Themen für Bachelorarbeiten

Beschreibung: Die mentale Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz ist entscheidend für das Wohlbefinden der Mitarbeitenden und die Produktivität von Unternehmen ? folglich hat in den letzten Jahren die arbeits- und organisationspsychologische Forschung begonnen, dieses Thema intensiver zu beleuchten (e.g., de Oliveira et al., 2023; Kelloway et al., 2023; Rosado-Solomon et al., 2023). So gibt es empirische Forschung, die sich mit der Prävalenz, mit arbeitsbezogenen Prädiktoren, sowie entsprechender Präventions-Ansätze bzgl. verschiedener mentaler Probleme beschäftigt (e.g., LaMontagne et al., 2014; Leka & Nicholson, 2019; Wu et al., 2021).

Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es das Ziel dieser Literaturarbeit, (1) einen klaren Überblick über die Konzepte und Methoden der mentalen Gesundheit am Arbeitsplatz zu geben, (2) empirische Studien zu präsentieren und analysieren, die die Prävalenz, Prädiktoren und Präventionsansätze für spezifische mentale Probleme untersuchen, und (3) eine kritische Diskussion der Ergebnisse zu führen, um deren Implikationen für die Praxis zu verstehen.


Initiale Literatur
de Oliveira, C., Saka, M., Bone, L., & Jacobs, R. (2023). The role of mental health on workplace productivity: A critical review of the literature. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 21(2), 167?193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00761-w
Kelloway, E. K., Dimoff, J. K., & Gilbert, S. (2023). Mental health in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 363?387. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-050527
LaMontagne, A. D., Martin, A., Page, K. M., Reavley, N. J., Noblet, A. J., Milner, A. J., Keegel, T., & Smith, P. M. (2014). Workplace mental health: Developing an integrated intervention approach. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-131
Leka, S., & Nicholson, P. J. (2019). Mental health in the workplace. Occupational Medicine, 69(1), 5?6. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqy111
Rosado-Solomon, E. H., Koopmann, J., Lee, W., & Cronin, M. (2023). Mental health and mental illness in organizations: A review, comparison, and extension. Academy of Management Annals, annals.2021.0211. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0211
Wu, A., Roemer, E. C., Kent, K. B., Ballard, D. W., & Goetzel, R. Z. (2021). Organizational best practices supporting mental health in the workplace. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 63(12), e925?e931. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002407
Kontakt: Martin Götz, E-Mail

Beschreibung: Das Ziel empirischer Forschung ist es, kausale Aussagen zu treffen: Wenn man X macht, passiert Y. Die Aussagekraft vieler wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten wird jedoch häufig durch das Phänomen der Endogenität bedroht (e.g., Abdallah et al., 2015; Antonakis et al., 2010; Hill et al., 2021). Endogenität tritt auf, wenn erklärende Variablen mit dem Fehlerterm korreliert sind, was zu verzerrten Schätzungen und falschen Schlussfolgerungen führen kann. Anders ausgedrückt, wenn wir untersuchen, ob mehr Schlaf zu einer besseren akademischen Leistung führt, könnte es sein, dass Studierende, die besser abschneiden, auch eher dazu neigen, mehr zu schlafen. In diesem Fall ist die Beziehung zwischen Schlaf und Leistung endogen, da beide Variablen sich gegenseitig beeinflussen und/oder vielleicht gar von einer unbekannten Drittvariable beeinflusst werden. Im Laufe der Jahre wurden zahlreiche Methoden vorgeschlagen und diskutiert, um mit Endogenität umzugehen und möglichst nahe an kausale Aussagen zu gelangen (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2014; Bastardoz et al., 2023; Sajons, 2020).

Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es das Ziel dieser Literaturarbeit, (1) einen klaren Überblick über das Phänomen der Endogenität zu geben, (2) geeignete Methoden zur Identifikation und Korrektur von Endogenität zusammenzutragen und (3) eine kritische Diskussion der Ergebnisse zu führen, um deren Implikationen für die Praxis zu verstehen.

Initiale Literatur
Abdallah, W., Goergen, M., & O?Sullivan, N. (2015). Endogeneity: How failure to correct for it can cause wrong inferences and some remedies. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 791?804. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12113
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086?1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2014). Causality and endogeneity (D. V. Day, Ed.; Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199755615-e-007
Bastardoz, N., Matthews, M. J., Sajons, G. B., Ransom, T., Kelemen, T. K., & Matthews, S. H. (2023). Instrumental variables estimation: Assumptions, pitfalls, and guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), 101673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101673
Hill, A. D., Johnson, S. G., Greco, L. M., O?Boyle, E. H., & Walter, S. L. (2021). Endogeneity: A review and agenda for the methodology-practice divide affecting micro and macro research. Journal of Management, 47(1), 105?143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320960533
Sajons, G. B. (2020). Estimating the causal effect of measured endogenous variables: A tutorial on experimentally randomized instrumental variables. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(5), 101348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101348
Kontakt: Martin Götz, E-Mail

Beschreibung: ?Do-gooders? can be described as those individuals who deviate from the majority on moral grounds, that is, they claim that the reason for their different behavior is a moral one (Minson & Monin, 2012). One typical example is those of vegetarians. Among other reasons, some people decide to adopt a vegetarian diet because they think it is morally wrong to eat meat (e.g., because they think it is morally wrong to kill an animal). Even though vegetarianism creates no harm to others humans and avoids harming animals, people often see vegetarians and vegans negatively (Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019).
Indeed, although usually people show a strong favoritism toward benevolent others, being too generous can sometimes bring the opposite reaction. This phenomenon is called ?do-gooder derogation? (Tasimi et al., 2015). For example, Parks & Stone (2010) have shown that, in a public good games, participants were willing to expel both those who did not contribute much to the group, but interestingly also those who contributed a lot. What are the reasons for such phenomenon, and where are the boundaries between seeing someone positively or negatively in this context?

The aim of the proposed literature review is (1) to provide an overview of empirical and theoretical research on do-gooder derogation (2) to explore do-gooder derogation in the context of economic games (3) to discuss the findings and identify directions for future research.

Initial literature:
Markowski, K. L., & Roxburgh, S. (2019). ?If I became a vegan, my family and friends would hate me:? Anticipating vegan stigma as a barrier to plant-based diets. Appetite, 135, 1?9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040
Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200?207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415695
Parks, C. D., & Stone, A. B. (2010). The desire to expel unselfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 303?310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018403
Tasimi, A., Dominguez, A., & Wynn, K. (2015). Do-gooder derogation in children: The social costs of generosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01036
Kontakt: Filippo Toscano, E-Mail

Beschreibung: Imagine you live in a shared apartment with others, and you all use the same kitchen. In order to keep it clean, there is a rule that everyone must clean up after themselves each time they use it. Now imagine that you notice one of your flat mates often leaves dirty dishes in the sink, and seldom cleans after themselves. What would you do? Would you call out their behavior? And if you did, how do you think your other flat mates would view you afterwards?

Such a situation can be described as a social dilemma. More specifically, in social dilemmas individual and collective interests are at odds. While cooperation leads to the best outcome for the group, individuals have an incentive to avoid cooperating (i.e., to free-ride; Nowak, 2006). In the example above, the social dilemma is two-fold. On the first level, there is the decision to clean (vs. not clean) after yourself; on the second, there is the decision to punish (vs. not punish) those who do not cooperate. Experimentally, punishment is frequently introduced as a mechanism to promote cooperation (van Lange et al., 2014), and it has been shown to be effective in maintaining contributions in public good games (Fehr & Gächter, 2000). Nonetheless, those who punish are not always viewed positively (Eriksson et al., 2017) and may, in some cases, end up with a worse reputation than non-punishers (Ozono & Watabe, 2012). This raises several important questions: What motivates people to punish? Under what conditions are punishers socially approved? What other benefits might drive the decision to punish?

The aim of the proposed literature review is (1) to provide an overview of empirical and theoretical research on punishment in social dilemmas (2) to explore motivations and perceptions related to punishment (3) to discuss the findings and identify directions for future research.

Initial literature:
Eriksson, K., Andersson, P. A., & Strimling, P. (2017). When is it appropriate to reprimand a norm violation? The roles of anger, behavioral consequences, violation severity, and social distance. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(4), 396?407. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006264
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980?994. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.980
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560?1563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755
Ozono, H., & Watabe, M. (2012). Reputational benefit of punishment: Comparison among the punisher, rewarder, and non-sanctioner. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 3(2), 21?24. https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2012.22
van Lange, P. A. M., Rockenbach, B., & Yamagishi, T. (Eds.). (2014). Reward and punishment in social dilemmas. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199300730.003.0001
Kontakt: Filippo Toscano, E-Mail