Work and Organisational Psychology

Journal articles 2011

Ellwart, T., & Konradt, U. (2011). Formative versus reflective measurement: An illustration using the work-family balance construct. 

Journal of Psychology, 145, 391–417. doi:10.1080/00223980.2011.580388


The aim of this paper is to propose the formative measurement approach which can be used in various constructs of applied psychology. To illustrate our approach, we will (a) discuss the distinction between commonly used principal factor (reflective) measures in comparison to the composite (formative) latent variable model which is often applied in other disciplines like marketing or engineering, and (b) point out the advantages and limitations of formative specifications using the example of the work-family balance construct. Data collected from two large cross-sectional field studies confirm the reliability and validity of formative WFB measures as well as its predictive value regarding criteria of work-family balance (i.e., job satisfaction, family satisfaction, and life satisfaction). Finally, the specific informational value of each formative indicator will be demonstrated and discussed in terms of practical implications for the assessment in different psychological fields.

Steenfatt, C., & Konradt, U. (2011). Prozessoptimierung in virtuellen Teams: Bedeutung, Wirkung und Maßnahmen von Feedback und Reflexivität. [Process improvement in virtual teams: Relevance, effects and practical implications of feedback and reflexivity]. 

Wirtschaftspsychologie, 3, 52–61.


Whereas research predominantly focused on examining effects of virtual teamwork on coordination and communication processes, investigations aiming at improving virtual teamwork were relatively sparse. Team process improvement which consists of seeking and giving feedback, reflecting on team-related work processes and the consequent adaptation of altered work procedures, has shown its effectiveness in face-to-face teams. The aim of this article is to emphasize the importance of process improvement for virtual teams, and to summarize the sparse empirical evidences of feedback and reflection in virtual teams. At the end of this article, we discuss theoretical and practical implications of process improvement in virtual teams.

Rack, O., Ellwart, T., Hertel, G., & Konradt, U. (2011). Effects of team-based rewards in computer-mediated groups. 

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 419–438. doi:10.1108/02683941111139029


Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to compare effects of different monetary team-based reward strategies on performance, pay satisfaction, and communication behavior in computer-mediated groups.

Design/methodology – In a laboratory experiment, thirty-two groups of undergraduate students, each consisting of three individuals, interacted electronically and performed a consensus-reaching task. Team-based incentives were distributed either equally (each team member received an equal share) or equitably (each team members’ share depended on her/his individual contribution). A control group received no team-based (or other) incentives.

Findings – Hierarchical multilevel analyses revealed that both types of team-based rewards increased team members’ motivation and pay satisfaction compared to the control condition. Moreover, the effects of team-based rewards on performance were moderated by group member’s assertiveness. In addition, team-based rewards lead to more cooperative and task-oriented communication in the computer-mediated groups. Finally, equally divided rewards led to higher pay satisfaction on average than equitably divided incentives.

Implications – This study shows that team-based rewards have positive effects not only on performance but also on communication behavior in computer-mediated groups. However, these effects should be considered cautiously as they might be qualified by personality aspects of the team members. Moreover, whereas no major differences were found between equity and equality principles in terms of performance, the latter seems to be preferable when satisfaction is a major issue in teams.

Konradt, U., Syperek, S., & Hertel, G. (2011). Testing on the Internet: Faking in a web-based self-administered personality measure. 

Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 2, 1–10.


This experimental study examined the effect of faking in a self-administered occupational personality questionnaire on the World Wide Web and explored whether the degree of faking is related to Self-monitoring and login times. Using a between subjects design, employees were instructed to “answer honestly”, to “fake good”, or to answer as if applying for a job. Results revealed faking in the web-based personality questionnaire for two out of five dimensions (i.e., conscientiousness and self-motivation). Age was found to moderate the degree of faking with older people showing a higher degree of faking. Controlling for age and level of education, results revealed that high self-monitors demonstrated more faking compared to low self-monitors. Finally, slow responders showed higher degrees of faking compared to fast responders. We also discuss implications for online personnel selection and suggestions for future research.

Christophersen, T., & Konradt, U. (2011). Reliability, validity, and sensitivity of a single-item measure of online store usability. 

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69, 269–280. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.10.005


An experimental laboratory study with field characteristics was conducted to determine the validity and reliability of a single-item measure for the assessment of online store usability from the customer’s point of view. Each of the 378 participants visited two out of 35 online stores and performed three shopping related tasks. Usability was rated using a single-item and an eight-item scale. Besides trust in the online store and aesthetics, the participant’s intention to buy was measured. Both factor analysis and the correction for attenuation formula revealed an adequate reliability of the single-item scale. Convergent validity of the single-item measure for usability was supported by positive correlations with both trust and aesthetics. Positive correlation between the single-item and the intention to buy indicated high predictive validity of this measure. Finally, sensitivity of the single-item measure was indicated by differences in usability ratings for the 35 online stores.