Ringelmann effect, where the actual group performance is below its potential performance?

In the context of social comparison theory, when is a person likely to compete with a co-actor who is performing slightly better?

What is the term used to define the reduction of effort when working in a group compared to working alone?

What does the social comparison theory propose motivates people to compare their performance with similar others?

What type of loss occurs when group members exert less effort in a group setting compared to when they are working individually?

How does low self-efficacy affect performance according to the provided text?

What is the main focus of the expert influence approach in group expertise?

How does the status characteristics theory contribute to explaining group expertise processes?

What are the two types of status cues mentioned in the text?

What is a common misconception that leads to poor identification of experts in groups?

What determines the increase in performance expectations from others towards a person?

How does the distributive knowledge approach suggest group decision quality can be improved?

What are the mediation hypotheses formed based on according to the text?

According to findings, what helps groups better identify expert members over time?

How does the status characteristics theory suggest decision quality increases in groups?

What aspect of the transactive memory approach enhances task performance in groups?

In the context of group expertise, what do specific status cues relate to?

3

What do social interactions help people learn about, according to the text?

Why is it important to recognize and utilize expertise within a group, as mentioned in the text?

What role do job-related and social-category characteristics play in varying status relations between groups, according to the text?

What distinguishes the social facilitation effect according to Cottrel et al.?

What does Distraction Conflict Theory suggest as the reason behind social facilitation and inhibition?

In Self-efficacy theory, what is efficacy expectancy related to?

According to Sanna, what outcomes are associated with the presence of others?

What leads to facilitation of simple responses and impairment of complex responses according to Distraction Conflict Theory?

What distinguishes Self-efficacy theory from Distraction Conflict Theory regarding the effects of others' presence?

What is the main difference between Social Facilitation effect and Distraction Conflict Theory?

What does Self-efficacy theory distinguish between to understand behavior outcomes?

What is the main focus of Lam et al.'s study on interpersonal harming in work teams?

How does Lam et al.'s study contribute to workplace research?

What does Lam et al.'s study address regarding harmful behavior directed within work teams?

What is the key contribution of Lam et al.'s study to workplace research?

How does Lam et al.'s study differ from previous research on interpersonal harming according to the text?

What perspective does Lam et al.'s study offer on intragroup influence and harmful behavior?

How does Lam et al.'s study challenge common perspectives on influencing groups according to the text?

In Lam et al.'s study, what is considered a boundary condition for the role of social comparison processes in interpersonal harming?

'Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams' primarily focuses on which aspect of team dynamics?

Explain the relationship between group members and group tasks in determining group performance.

What are the two types of loss that can occur in group processes?

How is actual performance calculated according to the text?

What determines the potential performance of a group?

What are the dimensions of the framework for group performance described in the text?

According to the status characteristics theory, what are the two different types of status cues mentioned in the text?

What are the three theoretical implications discussed in the text regarding the influence of job-related and social-category characteristics on status relations in groups?

How does the status characteristics theory guide group expertise processes?

What complicates the process of identifying and utilizing members' expertise in groups, according to the text?

In what scenario are social facilitation effects more likely to occur, as mentioned in the text?

What combinations of social comparison lead to positive effects according to the text?

What combinations of social comparison lead to negative effects according to the text?

What term is used to define a team-level construct reflecting members' shared belief that their individual goals are positively interdependent?

What can lead to less interpersonal harming within highly cooperative team goals according to the text?

What is expected to result in interpersonal harming because it leads to a so-called identity threat?

What are the joint moderators that were found to influence the relationship between social comparison and interpersonal harming in team member dyads?

In what type of teams did the relationship between upwards comparison and interpersonal harming become negative when the actor expects high future performance similarity?

Where was a significant portion of the variance in interpersonal harming behavior found to be located?

What theoretical concept did this study use to provide new insights on the psychological processes that lead to interpersonal harming?

What percentage of the variance in interpersonal harming behavior was attributed to members' dyadic relations?