INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES

Knowledge of Partners Ability as a Moderator of Group Motivation

Gains: An Exploration of the Kohler Discrepancy Effect

Lawrence A. Messe Guido Hertel

Michigan State University University of Kiel

Norbert L. Kerr, Robert B. Lount, Jr., and Ernest S. Park

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Michigan State University

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

O. Kohler (1926, 1927) found that less able performers tried harder as team members under conjunctive
task demands (Kohler motivation gain effect) and that the greatest gain occurred with moderately
discrepant coworker abilities (Kohler discrepancy effect). Recent investigations have reproduced
Kohlers overall motivation gain but not the discrepancy effect. The present research examined whether
workers foreknowledge of task abilitiespresent in Kohlers research, absent in contemporary studies
moderates the discrepancy effect. Participants worked alone or in 2-person teams under conjunctive task
demands. Experiment 1 manipulated foreknowledge of ability. Experiment 2 manipulated discrepancy:
a (confederate) teammate performed slightly, moderately, or substantially better. Both experiments found
(a) overall motivation gains and (b) discrepancy moderation under foreknowledge conditions. Implica-
tions for understanding group motivation gains are discussed.

About 75 years ago, Otto Kohler provided the very first reports
of group motivation gains in controlled experimental studies
(Kohler, 1926, 1927). Kohlers findings indicated that members of
a Berlin rowing club tended to work harder at a physical persis-
tence task when performing as part of a (two- or three-person)
team than when working individuallya phenomenon that
has been termed the Kohler motivation gain effect (Hertel, Kerr,
Scheffler, Geister, & Messe, 2000). This effect stands in stark
contrast to more frequently demonstrated group motivation losses
(e.g., social loafing; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979), whereby
Lawrence A. Messe, Norbert L. Kerr, Robert B. Lount, Jr., and Ernest
S. Park, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University; Guido
Hertel, Department of Psychology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation
Grant BCS-9974664 to Lawrence A. Messe and Norbert L. Kerr and
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Postdoctoral Grant He 2745/1-1/2 to
Guido Hertel. Parts of the reported research were presented at the meeting
of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, February 1999,
Nashville, Tennessee. We thank Eric Bachman, Leah Brzezinski, Dayle
Jackson, Thomas McDonald, and Dawn Peevers for their help with this
research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Law-
rence A. Messe, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1117 or to Guido Hertel, University of Kiel,
Institut fur Psychologie, Olshausenstrasse 40, D-24 098 Kiel, Germany.
E-mail: messe@msu.edu or hertel@psychologie.uni-kiel.de
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, Vol. 82, No. 6, 935946
Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/02/$5.00
people tend to try less hard when working together than when
working alone (cf. Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000).
Two features of Kohlers (1926, 1927) motivation gain results
are particularly noteworthy. First, although this was not stressed by
Kohler explicitly, in his group trials it was virtually impossible for
the stronger coworker to continue working at the task after the
weaker coworker had stopped. Thus, Kohlers teams were per-
forming what was later termed a conjunctive task (Steiner, 1972),
in which a group can do no better than its least capable member.
As such, the effort increases that Kohler observed on the group
trials were due to motivation gains in the less able coworkers.
Subsequent research suggests that the conjunctive nature of
Kohlers (1926, 1927) task is a crucial feature of this work context,
and, as such, it differentiates his effect from social facilitation,
another type of potential motivation gain (Triplett, 1898; Zajonc,
1965). In social facilitation, the mere presence of others (as coac-
tors or an audience) can motivate individuals to try harder. Re-
search indicates, however, that the motivation gains that the
weaker coworker on a conjunctive task displays are not due to the
mere presence of others and, thus, are not a product of social
facilitation. For example, Hertel, Kerr, and Messe (2000, Experi-
ment 2) found that the less able worker tried significantly harder
under conjunctive task demands than under additive task demands,
even though exactly the same number of people were present in
both conditions.
It should be noted that task conjunctivityalong with the co-
workers differential abilitiesalso distinguishes the Kohler effect
DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.935

935
 936 MESSE, HERTEL, KERR, LOUNT, AND PARK
from social compensation (e.g., Williams & Karau, 1991), a third
type of potential motivation gains. In contrast to the Kohler mo-
tivation gain effect, in which the weaker coworker shows increased
effort under conjunctive task demands, in social compensation,
under additive task demands a more able coworker tries harder in
anticipation of having to make up for the expected poorer perfor-
mance of a weaker colleague.
The second particularly noteworthy feature of Kohlers (1926,
1927) research is that the magnitude of motivation gains was
moderated by how similar versus discrepant coworkers were in
ability, as indicated by how well they performed the task when
working as individuals. Kohlers qualitative observations (con-
firmed by a subsequent polynomial regression analysis of his data;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000) indicated that the motivation gains
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
were maximal when there was a moderate discrepancy (i.e., a ratio
of about 0.7) in the capabilities of the two dyad members. In
contrast, weaker motivation gains apparently occurred when group
members were either nearly equal or very discrepant in their
capabilitiesa phenomenon that has been termed the Kohler dis-
crepancy effect (Hertel, Kerr, Scheffler, et al., 2000).
Kohlers (1926, 1927) research had long gone unnoticed, until it
was rediscovered by Witte (1989). Since then, there have been a
number of attempts to replicate and explain his effects. Although
some of these attempts were not very encouraging with regard to
the replicability and generalizability of Kohlers findings (Stroebe,
Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1996), other, more recent work has been
more promising (e.g., Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000; Hertel, Kerr,
Scheffler, et al., 2000; Lount, Messe, & Kerr, 2000), particularly
with regard to the Kohler motivation gain effect.
In these latter studies, a paradigm was used that incorporated
most of the basic features of Kohlers (1926, 1927) original pro-
cedure but was more efficient and afforded less risk of pain or
injury to participants than did Kohlers task. In this new procedure,
participants held their arms extended above a trip-alarm device for
as long as they felt they could without experiencing undue distress
or risking injury. The researchers made this task more difficult
either by having the workers hold a metal bar or by attaching a
weighted band to their wrist. In the individual condition, the task
ended whenever the participant lowered his or her arm far enough
to trigger the alarm. In the group condition, the task was over when
either of two coworkers did so; thereby, conjunctive task demands
were created that were equivalent to those in Kohlers paradigm.
As noted elsewhere (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000), this new task
provides several advantages over Kohlers (1926, 1927) proce-
dure. Perhaps of most importance, successful performance of the
revised task requires minimal (if not zero) intra- or interindividual
coordination even less than for Kohlers taskand, thus, one
can reasonably assume that effort and output are monotonically
related.
Using this paradigm in five studies (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe,
2000, Experiments 1 and 2; Hertel, Kerr, Scheffler, et al., 2000,
Experiments 1 and 2; Lount et al., 2000), we have examined
peoples performance under both individual and conjunctive task
demands (i.e., in which the less able participants score determined
how well the team did). Across all these studies, we have consis-
tently found significant motivation gains for the weaker coworker,
with average performance increases in group compared with indi-
vidual trials ranging between 10% and 50%.1 However, unlike
Kohlers (1926, 1927) results, none of these experiments found
that motivation gains were moderated by how discrepant the
coworkers were in ability, as indicated by their respective perfor-
mances on individual trials. As such, the Kohler discrepancy effect
has yet to be reliably replicatedalthough other research has
provided some tantalizing hints of its existence (cf. Stroebe et al.,
1996, Experiment 1).
The failure of past work to reliably replicate the Kohler discrep-
ancy effect was disappointing, particularly in light of the pervasive
and robust Kolher motivation gain effect that this research has
yielded. However, we were optimistic that under appropriate con-
ditions, the Kohler discrepancy effect could also be demonstrated.
This optimism in large part was based on the fact that two theo-
retical analyses of Kohlers (1926, 1927) results (Hertel, Kerr, &
Messe, 1999, 2000; Stroebe et al., 1996) each have proposed a
single mechanism to explain both Kohler effectsspecifically, (a)
why the weaker coworker performing under conjunctive task de-
mands would show overall motivation gains, and (b) why these
increases in effort would be greatest when there is a moderate
discrepancy in coworkers ability. It is important to note, however,
that each conceptualization has proposed a different unifying ex-
planatory mechanism.
Hertel, Kerr, and Messe (2000) have proposed an explanatory
framework for understanding both Kohler effects that is consistent
with the well-established Instrumentality Value models of work
performance effects (e.g., Karau & Williams, 2001; Stroebe &
Frey, 1982; Vroom, 1964). In this perspective, for instance, a
weaker workers subjective sense of how important her or his
performance is to the groups successa feeling that is likely to
vary as a function of the work context could be a critical factor
in explaining both Kohler effects. It is plausible that, when work-
ing as an individual, a less capable person could easily sense that
her or his performance is not very important, because other, more
able members could (and probably would) continue to contribute
to the groups success after she or he had stopped. In contrast,
when working as part of a group on a conjunctive task, a less
capable person would sense that, as the weakest link, her or his
performance is very important, as it is clearly the sole determinant
of how well the group would do. And the realization of these
contingencies should motivate the less able person to try harder
when working as a group member under conjunctive task demands
than when working as an individual (i.e., the Kohler motivation
gain effect).
However, it also could be that this overall group motivation gain
is moderated by differences in the weaker coworkers perception
of how instrumental any given increase in effort is likely to be,
relative to the maximum outcome that potentially could be
achieved. When the discrepancy in ability is very small, she or he
could readily perceive that only a little extra effort is necessary to
promote the maximum possible group success, given the slightly
stronger coworkers presumed capability. When the discrepancy is
very large, the much less able coworker could plausibly perceive
that any increase in effort that she or he could realistically muster
would result in a group score that is only a fraction of what could
have been achieved had the much stronger partner been paired
1
Note as well that Hertel, Deter, and Konradt (2001) generated similar
motivation gains when team members worked conjunctively on a cognitive
task through a computer network.
 KNOWLEDGE OF ABILITY AND MOTIVATION GAINS
with someone more closely matched in ability. In either circum-
stance (i.e., if the discrepancy in coworkers abilities is either
slight or very large), the motivation to try harder should be
reduced. In contrast, when the discrepancy in ability is moderate,
the somewhat weaker team member could very likely perceive that
a concerted but achievable increase in effort would produce an
outcome that is reasonably close to the maximum possible, given
the partners ability level. Therefore, moderate ability discrepancy
would promote the greatest motivation gain (the Kohler discrep-
ancy effect).2
Stroebe, Diehl, and Abakoumkin (1996) have proposed a dif-
ferent mechanism to explain both Kohler effects: the extent to
which the weaker coworker uses the more able partners perfor-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mance as a goal-setting or goal-comparison reference (cf. Harkins
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
& Petty, 1982; Locke & Latham, 1990). In this framework, work-
ers are assumed to be somewhat uncertain about what constitutes
appropriate effort and, thus, are inclined to use how well their
partner performs as a basis for gauging or refining what their own
efforts should be. In Kohlers (1926, 1927) context as well as most
other types of group performance settings, such a mechanism
should lead to increased effort in the weaker coworker (i.e., the
Kohler motivation gain effect) as a consequence of the higher
performance goal that upward social comparison to the better
coworker generates.3
However, the degree of discrepancy in the abilities of the
stronger and weaker coworker should affect goal comparison and,
thus, moderate the magnitude of the latters motivation gain (the
Kohler discrepancy effect). A small difference in ability is likely to
produce only a small increase in the height of the goal and, thus,
generate only a small motivation gain. Both the change in goal and
the resulting increase in motivation gain should be markedly
greater when the difference in ability is moderate. In contrast,
consistent with the idea that unrealistic goals can undermine mo-
tivation (Hinsz, 1995), when the discrepancy in abilities is large,
the weaker coworker is likely to reject the much better partners
performance as a viable standard of comparison and, thus, increase
effort to a much smaller extent.
Although both explanations are reasonably plausible, it is clear
that any utility they may have as bases for understanding the
Kohler discrepancy effect is moot if the effect itself cannot be
reliably produced. To do so, then, is the goal of the present
research.
We reasoned that if the Kohler discrepancy effect is, in fact, a
real phenomenon, then the failure to replicate it in our past at-
tempts to study motivation gains (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000;
Hertel, Kerr, Scheffler, et al., 2000; Lount et al., 2000) was likely
due to the specific procedures that we used. It is likely that these
procedures lacked one or more conditions that are necessary for
motivation gains to be moderated by the magnitude of the discrep-
ancy in the coworkers abilities. Thus, in the two studies presented
in this article, we sought to identify conditions, absent from our
earlier work, whose incorporation into the experimental context
would produce the pattern of discrepancy moderation that Kohler
(1926, 1927) first observed.
In our earlier work, we developed a feasible method for studying
motivation gains under conjunctive task demands that retained
many of the features of Kohlers (1926, 1927) original paradigm
(see Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000, pp. 585586, for a detailed
summary of these features). However, in doing so, we omitted
937
from our procedures an aspect of Kohlers research context that
may be necessary for generating discrepancy moderation: partici-
pants well-established knowledge of one anothers task ability.
Recall that Kohlers (1926, 1927) participants were members of
a rowing club. As such, they trained together several times a week
(cf. Kohler, 1926), competed together against other clubs, and so
forth. Over the course of sharing these experiences, it is highly
likely that each of these individuals came to have a firm sense of
his own and his fellow club members capacity to persist at
physical activity. In contrast, the participants in our earlier re-
search were strangers to each other. Moreover, they never were
given feedback about either their own or their fellow participants
past task performance, and they worked as members of a team with
a specific other person for only one or two trials. Thus, they could
have acquired, at most, only a vague sense of relative ability.
We suggest that definite knowledge of ability differences may
be necessary for discrepancy moderation to occur. It is difficult to
see how ability differences could moderate motivation gains with-
out a firm understanding in less able participants that their own
capacity to perform the task is about equal to, moderately lower
than, or much lower than their teammates. At most, the brief
group experiences that participants in our past studies (e.g., Hertel,
Kerr, & Messe, 2000; Lount et al., 2000) shared with a teammate
could only provide the less able worker with a general sense that
his or her coworker was better, not a knowledge of how much
better. If so, then the failure of this past work to find that ability
discrepancy moderated overall motivation gains is reasonable,
given that none of these investigations provided participants with
such specific ability information. In contrast, as noted above, it is
likely that the rowing club members who were the participants in
Kohlers (1926, 1927) research were well aware of each others
physical ability, and, on the basis of his results, it appears that their
task performance could have been affected by this knowledge.
Within this framework, the present work investigates the im-
portance of knowledge of ones own and ones coworkers ability
for moderating overall motivation gains. Experiment 1 manipu-
lated knowledge of participants own and their coworkers past
task performance but allowed relative ability to vary naturally;
Experiment 2 systematically manipulated this discrepancy. For
both studies, we predicted that (a) overall, participants would
perform better when paired conjunctively with a stronger partner
than when working alone, which would thereby replicate past
demonstrations of the Kohler motivation gain effect (Hypothesis
1), and (b) when participants had specific knowledge of their
relative abilities, such motivation gains would be moderated by
relative ability differences, with the greatest gain occurring when
capability discrepancy was moderate, versus small or large (Hy-
pothesis 2).
2
This example focuses on one process from an Instrumentality Value
perspective that could underlie the Kohler effects. Elsewhere (e.g., Hertel,
Kerr, & Messe, 1999, pp. 330 331), we discuss, within the same theoret-
ical perspective, some other processes that could also be involved.
3
Some research (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000) has yielded findings that
are inconsistent with this goal-comparison explanation of the Kohler mo-
tivation gain effect. However, as we discuss below, it remains a plausible
explanation of the Kohler discrepancy effect, as its utility in this regard has
yet to be examined empirically.
 938 MESSE, HERTEL, KERR, LOUNT, AND PARK
Experiment 1
For the reasons discussed above, when participants were aware
of their relative capabilities, we expected an overall motivation
gain by the weaker worker that would be moderated by the
discrepancy in coworkers abilities. More specifically, in this
circumstance, we predicted that, as Kohler (1926, 1927) found, the
highest motivation gains would occur under conditions of moder-
ate capability discrepancy. In contrast, we predicted that, as in past
studies (e.g., Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000), no such moderation of
motivation gains would occur when the (weaker) participant had
no direct knowledge of dyad members relative capabilities.
Method
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Participants. Eighty-four female undergraduate students at Michigan
State University participated in this study in partial fulfillment of a course
requirement. We recruited only women to take part because (a) there were
considerably more women in the potential participant pool and (b) our past
work (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000, Experiment 1), in which female and
male participants were examined in same-sex teams, yielded no evidence
of sex effects. Two male experimenters conducted all sessions.
Design. The experiment used a 2 (task condition: individual control vs.
conjunctive dyad) 2 (performance feedback: no vs. yes) 2 (performing
arm: dominant vs. nondominant) 2 (trials: first vs. second with a given
arm) design, with the two last factors being within-subject variables. Four
participants took part in a session. Each session was assigned randomly to
one of the four between-subject conditions. As a result, there were 16
participants in the individual task/no performance feedback condition, 16
in the individual task/performance feedback condition, 28 in the conjunc-
tive dyad/no performance feedback condition, and 24 in the conjunctive
dyad/performance feedback condition. The dependent variable was the
difference between task performance in the dyadic and the individual trials
for a given arm, measured in terms of the time that a participant persisted
in holding the bar above the trip rod.
Procedure. Prior to each session, an experimenter made sure that none
of the participants had any disabling arm, shoulder, or back injuries.
Participants were also asked to put their watches and any other wrist
jewelry in their pocket or purse until the end of the session. The experi-
menter next distributed name tags printed with the identifying letters AD
to participants while he explained to them that they would be a 4-woman
team. Participants wrote their name on their tag and fixed it on their blouse.
We took these steps to maximize feelings of group identification (cf.
Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000; see also Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio,
1989).
Participants were informed that their task would be to hold a metal bar
above a trip bar for as long as they felt comfortable in doing so. This task
was cast as a means of comparing the persistence of men and women at
physical work. Therefore, the average performance of 4-person male teams
ostensibly would be compared with the average performance of 4-person
female teams. Participants were also told that to adjust for differences in
mean body strength, different weights, pretested for equivalence, were
being used for male and female teams so that the task would be equally
difficult for the average man and woman. They were further told that they
would be performing this task over a series of trials (the exact number was
not disclosed).
We offered financial incentives to perform well by telling participants
that all teams (including theirs) would earn a point for every second each
team member held her or his bar up, and, for one lucky team chosen at
random, the point total would be converted to money at a rate of 5 per
point (up to a maximum of $160) to be distributed equally to the team
members. Moreover, to further increase interest in doing welland to
heighten the salience of the cover storywe told participants that a 15%
bonus would be added to this teams earnings if the average performance
of the teams of their sex turned out to be greater than the average
performance of teams of the other sex.4
Teams were randomly assigned to either the individual or the conjunc-
tive group conditions. In the individual condition, participants were told
that on Trial 1, 2 members, selected at random, would be performing in
separate rooms, while their remaining teammates rested (also in separate
rooms). Then, on Trial 2, the performer and rester roles would be switched,
and so on, until the end of the session. A performers score would be the
total number of seconds between the start of the trial and when your arm
hits a flexiglas [i.e., fiberglass] bar. And, we will sum up all the scores
on all the trials today to come up with a total team score.
In the conjunctive group condition, the experimenter explained the same
Trial 1 and Trial 2 procedure as in the individual condition. He then went
on to state that on Trial 3, the pair that had worked separately in Trial 1
would be put in the same room to perform together as a dyad, whose score
would be the total number of seconds between the start of the trial and
when either persons arm hits a flexiglas bar. That is, when either persons
arm hits her flexiglas bar, the trial is over for the dyad. Similarly, the pair
who had performed separately in Trial 2 would then work together in a
dyad in Trial 4. This pattern of alteration of individual and dyad trials
would be repeated until the session was over. As in the individual condi-
tion, participants were informed that the total team score would be the sum
of all the trial scores.
The trials were conducted according to a fixed schedule (see Table 1)
that was the same for every session. Which experimenter worked in which
room was alternated across experimental sessions. Participants were as-
signed randomly to the letter roles of the schedule. Order of performing
arm was counterbalanced across all conditions; in the conjunctive condi-
tion, order of individual and group trials was held constant. Half the
participants performed their initial and second trials with their dominant
arm, the other half with their nondominant arm (see Table 1). The third and
fourth performance trials for each participant repeated the conditions of the
first two trials, but the participant now performed the task with her other
arm (again, see Table 1).
In the feedback conditions, just before a pair of participants worked on
the task for the second time, the experimenter announced to both how long
(in seconds) each, performing in separate rooms, had persisted at working
on the previous trial as well as the discrepancy between the two scores.
Such feedback was also given at the equivalent point in the second
sequence of trials, when the pair worked at the task with their other arm.
Thus, in the group conditions, previous individual performance informa-
tion was provided to both members of a participant pair just before they
began working together on the (now conjunctive) task. In the individual
conditions, each received this feedback (about her own and a teammates
previous performance) just before she once again, in a separate room,
performed the task alone. In contrast, no performance information of any
kind was given to participants in the no-feedback conditionsthereby
reproducing the procedure that we followed in past studies.
As noted above, 2 participants performed their Trial 1 task while their
teammates waited to take their turn, each in a separate room. Then, the
original pair of performers waited (and rested) while their teammates now
performed Trial 2. This alternation of one pair performing then resting while
their teammate pair performed was repeated until every participant had worked
at the task four times (twice with each arm), as illustrated in Table 1.
Results
Performance in the individual condition. First, we analyzed
the performance times in the individual conditions to ascertain and
later adjust for fatigue effects in later trials. Moreover, we explored
4
One team was, in fact, chosen at random, and team members were
actually paid according to this scheme. To be fair, as there were no male
teams, we also included the 15% bonus in the chosen teams pay.
 KNOWLEDGE OF ABILITY AND MOTIVATION GAINS
Table 1
Trial Schedule of Experiment 1
Individual condition Dyad condition
Trial and arm Room 1 Room 2 Room 1 Room 2
1. dom. A B A B
2. n.d. D C D C
3. dom. B A A, B
4. n.d. C D C, D
5. n.d. A B B A
6. dom. C D C D
7. n.d. B A A, B
8. dom. D C C, D
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Note: Letters AD stand for the 4 participants in each session. Nonper-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
forming persons in each trial were waiting in an additional room. dom.
dominant arm; n.d. nondominant arm.
whether feedback of participants own and others performance
scores per se affected the performance times. Also, we tested
whether the kind of performing arm (dominant or nondominant) or
the order of performing arms during the four trials had effects on
participants performance. Recall that participants performed with
the same arm on their first two performance trials, with a rest
period between them (Trial Block 1), and then performed the two
following trials with the other arm, again with a rest period in
between (Trial Block 2).
The change in task performance across trials (i.e., second per-
formance trial time first performance trial time) was examined
with a 2 (performance feedback) 2 (order of performing
arms) 2 (performing arm) 2 (repetition: first vs. second
performance trial per block) analysis of variance (ANOVA), with
repeated measures on the last two factors. This analysis yielded
two significant main effects: for repetition, F(1, 28) 29.27, p
.001; and for arm, F(1, 28) 10.61, p .01. The significant
repetition effect reflected fatigue. Performance times on the first
trial in each block (M 199.2 s, SD 45.0) were significantly
longer than on the second (M 166.4 s, SD 39.4). The effect
of the arm indicated that participants performed better with their
dominant arm (M 199.2 s, SD 33.4) than their nondominant
arm (M 174.8 s, SD 40.3). However, the Repetition Arm
interaction was not significant (F 1), which suggests that the
fatigue effect was similar across arms. Also, no significant main
effect for the order factor or the Repetition Order interaction
occurred (Fs 1). This lack of moderation of fatigue effects by
performing arm or order of performing arms is consistent with
similar results of earlier research that used the same task (e.g.,
Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000; Hertel, Kerr, Scheffler, et al., 2000).
The ANOVA also yielded a marginally significant main effect
for performance feedback, F(1, 28) 3.01, p .10, which
suggests that feedback may have improved performance. Scores
were somewhat higher (M 193.1, SD 36.4) when participants
were told (within each block) their own and their fellow team-
mates earlier performance times just prior to beginning their
second trial than when no feedback was given (M 172.4,
SD 30.0). However, the Feedback Repetition interaction was
not significant (F 0.1), which suggests similar fatigue effects in
both experimental conditions.
On the basis of these results, for the individual-condition data,
we computed the ratio of performance on the first trial to perfor-
939
mance on the second trial across arms and feedback conditions as
an index of fatigue. We then corrected for fatigue in the conjunc-
tive task conditions by multiplying the second trial scores of
participants in these conditions by this value (1.197).5
Overall motivation gains. Consistent with past work (e.g.,
Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000), we calculated the conjunctive dif-
ference score (CDS) as an index of group motivation effects (gains
or losses) in the conjunctive dyad conditions. This score is the
difference (in seconds) between a dyads fatigue-corrected perfor-
mance score and the lower of the 2 dyad members individual
performance scores. For example, suppose Participant A, when
working alone, had persisted at the task for 180 s, whereas Par-
ticipant B had persisted for 264 s. Moreover, their (fatigue-
corrected) performance score when working together as a dyad
under conjunctive task demands was 225 s. This dyads CDS
would be 45 s (i.e., 225 180).6 In the individual control condi-
tions, we were able to define a pseudodyad CDS score that was just
the difference between the lower of the two corrected scores of the
individuals on their second testing and the lower score of those
same two individuals on their initial testing. These pseudodyad
CDS scores in the individual-control conditions provide an empir-
ical baseline against which to compare performance in the con-
junctive conditions. Trials with the dominant and the nondominant
arm were treated as independent cases, as in 11 out of 41 dyads the
weaker person was not the same across the trial blocks.7
A 2 (individual vs. conjunctive task) 2 (performance feed-
back) ANOVA of CDS scores yielded a significant main effect for
the first factor, F(1, 79) 10.43, p .002.8 Performance on the
(fatigue-corrected) second trial for each arm was significantly
higher when participants worked conjunctively in a team (M
36 s, SD 51.9) than in the individual baseline conditions
5
This value is very similar to those found and used as fatigue-correction
factors in earlier research that used the same experimental task (e.g.,
Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000; Hertel, Kerr, Scheffler, et al., 2000).
6
It is possible that there were a few instances in which, when the
participants were working together, the dyad member who had the better
individual performance score quit first and, thus, was the one responsible
for ending the group trial. To the extent that this may have happened,
however, it would have caused the CDS to underestimate the previously
weaker coworkers willingness to persist (past the point at which her
coworker quit). Therefore, at worst, this index can be considered an
estimate of the lower bound of the actual Kohler motivation gain effect.
7
Note that separate analyses for each trial block yielded equivalent
results. See the Results and Discussion section of Experiment 2 for a more
detailed presentation of these findings.
8
A first screening of the discrepancy data revealed one extreme outlier
case in the first trial block of the group condition with feedback. In this
case, the discrepancy score (329 s) was more than three standard deviations
(SD 78.0) above average (M 72.0 s). Because the discrepancy of the
participants in this dyad was much smaller in the second trial block with
the other arm (183 s), this might suggest that, in the first trial, the weaker
participant was somehow distracted by unsystematic influences. Thus, we
excluded this case from further analyses. (Omission of this case did not
change the significance of the general Kohler motivation gain effect.) No
such outlier was observed in the other group or individual conditions. (The
outlier status of the one omitted case was even clearer when the analysis
was computed not within each experimental condition but across all four
conditions, resulting in a mean discrepancy of 58.0 s and a standard
deviation of 54.0.)
 940 MESSE, HERTEL, KERR, LOUNT, AND PARK
(M 0.0 s, SD 38.8). Thus, as predicted (Hypothesis 1), we
replicated the Kohler motivation gain effect.
Feedback per se (i.e., whether participants received information
relevant to their relative abilities, without taking into account the
magnitude of this discrepancy) did not affect overall motivation
gain, as neither its main effect nor the interaction with task demand
(individual vs. conjunctive) even approached significance (both
Fs 1). In the conjunctive condition in which participants re-
ceived feedback about their own and their partners capability, the
weaker participants performance increased about 24.8% over their
efforts during the individual trials. When participants did not
receive feedback, the increase of the weaker persons performance
was about 22.1%. However, these findings do not address the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
impact on group motivation gains of knowing specific discrepan-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cies of varying magnitude, which is the focus of Hypothesis 2. We
now turn to analyses that explore this issue.
Relationship between member ability discrepancy and motiva-
tion gain. We calculated magnitude of discrepancy by subtract-
ing, for a particular arm, the worse of the 2 dyad members
first-trial performance score from the other, better first-trial score.
Recall that on these trials (two per pair; see Table 1) participants
always worked as individuals in separate rooms. To explore
whether workers discrepancy in ability, as reflected by these
scores, moderated the extent of motivation gains in the conjunctive
conditions, we computed within each condition sets of linear and
nonlinear correlations between the ability discrepancy index and
the CDS measure.
In the individual control without feedback condition, the linear
correlation between discrepancy and CDS appeared to be substan-
tial, r(14) .54. However, as Hertel, Kerr, and Messe (2000)
showed, regression-to-the-mean effects alone tend to produce an
apparent positive correlation between the discrepancy in dyad
members individual performance scores and their subsequent
dyad score. Moreover, a previous Monte Carlo simulation based
on similar experimental conditions (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000)
estimated that the mean correlation due to regression-to-the-mean
Figure 1. Motivation gain scores (fatigue corrected) in no-knowledge condition as a function of coworkers
first-trial ability discrepancy.
effects is .29, with a 95% confidence interval of .15 r .66.
Thus, the observed correlation in this condition appears to fall well
within the limits of sampling error. Moreover, polynomial regres-
sion analysis indicated that higher order, nonlinear components did
not explain more variance (quadratic model: R2 .31; adjusted
R2 .20; the latter adjusted for sample size and number of
predictors) than did the simple linear model (R2 .29; adjusted
R2 .24). These results indicate that in this condition, there was
little, if any, actual association of any kind between magnitude of
ability discrepancy and (pseudo-) motivation gaina reasonable
result, given that these participants always worked alone in sepa-
rate locales and never received any feedback on their own or their
teammates performance.
A very similar pattern occurred in the individual control with
feedback condition. Here, too, the linear correlation was moder-
ately high, r(14) .47, but well within the estimated limits of
chance. And, once again, higher order effects did not explain more
variance (quadratic model: R2 .22; adjusted R2 .10) than did
the simple linear model (R2 .21; adjusted R2 .16). Thus, it
appears that for participants who worked alone, specific knowl-
edge of their own and a teammates abilities did not moderate task
performance in the subsequent (individual) work trial.
A similar analysis of the scores from the conjunctive group
without feedback condition once again yielded a positive apparent
correlation between discrepancy and the motivation gain index,
although this time the coefficient was somewhat lower, r(26)
.20. Exploring higher order solutions through polynomial regres-
sion analysis again provided no better fit (quadratic model: R2
.04; adjusted R2 .03) than the simple linear model (R2 .04;
adjusted R2 .00). (See Figure 1, which shows the best fit
regression line for this data set.) Thus, similar to the pattern in the
individual control conditions, there was no indication of a reliable
linear or curvilinear moderation of motivation gains by discrep-
ancy in coworkers abilities. These results mirror the findings of
our earlier work (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000), as they also fail to
 KNOWLEDGE OF ABILITY AND MOTIVATION GAINS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 2. Motivation gain scores (fatigue corrected) in knowledge condition as a function of coworkers
first-trial ability discrepancy.
replicate the connection between discrepancy and motivation gain
that Kohler (1926, 1927) had observed.
However, as predicted by Hypothesis 2, evidence of this mod-
eration occurred for the conjunctive group condition when ability
feedback was given. Although this condition did not generate the
typical, apparently robust linear correlation between discrepancy
and the motivation gain index, r(22) .09, n 0.23, ns (R2 .00;
adjusted R2 .04), a quadratic solution improved the amount of
explained variance considerably (R2 .20; adjusted R2 .12; no
further improvement by a cubic solution), generating significant
beta weights for both the linear and the quadratic component (B
1.54, p 0.04, and B 1.51, p 0.04, respectively).9 As
shown in Figure 2, the curvilinear regression function showed the
inverted-U pattern that our hypothesis predicted. These results
suggest that knowledge of the relative capability within a group is
indeed a precondition for the Kohler discrepancy effect to occur.
Discussion
The primary goal of this study is to explore the possibility that
past lack of success in replicating Kohlers (1926, 1927)
inverted-U pattern of group motivation gains was due to research
participants not possessing some vital informationspecific and
reliable knowledge about each others performance ability be-
fore they worked together. It is almost certain that Kohlers par-
ticipants (members of the same rowing club who exercised, prac-
ticed, and competed together) had such knowledge. In contrast, in
our past work, participants were never given any feedback about
anyones (their own, their coworkers, their teammates) individ-
ual performance, so they had no valid way of even estimating
relative abilities before a dyad trial began.
On the basis of this difference, we predicted that participants
knowledge of their own and coworkers ability would moderate
the pattern of groups motivation gains: lack of knowledge would
yield the apparent linear relationship between ability discrepancy
and the weaker members effort (attributable to a regression-to-
941
the-mean artifact) that our past work found; knowledge would
yield maximum increases in the weaker members effort when
there was a moderate discrepancy, the pattern that Kohler (1926,
1927) had found. The results of Experiment 1 support this predic-
tion and, in doing so, identify a necessary condition for generating
the Kohler discrepancy moderation effect.
Experiment 1 also replicates our past demonstrations of
Kohlers (1926, 1927) overall motivation gain effect (e.g., Hertel,
Deter, & Konradt, 2001; Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000; Hertel,
Kerr, Scheffler, et al., 2000; Lount et al., 2000). Once again, across
differences in relative ability, it was generally the case that the
weaker person tried harder when teamed with a more capable
coworker than when performing as an individual. Therefore, the
results of Experiment 1 basically reproduce the pattern of perfor-
mance that Kohler had foundan overall motivation gain that was
maximal when the discrepancy in coworkers relative ability was
moderate but only when participants had foreknowledge of each
others task ability. In contrast, in the absence of such foreknowl-
edge, Experiment 1 findings reproduce the seemingly linear rela-
tionship between discrepancy and motivation gains that our past
investigations (e.g., Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000) consistently
generated.
It is important to note that in both this experiment and Kohlers
(1926, 1927) original investigations (as well as in other studies;
e.g., Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000), discrepancy in ability had to be
somewhat confounded by absolute ability. Given that chance de-
termines who is paired with whom, it is much more probable that
the weaker member of a dyad will be markedly low in absolute
ability when ability discrepancy is large than when it is small. In
other words, the less able the weaker member is, the larger the
difference in the relative ability of the dyad members is likely to
be. It is possible, then, that this natural connection between abso-
lute and relative ability was responsible for at least a part of the
9
Centering the predictor variable yielded very similar findings.
 942 MESSE, HERTEL, KERR, LOUNT, AND PARK
discrepancy moderation effect that Kohler and we (in the ability
feedback condition) found.
For instance, it could be that participants who are truly low in
ability cannot increase their actual performance much, even if
highly motivated to do so. If so, then the apparent lower motiva-
tion gain seen in high-discrepancy dyads is a consequence of the
greater frequency with which low-ability participants fell into this
condition. In any event, to determine whether the Kohler discrep-
ancy moderation effect occurs independently of the weaker dyad
members absolute ability, we conducted Experiment 2, in which
we experimentally manipulated (apparent) relative ability indepen-
dently of participants absolute ability.
Manipulating ability discrepancy in this second study also al-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
lows us to address another issue that Experiment 1 left unresolved.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Recall that, as in past studies (e.g., Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000),
we constructed the CDS index of motivation gain in Experiment 1
by subtracting the lower of the two individual performance scores
from the dyad score. As we noted above (see Footnote 6), this
procedure, at worst, underestimates the actual Kohler motivation
gain effect to the extent that at least some dyad scores were a
consequence of the previously more capable coworker (rather than
her previously weaker partner) quitting first. But, given that they
would lead to underestimation of actual motivation gain in the
weaker coworker, such possible dyad performance outcomes also
had potential relevance for interpreting the effects of ability dis-
crepancy that we found in Experiment 1, particularly if the mag-
nitude of the underestimation differed as a function of discrepancy.
For instance, if such events occurred more frequently when
individual ability scores were either very similar or very dissimilar,
compared with when they were moderately discrepant, then actual
motivation gains would be underestimated and thus appear to be
lower, in precisely those conditions in Experiment 1 (and Kohler,
1926, 1927) that yielded lower motivation gain scores. Although
such a scenario is highly unlikely for those dyads in which there
was a large discrepancy in individual ability scores, it possibly
could have occurred with some frequency when dyad members
were more evenly matched. In Experiment 2, however, we used a
procedure that ensured that all participants had a lower individual
performance score than their dyad partner and that they always
were the person who was responsible for ending the dyad trial (by
quitting first). As such, in this study, any observed performance
increases should reflect, with reasonable accuracy, actual motiva-
tion gains in the weaker coworker.
Experiment 2
In this study, we first had all participants engage in the weighted
raised-arm persistence task as individuals. To obtain a potential
productivity baseline that reflected the effects of fatigue on per-
formance, we then had some (individual control) participants do so
again. We paired others with a confederate who had been carefully
trained to appear very slightly better, moderately better, or much
better at the task. We also provided participants with false feed-
back about individual performances, prior to a dyad trial, that was
consistent with the (apparently) stronger coworkers subsequent
actions. As in Experiment 1, we predicted that (a) across dyad
conditions, participants would work harder as (weaker) coworkers
than as individuals, thereby once again replicating the Kohler
overall motivation gain effect; and (b) these motivation gains
would be greatest when there appeared to be a moderate difference
in the coworkers relative ability, thereby replicating the Kohler
discrepancy effect.
Method
Participants. Sixty-three female undergraduates at Michigan State
University participated in the study. As in Experiment 1, by taking part in
this research they received credit toward fulfillment of a research require-
ment in their introductory psychology course. At least 3 weeks prior to
taking part in the study, participants had completed an apparently uncon-
nected interests and skills survey on which one item asked them to rate
themselves (using a 5-point scale) on how physically strong they were.
Overview and design. Participants were randomly assigned to either an
individual control condition or one of three dyad conditions in which
participants worked together with a (seemingly) very slightly, moderately,
or much stronger partner. Individual control participants performed the
weighted raised-arm persistence task alone, in separate rooms, for four
trials, alternating between their dominant and nondominant arms. Partici-
pants in the dyad conditions also first performed the task individually, once
for each arm; then they were paired with a (seemingly) stronger coworker
to perform conjunctively for two trials, again alternating arms. The arm
that participants in both conditions used first (and then again on the third
trial) versus the one they used for the second and fourth trials was
systematically varied. All participants rested for the same amount of time
between each performance trial.
The manipulations reflect an experimental design with the following
factors: 4 (work condition: individual control [n 13]; conjunctivesmall
discrepancy in ability [n 16]; conjunctivemoderate discrepancy [n
18]; conjunctivelarge discrepancy [n 16]) 2 (arm use order: domi-
nant first vs. nondominant first) 2 (same-arm trial set: Trials 1 and 3 vs.
Trials 2 and 4; a repeated measure).
Procedure. The procedure was essentially the same as that used in
Experiment 1, with the following notable exceptions:
1. Instead of having participants hold a weighted bar, we attached a
commercial weight bracelet basically a broad strip of vinyl cloth with
numerous pockets (for housing metal weight rods) and a velcro fas-
tenerto their appropriate wrist. For actual participants, the bracelet,
including the metal rods attached to it, weighed 0.8 kg. For the confeder-
ates (three female undergraduate assistants who had been carefully trained
to enact the role of the coworker in the dyad conditions), the metal weights
had been replaced with much lighter pseudoweightssegments of wooden
dowels of the same length that had been painted black to closely resemble
the actual metal rods. As such, their bracelet was light enough to permit
them to last as long as necessary and, thus, perform appropriately for each
discrepancy condition.
2. As noted above, all participants performed individually in both
Trial 1 and Trial 2. Those assigned to the individual control conditions
merely repeated this sequence (with an appropriate rest period in between).
Before Trials 3 and 4, they were given performance feedback for the earlier
trial with the same arm for both themselves and a teammate in another
room; their own score was veridical, whereas their teammates score was
always about 1.4 times better than theirs had been.10
For participants in the dyad conditions, a fellow teammate (actually a
confederate) was brought to their room after Trial 2, so that they could then
work together on Trials 3 and 4. At this point, these participants were given
conjunctive task instructions, as in Experiment 1, and then informed how
10
To minimize the number of participants that were necessary to con-
duct this study, we decided to provide all the individual controls with the
same moderate-discrepancy feedback. We felt justified in doing so by the
fact that variations in discrepancy information did not affect performance
in the individual control condition of Experiment 1.
 KNOWLEDGE OF ABILITY AND MOTIVATION GAINS 943

they and their coworker each had performed on Trial 1 (the individual trial
with the same arm as the one they were about to use for Trial 3).
Information about the actual participants Trial 1 score was veridical,
whereas the coworkers score was systematically varied. In the small
discrepancy condition, the feedback indicated that the coworker lasted a
few seconds longer, and the experimenter commented that the 2 of them
had performed just about the same. In the moderate discrepancy condition,
the dyad was informed of the coworkers Trial 1 time, such that it was
always about 1.4 times longer than the actual participants, and the exper-
imenter explicitly noted that the coworker had done moderately better. In
the large discrepancy condition, the coworkers Trial 1 score was stated to
be a time that worked out to be just over twice as long as the actual
participants, and the experimenter remarked that the coworker had done
substantially better. This same procedure was repeated before Trial 4, with
dyad members now being given specific feedback on Trial 2 performances.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The ANOVA also yielded a significant Work Condition Trial
Set interaction, F(3, 55) 3.21, p .03. However, parallel
planned comparisons within each trial set (see Winer, Brown, &
Michels, 1991, pp. 529 531) showed that there were reliable
overall motivation gains in each set, t(110) 2.16 and 3.97, ps
.02, for the first (Trial 3 Trial 1) and second (Trial 4 Trial 2)
trial sets, respectively, but this effect was somewhat stronger for
the latter.
Hypothesis 2: Ability discrepancy moderation. Given that par-
ticipants in the conjunctive conditions were given feedback reflect-
ing three distinct differences in self coworker abilities, we ex-
pected to replicate the results of both Experiment 1 and Kohler
(1926, 1927) by finding the largest motivation gain under moder-

ate discrepancy. The data support this hypothesis in that inspection

3. During the conjunctive task trials, the coworker (confederate) per-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of the average (fatigue-corrected) motivation gain for each dis-

formed in a manner that was congruent with the feedback about her
individual trial performance that the dyad had been given. In the small
discrepancy condition, she basically mimicked the actions of the actual
participantshowing similar signs of fatigue (e.g., lowering her arm a bit
and then raising it back up with difficulty; approaching the trip rod at the
same pace and with the same signs of exertion)with a delay of less than
a second. Of course, in this (as well as the other two discrepancy condi-
tions) the confederate always took care to lower her hand past the trip wire
only after the actual participant had already done so. Therefore, in every
case, the actual participants performance determined the dyad score. In the
moderate discrepancy condition, the confederate displayed somewhat
fewer signs of fatigue, and, when doing so, she delayed showing them for
about 10 15 s after the actual participant had. In the large discrepancy
condition, the confederate displayed few signs of fatigue or stress during
the trial, basically conveying the sense that she could persist substantially
longer than the participant could.
crepancy condition revealed the expected inverted-U pattern
(Ms 49.6 s, 65.0 s, 44.8 s; SDs 48.5, 50.7, 45.1, for the small,
moderate, and large discrepancy conditions, respectively), but only
weakly so, as the planned comparison was just marginally signif-
icant t(55) 1.36, p .09.
However, given the significant Condition Trial Set interaction
noted above, it was appropriate to test Hypothesis 2 separately
within each trial set. These contrasts revealed that the moderation
effect occurred for the second set, t(110) 2.12, p .02, but not
the first, t(110) 0.30, p .40. Figure 3, which presents moti-
vation gain scores separately for each trial set, confirms that the
first set showed no evidence of a discrepancy effect, thereby

Results and Discussion

The second trial first trial (i.e., Trial 3 Trial 1; Trial 4
Trial 2) difference in how long each participant persisted at the
task for each arm (i.e., for each trial set) was used as the index of
performance change (loss or gain). The hypotheses were tested
with planned comparisons conducted within the framework of an
overall 4 (work condition: individual, dyadsmall ability discrep-
ancy, dyadmoderate ability discrepancy, dyadlarge ability dis-
crepancy) 2 (arm use order) 2 (trial set; a repeated measure)
ANOVA of these scores. Specifically, the predicted overall moti-
vation gain was tested with an orthogonal contrast that compared
the individual condition with the three dyad conditions, combined.
The predicted curvilinear discrepancy effect was tested with a
contrast between the moderate-discrepancy condition and the
small- and large-discrepancy conditions, combined.
Hypothesis 1: Overall motivation gain. Replicating past find-
ings, performance change scores (across the two trial sets) showed
a substantial decrease for participants in the individual control
condition (M 30.88 s per set, SD 52.20) and a substantial
increase for participants in the three conjunctive conditions
(M 22.76 s per set, SD 48.08). The planned contrast revealed
that, as predicted, the difference in the two conditions was highly
significant, t(55) 3.34, p .001, reflecting the same pattern of
overall motivation gain that Kohlers (1926, 1927) rowing club
members generated 75 years ago and that we consistently have
found in our investigations (e.g., Hertel et al., 2001; Hertel, Kerr,
& Messe, 2000; Hertel, Kerr, Scheffler, et al., 2000; Lount et al., Figure 3. Motivation gain scores (fatigue corrected) in each trial set as a
2000). function of ability-discrepancy conditions.
 944 MESSE, HERTEL, KERR, LOUNT, AND PARK
mirroring the findings of past work (e.g., Hertel, Kerr, & Messe,
2000; Lount et al., 2000), in which participants were not sure of
relative ability differences when they performed as dyad members.
In contrast, Figure 3 also shows a clear Kohler discrepancy effect
for the second trial set.
Given these results, we went back to the performance data of
Experiment 1 to explore whether the first and the second trial
blocks also produced differences in discrepancy moderation. How-
ever, curvilinear regression analysis of each block separately re-
vealed basically equivalent effects: a marginally significant qua-
dratic solution (B 1.65, p 0.06, and B 1.53, p 0.07 for would then persist in the second dyad trial as well, as the results
the linear and the quadratic component; R2 .30, adjusted R2
.13) occurred in the first trial block, and a very similar pattern
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
occurred for the second trial block (i.e., a significant quadratic
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
solution, B 2.09, p 0.05, and B 2.03, p 0.05, for the tive ability can moderate motivation gains in the weaker worker; as
linear and the quadratic component; R2 .29, adjusted R2 .13).
Thus, the two studies apparently differed in terms of the immedi-
acy with which the Kohler discrepancy effect emerged.
Finally, with regard to the Kohler discrepancy effect found in
Experiment 2, it is important to emphasize that because partici-
pants were randomly assigned to work with a partner who appar-
ently was slightly, moderately, or much stronger than they, dis-
crepancy in ability could not have been systematically related to
participants own ability level. Moreover, their subjective, self-
rated level of physical strength (assessed well before they took part
in this study) support this assumption, as analyses revealed that
scores on this measure (a) did not significantly vary across the
experimental conditions (all Fs 1) and (b) was not significantly
related to motivation gains, r(56) .11, p .40. These find-
ings suggest that, to the extent that self-ratings accurately reflect
actual strength, it is unlikely that absolute level of abilitywhich
covaries with the magnitude of naturally occurring ability
discrepancies contributes to the Kohler effects.
General Discussion
Experiment 2 provides convincing evidence that it is the differ-
ence in relative ability rather than absolute ability per se that
underlies the Kohler discrepancy effect. Moreover, manipulating
specific levels of ability differencesrather than allowing them to
occur naturally, as Experiment 1 and Kohler (1926, 1927) had
generated more visually clear-cut evidence of how relative ability
can moderate motivation gains than inspection of scatter plots
typically can (compare, e.g., Figures 2 and 3). However, it is also
likely that the difference in the manner in which the two experi-
ments examined relative abilitymanipulation versus natural oc-
currenceplayed a role in determining when the Kohler discrep-
ancy effect emerged.
All three of the confederates used in Experiment 2 had rather
average body builds. And, as participants were randomly assigned
to discrepancy conditions, it seems very likely that in several
instances (e.g., whenever either a petite or a relatively muscular
participant was paired with a supposedly equal-ability partner, or
when a relatively muscular participant was paired with a suppos-
edly much stronger partner), the Trial 1 feedback was not highly
credible to participants, until they saw for themselves the level at
which their coworker could perform. If so, participants may well
have needed some explicit validation of the verbal feedback they
had been given, which they then obtained through the first-hand
experience that Trial 3 provided. And it was not until Trial 4 that
this now-confirmed ability difference affected their level of effort.
In contrast, it seems reasonable to assume that in Experiment 1, in
which no confederates were used, appearance cues were likely to
be more congruent with the (completely veridical) performance
feedback provided to participants. If, in fact, the feedback was
more immediately credible in Experiment 1, it would have been
more likely to affect performance on the initial dyad trial. And,
given that the subsequent experience was likely to further confirm
their beliefs, it is reasonable that the Kohler discrepancy effect
indicate.
Taken together, the results of Experiments 1 and 2 provide
converging evidence that for conjunctive tasks, participants rela-
Kohlers (1926, 1927) data first suggested, increases in effort are
greatest when ability differences are moderate and well known.
Note that this is essentially a group composition effect: Different
combinations of participant attributes generated different group
performance outcomes. Most past investigations of homogeneous
versus heterogeneous group composition (cf. Forsyth, 1999, pp.
277280) have examined how the mix of qualitatively different
attributesfor example, personality (Bond & Shiu, 1997), ethnic-
ity (McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996), and gender (e.g., Kerr &
MacCoun, 1984; Lount et al., 2000)affect performance. In con-
trast, the present research demonstrates that quantitative differ-
ences in the same attribute (task ability) can also have a predictable
impact on how well group members function.
Moreover, most past explorations of the impact of member
diversity on performance have addressed group composition ef-
fects from a rather simple, linear perspective, basically posing such
questions as, Do heterogeneous groups outperform homogeneous
groups? In contrast, as we discuss in more detail elsewhere (Hertel
et al., 1999), the Kohler discrepancy effect is nonlinear, as weaker
participants do best under moderate levels of ability diversity,
compared with working in teams that are either much more ho-
mogeneous or much more heterogenous. Our results suggest, then,
that the impact of diversity on group functioning may be a far more
complex question than is commonly presumed. Thus, it is likely
that future work on this issue will prove most fruitful if it explores
how much diversity in groups is optimal under various task de-
mands rather than focusing on whether diversity linearly improves
(or detracts from) performance.
Another implication of the current research is that there are
circumstances in which the performance effort of less capable
workers possibly could be increased if they are misinformed about
relative abilities. Our results suggest, for example, that less able
workers in a situation where one or more of their colleagues has
substantially greater ability would likely try harder on conjunctive
tasks if they were led to believe this discrepancy was less severe
than it actually was. Similarly, it is likely that when group mem-
bers are rather homogeneous in ability, motivation to perform well
on conjunctive tasks would be increased if workers erroneously
perceived that one or more of their coworkers was moderately
better than they.
The present research provides reasonable evidence that under
certain conditionswhich seem likely to occur rather frequently in
natural settingsthe discrepancy moderation effect that Kohler
(1926, 1927) first reported is a reproducible phenomenon. Thus, it
 KNOWLEDGE OF ABILITY AND MOTIVATION GAINS
seems appropriate for future work to begin to focus on identifying
the socialpsychological mechanisms that underlie it. Although,
as we discuss in the introduction to this article, a case can be made
for a number of processes, we believe that perceived instrumen-
tality is particularly likely to be involved in generating the Kohler
discrepancy effect.
Our past research (e.g., Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000, Experi-
ment 2; Lount et al., 2000) suggests that the overall Kohler
motivation gain effect is more likely to be due to a sense in less
able participants that their efforts are particularly crucial to team
success than to some goal-comparison mechanism, as Stroebe et
al. (1996) proposed. For example, we found significant motivation
gains when task demands were conjunctive but not when they were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
additive (where one teammate can continue to perform after the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
other has stopped; see Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000, Experiment 2).
However, within the goal-comparison perspective, one would ex-
pect equivalent motivation gains across conditions of task de-
mands, as it always was the case that coworkers could observe
each other perform and, thus, use this information as a basis for
setting their own performance goals. Moreover, past work has
yielded evidence from responses to a brief posttrial questionnaire
that weaker coworkers are aware that their efforts matter more
under conjunctive task demands (see Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000;
Lount et al., 2000).
As we explained above, perceived instrumentality differences
can also potentially underlie the Kohler discrepancy effect. For
instance, for this conjunctive task, how important weaker cowork-
ers perceive their efforts to be and, thus, how hard they try could
be a function of their considering how much their increased effort
would help their group, compared with how much it could achieve
given their more capable partners potential level of performance.
However, as we also summarized above, it also is plausible that
goal comparison processes underlie this effect, as Stroebe et al.
(1996) have proposed, and that other mechanisms (e.g., implicit
competition; cf. Lount et al., 2000) may be involved as well.
Thus, future work needs to explore more directly the validity of
an array of possible explanations for why the weaker coworker on
a conjunctive task tries the hardest when there is a moderate
discrepancy in abilities. Research also needs to be conducted to
explore other possible processes that could be involved in produc-
ing both the Kohler motivation gain effect and the Kohler dis-
crpeancy effectas well as other types of group motivation gains
(e.g., social compensation; Williams & Karau, 1991) and group
diversity effects more generally. For example, there is evidence
(e.g., Lount et al., 2000; Stroebe et al., 1996) that suggests that
self-presentation concerns may, under certain conditions, motivate
people to try harder when working collectively. It appears, then,
that it would be fruitful to explore the extent to which self-
presentation also generates the types of diversity moderation ef-
fects on group performance that the current work and past studies
(cf. Wood, 1987) have demonstrated.
From this discussion, it is apparent that extensive empirical
work remains to be performed before a comprehensive understand-
ing of group motivation gains can be achieved. Taken together,
however, research to date has provided a promising start toward
identifying the major mediators and moderators of this important
group phenomenon. Given this foundation, it is likely that subse-
quent investigations will soon yield a more integrative picture of
945
when and why the group context sometimes stimulates people to
give their best efforts.
References
Bond, M. H., & Shiu, W. Y. (1997). The relationship between a groups
personality resources and the two dimensions of its group processes.
Small Group Research, 28, 194 217.
Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/
Cole Wadsworth.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing
group bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 239 249.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task
uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 43, 1214 1229.
Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2001). Motivation gains in computer-
mediated work groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messe, L. A. (1999). Revisiting the Kohler effect:
Does diversity enhance motivation and performance in groups? Psy-
chologische Beitrage, 41, 320 337.
Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messe, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in
performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the
Kohler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 580
601.
Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Scheffler, M., Geister, S., & Messe, L. A. (2000).
Exploring the Kohler motivation gain effect: Impression management
and spontaneous goal setting. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 31, 204
220.
Hinsz, V. B. (1995). Goal setting by groups performing an additive task: A
comparison with individual goal setting. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 965990.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding motivation in
groups: The collective effort model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at
work: Theory and research. Applied social research (pp. 113141).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. (1984). Sex composition of groups and
member motivation II: Effects of relative member ability. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 5, 255271.
Kohler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenabeit [Physical
performance in individual and group situations]. Industrielle Psycho-
technik, 3, 274 282.
Kohler, O. (1927). U ber den Gruppenwirkungsgrad der menschlichen
Korperarbeit und die Bedingung optimaler Kollektivkraftreaktion [On
group efficiency of physical labor and the conditions of optimal collec-
tive performance]. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4, 209 226.
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the
work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 37, 822 832.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lount, R. B. Jr., Messe, L. A., & Kerr, N. L. (2000). Trying harder for
different reasons: Conjunctivity and sex differences as bases for moti-
vation gains in performing groups. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 31,
221230.
McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and
creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248 264.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation
and the Kohler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation
gains in group productivity. In E. Witte & J. Davis (Eds.), Understand-
ing group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 2, pp
37 65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 946 MESSE, HERTEL, KERR, LOUNT, AND PARK

Stroebe, W., & Frey, B. (1982). Self-interest and collective action: The Witte, E. H. (1989). Kohler rediscovered: The anti-Ringelmann effect.
economics and psychology of public goods. British Journal of Social European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 147154.
Psychology, 21, 121137. Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group per-
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and compe- formance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 5371.
tition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507533. Zajonc, R. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269 274.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compen-
sation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Received June 13, 2001
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570 581. Revision received November 16, 2001
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles
Accepted November 29, 2001
in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.