INTRODUCTION

Perhaps nowhere are the effects of sleep loss

more compelling than in those occupations that
combine long night shifts, isolation, a strong vig-
ilance or monitoring component, and risk or con-
sequence should vigilance lapse (e.g., long-haul
trucking, military watch, and power plant and sys-
tems monitoring). Pragmatically, therefore, the ex-
tant laboratory-based scientic literature on the
effects of sleep loss has focused extensively on
the performance of the individual (e.g., Angus &
Heselgrave, 1985; Lisper & Kjellberg, 1972; H. L.
Williams, Lubin, & Goodnow, 1959), often when
conducting repetitive, monotonous tasks and with
limited environmental stimulation. (For reviews of
various portions of this vast literature see Dinges
& Kribbs, 1991; Harrison & Horne, 2000; Horne,
1988; Johnson, 1982; Kjellberg, 1977; Krueger,
1989; Pilcher & Huffcutt, 1996.)
In contrast, many other important occupations
require people to work effectively together for
long periods of time and at all hours of the day or
night (e.g., police, reghters, emergency med-
ical services, and military command teams). More
generally, the increasing prevalence of work teams
in contemporary society (Goodman, Devadas, &
Hughson, 1988; Hackman, 1986; Swezey & Salas,
1992), coupled with ever-increasing productivity
demands, has provided a need to better understand
Effects of Sleep Loss on Team Decision Making: Motivational
Loss or Motivational Gain?
Joseph V. Baranski and Megan M. Thompson, Defence Research and Development
Canada, Toronto, Canada, Frederick M. J. Lichacz, Canadian Forces Experimentation
Centre, Ottawa, Canada, Carol McCann, Defence Research and Development Canada,
Toronto, Canada, Valerie Gil, Transport Canada, Montreal, Canada, Luigi Past, John
Abbott College, Montreal, Canada, and Ross A. Pigeau, Defence Research and
Development Canada, Toronto, Canada
Objective: To examine the effects of 30 hr of sleep loss and continuous cognitive work
on performance in a distributed team decision-making environment. Background:
To date, only a few studies have examined the effect of sleep loss on distributed team
performance, and only one other to our knowledge has examined the relationship
between sleep loss and social-motivational aspects of teams (Hoeksema-van Orden,
Gaillard, & Buunk, 1998). Method: Sixteen teams participated; each comprised 4
members. Three team members made threat assessments on a military surveillance
task and then forwarded their judgments electronically to a team leader, who made a
nal assessment on behalf of the team. Results: Sleep loss had an antagonistic effect
on team decision-making accuracy and decision time. However, the performance loss
associated with fatigue attributable to sleep loss was mediated by being part of a team,
as compared with performing the same task individually that is, we found evidence
of a motivational gain effect in these sleepy teams. We compare these results with
those of Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), who found clear evidence of a social loaf-
ing effect in sleepy teams. Conclusion: The divergent results are discussed in the
context of the collective effort model (Karau & Williams, 1993) and are attributable in
part to a difference between independent and interdependent team tasks. Application:
The issues and ndings have implications for a wide range of distributed, collaborative
work environments, such as military network-enabled operations.
Address correspondence to Joseph V. Baranski, Defence Research and Development Canada, 1133 Sheppard Ave. West, P.O.
Box 2000, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3M 3B9; joe.baranski@drdc-rddc.gc.ca. HUMANFACTORS, Vol. 49, No. 4, August 2007,
pp. 646660. DOI 10.1518/001872007X215728. Copyright Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the
Minister of National Defence, 2007.
SLEEPY TEAMS 647
how fatigue attributable to sleep loss may affect the
performance of teams as opposed to individuals.
Surprisingly, there has been but a handful
of studies of the effects of fatigue attributable
to sleep loss on team performance (Allnutt, Has-
lam, Rejman, & Green, 1990; Banderet, Stokes,
Francesconi, Kowal, & Naitoh, 1981; Elliott et
al., 2002; Foushee, Lauber, Baetge, & Acomb,
1986; Hoeksema-van Orden, Gaillard, & Buunk,
1998). Some of these studies have demonstrated
performance loss with increasing fatigue (Band-
eret et al., 1981; Foushee et al., 1986; Hoeksema-
van Orden et al., 1998), whereas others have not
(Allnutt et al., 1990; Elliott et al., 2002).
However, several of these ndings are difcult
to interpret because of methodological constraints
that ultimately confounded fatigue with team
familiarity (Foushee et al., 1986), task duration
(Banderet et al., 1981), and learning effects (Elliott
et al., 2002). Moreover, one study (Allnutt et al.,
1990) that did show differential sensitivity to sleep
loss in individual and team tasks unfortunately
employed tasks in the individual and team condi-
tions that were very different in terms of interest
level and complexity.
Social Loang and Motivational Gains in
Teams
When considering the issue of how fatigue at-
tributable to sleep loss might affect the perfor-
mance of teams, specically relative to individual
performance under identical conditions, two sem-
inal social psychological phenomena immediate-
ly become relevant: group motivational losses
and group motivational gains. The most well-
documented class of group motivational losses is
the social loang effect (Latan, Williams, & Hark-
ins, 1979; for reviews see Geen, 1991; Karau &
Williams, 1993; Shepperd, 1993), referring to the
tendency of individuals to reduce their effort when
working in a group compared with when they are
working alone. Because sleep deprivation leads
to lower arousal, which can impact effort (Angus
& Heselgrave, 1985; Krueger, 1989), and because
it is easier to loaf when one is part of a team, fa-
tigue attributable to sleep loss might be expected
to exacerbate any performance loss associated
with being part of a team.
Group motivational gains, on the other hand,
occur when individuals exert more effort when
part of a group than when they act alone and are
associated with better group than individual per-
formance, at least in those tasks in which higher
motivation will translate into better performance
(Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1996). Although
demonstrations of motivational gains have proven
to be much more empirically elusive than social
loafing effects (Hertel, Kerr, & Mess, 2000;
Karau, Markus, & Williams, 2000), studies docu-
menting the positive effects of group membership
on performance outcomes continue to occasional-
ly appear in the group literature. According to the
motivational gain perspective, it is possible that
individuals may expend increased effort to over-
come the burden of fatigue attributable to sleep
loss in order to continue to contribute to effective
group or team performance.
Theoretical Explanations of Social Loang
and Motivational Gains
Several explanations have been proffered to ex-
plain social loang, including social impact theo-
ry (Latan, 1981; see also Jackson & Williams,
1985); the potential for individuals to be identied
and evaluated (Harkins & Szymanski, 1988, 1989),
the dispensability of individual contributions (Kerr
& Bruun, 1983); the reduction of self-awareness in
groups (Mullen, 1983), and whether individuals
seek to match their efforts to those of other group
members (Jackson & Harkins, 1985). Similarly,
various explanations have been offered to explain
group motivational gains, including social com-
pensation (K. D. Williams & Karau, 1991), in-
creased effort on the part of weaker team members
(Khler, 1926), and social competition (see Stroebe
et al., 1996).
The eld signicantly beneted from Karau and
Williamss (1993) collective effort model (CEM),
which integrates these various explanations into
a unied theory of group processes and perfor-
mance that accounts for both motivational losses
and gains. CEM builds on expectancy value mod-
els in which an individuals effort is a function of
his or her expectations concerning the instru-
mentality of his or her actions and the subjective
meaning or value of the task outcome. CEM ap-
plies these notions to the more complex surround
of group tasks that pose unique difculties for
motivating individuals because collective tasks
introduce additional contingencies, each of which
can potentially serve as a barrier to peoples per-
ceptions that their efforts will be instrumental in
obtaining desirable outcomes (Karau et al.,
2000, p. 180).
648 August 2007 Human Factors
According to the CEM, individuals will modi-
fy their efforts on group tasks depending on (a) the
identiability or the evaluation potential of their
outputs (by self, others in the group, or by an ex-
perimenter), (b) the perceived uniqueness of their
contribution to group outcomes, (c) the existence
of relevant performance comparison standards,
and (d) the task being perceived as protable be-
cause of extrinsic rewards or by virtue of some
intrinsic value to the individual. Hence, CEM spec-
ies that in a group task individuals will expend
effort equal to that in individual conditions (i.e.,
social loang effects will be minimized) under
four conditions. Individuals must expect that: (a)
their individual efforts relate to individual perfor-
mance; (b) their individual performance directly
impacts upon the groups performance; (c) group
performance will lead to a favorable and valued
group outcome; and (d) the group outcome is re-
lated to a favorable, valued individual outcome.
CEM also helps researchers to infer conditions
under which individual performance in a group
will exceed individual performance on individual
tasks. For instance, motivational gains might be
expected when valued outcomes are more likely to
result from the group activity, relative to that of
an individually or coactively performed activity.
Moreover, individual effort expended in a group
task must be a more likely predictor of valued in-
dividual outcomes than would be the case if the
individual continued to work alone or coactively
(Karau et al., 2000). Karau et al. (2000) provided
the example of a task in which the individual
believes that he or she must work hard for the
group to perform optimally and that the individ-
ual will obtain the rewards that are associated with
that good group performance.
In general, then, CEM species the link among
individual performance, group performance,
group outcomes, and individual outcomes. It also
acknowledges a range of valued collective out-
comes (i.e., social outcomes such as cohesion and
feelings of belonging, self-evaluation, validation,
and self-esteem based on performance relevant
to a valued standard), in addition to traditional in-
dividual level outcomes. Finally, the comprehen-
siveness of the CEM also allows for interactions
among key variables not previously considered
together. For instance, individuals will increase
their efforts when they expect that their cowork-
ers are not performing well, but only on tasks that
are valued.
CEM and Group Productivity Under Sleep
Deprivation
Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) applied the
CEM to the intriguing question of how fatigue
affects team performance and whether identia-
bility (various levels of performance feedback) and
a valued outcome (performance bonuses) might
reduce the effects of social loang. In their rst
experiment, 32 participants underwent a 20-hr
sleep deprivation experiment either as individuals
or as 4-person teams. Testing runs consisted of ve
4-hr sessions (i.e., 20 hr), each involving 3.5 hr
of continuous cognitive tasks and a
1
2-hr break.
Each 3.5-hr block involved two 25-min sessions
of two simple tasks (i.e., serial reaction time and
memory search), and two 25-min sessions of a
more complex and dynamic process-monitoring
task.
All participants worked independently of each
other and at their own pace. However, half of the
participants were assigned to 4-person teams at
the outset of the study. Participants in the team
condition were told that the performance of the 4
members would be summed (i.e., the team task
was additive and noninterdependent) and that they
could earn a bonus for good team performance.
Participants in the individual condition were told
that they could earn a bonus for good performance.
The actual probability of winning the bonus was
identical in the individual and team conditions.
The ndings revealed that performance on all cog-
nitive tasks deteriorated with sleep loss but, im-
portantly, this deterioration was more pronounced
in the latter sessions of the team condition that
is, the results showed that social loang occurred
and that it was accentuated by fatigue attributable
to sleep loss.
Their second experiment involved only teams,
but half of the members received performance
feedback at the level of the team whereas the other
half received performance feedback at the level
of the individual. Once again the results revealed
evidence of social loang and, as hypothesized,
individual-level feedback moderated (but did not
eliminate) the amount of social loang. In sum-
mary, Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) have
provided clear evidence that fatigue attributable
to sleep loss accentuates the performance loss
associated with social loang when individuals
participate in a team context. However, the pres-
ence of a potentially valued personal outcome (a
SLEEPY TEAMS 649
performance bonus) and identiability (via per-
formance feedback) served to reduce the degree of
social loang in this setting.
The Present Study
Apotentially important aspect of the Hoeksema-
van Orden et al. (1998) experiments is that each
team member completed an identical task as his or
her contribution to the team output. In other words,
team members did not make a unique contribution
to the team product. The present study sought to
extend the ndings of Hoeksema-van Orden et al.
(1998) to an interdependent team context in which
each team member provides a unique contribution
to the team output, an important variable identi-
ed in the CEM.
Although clearly some team tasks are not inter-
dependent in nature, one of the main reasons that
teams are formed is precisely because the task at
hand is too complex or too demanding to be per-
formed by an individual, and specic tasks are
divided between individuals (see Brehmer, 1991).
Thus, in contrast to the team conguration used
in Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), in which
each team member completed identical tasks that
contributed to a team outcome, we had team mem-
bers make unique contributions to a team prod-
uct. That is, a unique contribution from each team
member was always required for the team task to
be completed. Following from CEM, we predict-
ed that unique individual contributions to a team
task would at least reduce the likelihood of social
loang in the team condition and perhaps even
produce a motivational gain.
Extending the results of Hoeksema-van Orden
et al. (1998, Experiment 2), a second objective of
this research was to manipulate the type of feed-
back provided to the participants. Specically, each
team participated in three conditions, in which the
performance of each team member was disclosed
to all other team members (Condition A, full feed-
back), disclosed only to themselves (Condition B,
own feedback), or not disclosed to anyone (Condi-
tion C, no feedback). We predicted that the highest
degree of social loang under fatigue would occur
in the no-feedback condition (Condition C) and
the least would occur in the full-feedback condi-
tion (Condition A).
Moreover, we also explored whether the status
of the participant (team member or team leader)
and the feedback condition (i.e., whether or not
the team members performance was reported to
the team leader) would affect the tendency to-
ward social loang. Thus we varied, as a between-
subjects factor, whether or not the team leader was
privy to the performance of his or her team mem-
bers. We hypothesized that teams in which lead-
ers were provided with feedback at the individual
member level would show less social loang than
in conditions in which the leader did not receive
team member performance feedback.
METHOD
Participants
Sixty-four adults (mean age = 21.7 years) each
served for 60 hr of experimental participation in
return for approximately $400.00 (Canadian). Our
intention was to study 4-person military teams.
However, because of high training demands, an in-
sufcient number of military personnel were avail-
able at the time of the study. Accordingly, eight
teams consisted of military personnel recruited
by advertisement from Toronto-area reserve units
and eight teams consisted of civilians recruited by
advertisement from Toronto-area universities.
Preliminary analyses revealed some differences
between these teams; accordingly, we henceforth
report team type (military vs. civilian) as a between-
subjects factor in subsequent analyses. All par-
ticipants were classied as t to participate if they
were healthy, medication-free for at least 1 week
prior to the experiment, and had no allergies or
cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric, or sleep-
related disorders. All participants were fully in-
formed about the procedures to be employed,
signed consent forms for participation, and were
given a full debrieng upon completion of the
study. Finally, all participants were naive con-
cerning the nature and aims of the study, which
was approved by the Defence Research and De-
velopment Canada Human Research Ethics Com-
mittee.
Apparatus
As in the Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998)
study, teams comprised 4 members, who were
physically separated from each other in their own
rooms. Each room was equipped with two com-
puter workstations, a bed, and an intercom system
that permitted communication with the experi-
menters. Each room and workstation was moni-
tored from a separate control room, equipped with
a PC console for task delivery, an intercom system,
650 August 2007 Human Factors
four monitors to observe participant performance
online, and four monitors to observe participants
through closed-circuit cameras. Eight channels
of electrophysiological recording were collected
continuously using Embla (Flaga hf, Iceland) am-
bulatory data recorders. Circadian rhythms were
tracked by taking oral temperature every 2 hr using
digital thermometers.
Design and Procedure
Participants arrived at 08:00 on Day 1 of the
study and departed at approximately 17:00 on
Day 3. Upon arrival, participants were familiar-
ized with the lab, were briefed on the experiment,
and signed informed consent forms. All time cues
were then removed (e.g., watches, cell phones,
pagers), and a team leader was selected accord-
ing to rank for military teams and age for civilian
teams. Participants then lled out computer-based
questionnaires (e.g., demographics).
All foods and beverages containing caffeine
were terminated at 12:00 of Day 1, but food and
drinks were available to participants throughout
the study. From 10:00 to 17:00, participants prac-
ticed the various individual and team tasks. At ap-
proximately 17:00, participants were outtted with
electroencephalographic recording equipment.
Following a dinner break, participants performed
a formal practice run (19:0021:00). Participants
slept in the laboratory from 22:00 of Day 1 to
06:00 of Day 2. The formal experiment ran con-
tinuously from 08:00 on Day 2 to 12:00 on Day 3.
At the end of the study, participants were de-
briefed, their electrodes were removed, and they
ate and showered, leaving the lab at approximate-
ly 17:00. Because of their sleep-deprived state,
participants departed via a prearranged pickup, or
a taxi was provided.
The individual and team decision-making
experiment consisted of 14 consecutive blocks,
each 2 hr in duration, run between 08:00 on Day
2 and 12:00 of Day 3 (i.e., 28 hr). Each 2-hr block
comprised (approximately) 1 hr 40 min of sus-
tained cognitive work and a break period of ap-
proximately 20 min. During breaks, participants
ate, watched movies, used the washroom, had
their electrodes checked, and interacted with each
other and with the experimenters. Each 1 hr 40 min
block was composed of a team (or solo) decision-
making session (24 min), a high-level cognitive
task (24 min), another team (or solo) decision-
making session (24 min), and a psychomotor task
battery (approximately 24 min). The entire exper-
iment was scripted into an automated task de-
livery system that permitted precise control of task
timing.
Team and Individual Threat Assessment Task
(TITAN). TITAN is a computer-based simulation
of a naval shipboard surveillance and threat assess-
ment task designed for studying individual and
team judgment and decision-making performance
(for related tasks, see Hollenbeck et al., 1995;
McCann, Baranski, Thompson, & Pigeau, 2000).
Participants saw a radar-like screen on which
contacts (symbolized by asterisks) surrounded a
symbol representing own ship. The contacts
represent surface, subsurface, and air trafc that
has been identied by the ships radar system.
Each contact was assessed based on information
available from drop-down menus. Seven pieces of
information were available for each contact (e.g.,
speed, direction, bearing), and participants were
informed that each piece of information should
be weighted equally toward the overall threat as-
sessment.
The processing of an individual contact in-
volves a specic sequence of events. First, a con-
tact is selected (i.e., hooked) by the team leader
by pointing and clicking on the target with a
mouse. The contact is then automatically high-
lighted for each subordinate member. (Recall that
the task is computer mediated and distributed;
i.e., all team members are in separate rooms and
there is no voice communication.) Next, each sub-
ordinate member hooks the contact on their own
consoles, and a menu appears with seven infor-
mation elements.
Subordinates then click on each item (e.g.,
speed) and receive a value on that dimension
(e.g., 300 miles per hr). These values are then
cross-referenced with a decision matrix, which
allows the subordinate to categorize the value as
peaceful, hostile, or unknown. The subor-
dinate then combines the data into a single threat
assessment. They then submit their threat assess-
ment to the system using a sliding visual analog
probability scale (from 0, no threat, to 1, highest
threat). Importantly, as soon as a subordinate en-
ters an assessment, the system forwards that assess-
ment to the leader and remaining subordinates.
Once the leader receives all three subordinate
assessments, he or she submits a nal threat as-
sessment to the system on behalf of the team. Fi-
nally, depending upon the experimental condition,
SLEEPY TEAMS 651
feedback is or is not provided by the system on
the accuracy of the assessment. Once processed,
the contact disappears from the screen, and the
leader then selects the next contact to be processed
by the team. In each session participants were in-
structed to process as many contacts as possible
while maintaining as high an accuracy level as pos-
sible. Aclock in the corner of the screen displayed
the elapsed time since the start of the session.
Team task interdependency. As mentioned pre-
viously, it was important to ensure a high degree
of task interdependency among team members
and to highlight the unique contributions of each
member. Accordingly, these aspects were explic-
itly built into the cue interrogation process for each
contact. Specically, each of the three subordi-
nates received the following instructions: You
will each be responsible for seven information
items three unique items and four items that you
share in common with other subordinates. For ex-
ample, Alpha will have two items in common with
Bravo and two items in common with Charlie, re-
sulting in four overlapping items. Similarly, Bravo
will have two items in common with Alpha and
two in common with Charlie, and so on.
Thus, across all three subordinates, there were
15 information items in total: Alpha received Infor-
mation Items 1, 2, and 3; Bravo received Informa-
tion Items 4, 5, and 6; Charlie Received Information
Items 7, 8, and 9; Alpha and Bravo both received
Information Items 10 and 11; Bravo and Charlie
both received Information Items 12 and 13; and
Charlie and Alpha both received Information
Items 14 and 15.
The team leader was likewise aware of this ma-
nipulation, having been given these instructions:
After you select a contact, your subordinates will
review their contact information, then submit their
threat estimates to you. Each subordinate is re-
sponsible for seven information items three
unique items and four items that they share in com-
mon with other subordinates. For example, Alpha
will have two items in common with Bravo and
two items in common with Charlie, resulting in
four overlapping items. Similarly, Bravo will have
two items in common with Alpha and two in
common with Charlie, and so on. Once all 3 sub-
ordinates have entered a threat estimate it is your
job to use their responses to establish the best
overall threat assessment for the contact.
Importantly, subordinates and leaders did not
know which cue items were shared and which
were unique. Hence all participants were aware
of the fact that a response was required from each
team member and that the accuracy of that re-
sponse was clearly linked to the overall team out-
come for each contact.
Design and feedback manipulations. The feed-
back from the system was based upon a computer
algorithm that reected a perfect equal weighting
rule, based on the information elements provided
to the 3 subordinates. Feedback was provided in
two ways: (a) A solid black bar was displayed
on the visual analog scale to denote the true threat
level of the contact, and (b) the mean absolute er-
ror (percentage) between the assessment and the
true score provided by the system was also dis-
played. Thus, if each subordinate made perfectly
accurate assessments of his or her own information
and the leader took the average of the three assess-
ments, then there would be no error in the nal
assessment. However, this was rarely the case.
The design of the study involved one between-
groups factor that was based upon whether or not
the leader received trial-by-trial feedback on the
accuracy of the subordinates assessments. The
other between-groups factor nested within the rst
factor was denoted by civilian or military teams;
four teams in each leader feedback condition were
civilian and four were military. One within-groups
factor was denoted by the nature of trial-by-trial
feedback that the subordinates received on the
accuracy of their and the other subordinates
assessments that is, Conditions A(full feedback),
B (only own feedback), and C (no feedback), as
described in the Introduction.
The other within-subjects factor was session.
Each TITAN session began with a 20-s presenta-
tion of a message that informed all team members
about the feedback that would be available during
that session. For example, in a partial feedback
condition, all participants would see the following
In this session:
LEADER gets:
FEEDBACK on his/her own judgment
FEEDBACK on each team members
judgment
EACH TEAM MEMBER gets:
FEEDBACK on his/her own judgment
NO FEEDBACK on each team mem-
bers judgment
The nal TITAN condition that completed the
design involved all members performing in a
652 August 2007 Human Factors
24-min solo TITAN condition once every 2 hr.
From the perspective of the 48 subordinates, the
solo version of the task was identical to that expe-
rienced in Team Condition B (see the Introduc-
tion), except that they were not performing in the
context of a team that is, there was no leader,
subordinates selected their contacts and processed
the same cue information as in the team condition,
and they also received feedback on their own per-
formance. For the 16 team leaders, the task was
novel as leaders are not required to evaluate threat
levels when performing in the team context. Ac-
cordingly, these specic analyses will focus only
on the performance of the 48 subordinates when
they performed the solo TITAN version as com-
pared with their own performance in the team
context.
In sum, each participant performed four unique
TITAN sessions every 2 hr. Three versions were
in a team context and differed only in the amount
of feedback that was provided to the leader and
subordinates; the fourth condition was a solo ver-
sion of the TITAN task and was used as a baseline
against which to gauge the degree and time course
of social loang or motivational gain. The presen-
tation order of the four TITAN sessions was coun-
terbalanced across teams.
RESULTS
The results are presented in three sections. As a
manipulation check, the rst section provides data
concerning sleep parameters for the various con-
ditions, oral temperature, and self-assessments of
subjective fatigue. The second section examines
the effects of the various feedback manipulations
on team performance during sleep deprivation.
The nal section examines the effects of fatigue
on social loang or motivational gain.
Sleep and Fatigue Analyses
Sleep measures. Analyses of sleep physiology
measures (Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968) for the
rst night were conducted for 52 of the 64 partic-
ipants for whom full data sets were available. The
data were analyzed by a 2 2 between-groups
ANOVA, with team type (civilian vs. military) as
one between-groups factor and whether or not the
leader received feedback on the performance of
each subordinate as the other between-groups fac-
tor. Results showed that civilians spent more time
in bed, F(1, 48) = 92.19, p < .0001 (civilian =
476.9 min, SD= 13.0, military = 447.3 min, SD=
8.7), but they also spent more time awake in bed,
F(1, 48) = 11.9, p < .001 (civilian = 22.5 min,
SD= 16.6, military = 10.3 min, SD= 8.2). No other
effects for any of the other sleep measures were
reliable, suggesting that sleep efciency was com-
parable across all conditions.
Fatigue measures. Oral temperatures and Stan-
ford sleepiness scores (Hoddes, Zarcone, Smythe,
Phillips, & Dement, 1973) were obtained from
each participant every 2 hr throughout the formal
experiment, for a total of 14 observations per par-
ticipant. Oral temperature is a traditional circadi-
an measure related to fatigue (e.g., Froberg, 1977;
Monk, 1991), and the Stanford Sleepiness score
is a standardized sleepiness index, employed rou-
tinely in sleep loss and performance studies (see
Babkoff, Caspy, & Mikulincer, 1991; Babkoff,
Caspy, Mikulincer, & Sing, 1991). The scale ranges
from 1 (feeling active and vital; alert; wide awake)
to 7 (almost in reverie; sleep onset soon; losing
struggle to remain awake). The results, presented
in Figure 1, reveal that overall, these data display
the expected trends of increasing fatigue and de-
clining body temperature with increasing sleep
loss, conrming that by the early morning of Day
2 our participants were indeed sleepy teams.
Effects of Feedback Manipulations on
Team Performance
The effects of feedback were examined by a
repeated measures ANOVA with two between-
subject factors (team type: civilian vs. military;
leader feedback: yes vs. no) and two within-
subject factors. One within-subjects factor with
three levels was denoted by the type of feedback
(FB) that the subordinates received: (a) full FB
(feedback on their own performance and each of
the other subordinates), (b) own FB (feedback on
their own performance), and (c) no FB (no feed-
back at all). The other within-subject factor that
reected the effect of fatigue attributable to sleep
loss was sessions. After counterbalancing the
teams over the order of presentation of the various
TITAN congurations, seven levels of the session
factor were dened: Day 2 08:00 to 1100, Day 2
12:00 to 15:00, Day 2 16:00 to 19:00, Day 2 20:00
to 23:00, Day 3 00:00 to 03:00, Day 3 04:00 to
07:00, and Day 3 08:00 to 11:00.
Two dependent measures were used to evalu-
ate team decision-making performance: mean ab-
solute error of the threat assessments (denoted by
SLEEPY TEAMS 653
percentage error from the true score) and mean
target processing time (in seconds). Target process-
ing times greater than three standard deviations
from the mean were trimmed as outliers.
The ANOVAon the assessment accuracy mea-
sure revealed a signicant main effect of sessions,
F(6, 72) = 4.58, MSE = 0.0009, p < .0001. As the
top panel of Figure 2 shows, accuracy rst im-
proved with practice, peaking by the late afternoon
of Day 2. Note that each point in Figure 2 repre-
sents a 3-hr time block during which teams per-
formed the TITAN task twice per hour. Hence, by
this time, teams had completed more than 18
TITAN sessions, not including practice on Day 1.
Beginning on the evening of Day 2, percentage
error in threat assessments begins to increase so
that by the end of the study, error had increased al-
most 30% above the optimum achieved on Day 2.
No other main effects or interactions approached
signicance, including the critical interaction be-
tween session and subordinate feedback (F< 1.0).
Specically, as is evident in Figure 3, performance
in the condition in which there was no feedback
did not differ from any of the other feedback con-
ditions.
The ANOVA conducted on mean processing
time likewise revealed a signicant effect of ses-
sions, F(6, 72) = 17.67, MSE = 958.2, p < .0001.
As is evident in the bottom panel of Figure 2, pro-
cessing times rst declined with practice, again
reaching an optimum in the late afternoon of Day
2. Thereafter, processing times showed a steady
increase with increasing sleep deprivation. Indeed,
by the end of the study, processing times in-
creased by 27% over the optimal times obtained
on Day 2.
The only other effect to achieve statistical sig-
nicance was an interaction between sessions and
team type, F(6, 72) = 4.79, MSE= 259.7, p < .001.
Whereas civilian and military teams displayed the
same pattern of processing times evident in the
lower panel of Figure 2, military teams displayed
a larger increase in processing times with increas-
ing sleep deprivation. For example, civilian and
military teams displayed similar processing times
from 16:00 to 19:00 of Day 2 (40.52 s, SEM =
4.00 s, vs. 44.13 s, SEM= 3.78 s, respectively) but
displayed a larger difference for the last session
(47.83 s, SEM= 5.18 s, vs. 59.41 s, SEM= 4.78 s,
respectively). Finally, as is evident in the bottom
panel of Figure 3, no other main effects or inter-
actions approached significance, including the
critical interaction between session and subordi-
nate feedback conditions (F < 1.0).
Experiment Time
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

S
l
e
e
p
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
o
r
e
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Day 2 Day 3
0940 1140 1340 1540 1740 1940 2140 2340 0140 0340 0540 0740 0940 1140
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
C
o
)
36.2
36.3
36.4
36.5
36.6
36.7
36.8
Stanford Sleepiness Scores
Temperature
Figure 1. Stanford Sleepiness scores and oral temperatures as a function of experiment time. Error bars denote the
standard error of the mean across participants.
654 August 2007 Human Factors
Session
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

E
r
r
o
r

(
%
)
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
T
a
r
g
e
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g

T
i
m
e

(
s
)
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
Session
Day 2
0800-
1100
Day 2
1200-
1500
Day 2
1600-
1900
Day 2
2000-
2300
Day 3
0000-
0300
Day 3
0400-
0700
Day 3
0800-
1100
Day 2
0800-
1100
Day 2
1200-
1500
Day 2
1600-
1900
Day 2
2000-
2300
Day 3
0000-
0300
Day 3
0400-
0700
Day 3
0800-
1100

Figure 2. Mean assessment error (top panel) and mean target processing time (lower panel) during the seven time
periods in the team TITAN task. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean across teams.
SLEEPY TEAMS 655
Session
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

E
r
r
o
r

(
%
)
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Full Feedback
No FB
Own FB Only
T
a
r
g
e
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g

T
i
m
e

(
s
)
40
44
48
52
56
60
Session
Day 2
0800-
1100
Day 2
1200-
1500
Day 2
1600-
1900
Day 2
2000-
2300
Day 3
0000-
0300
Day 3
0400-
0700
Day 3
0800-
1100
Day 2
0800-
1100
Day 2
1200-
1500
Day 2
1600-
1900
Day 2
2000-
2300
Day 3
0000-
0300
Day 3
0400-
0700
Day 3
0800-
1100
Figure 3. Mean assessment error (top panel) and mean target processing time (lower panel) during the seven time
periods in the team TITAN task. Data are presented separately for the three within-team feedback manipulations
(i.e., full feedback, partial feedback, and no feedback). Error bars denote the standard error of the mean across teams.
FB = feedback.
656 August 2007 Human Factors
Social Loang: Motivational Gain
Analyses
The question of social loang versus motiva-
tional gain was examined by a repeated measures
ANOVA with two between-subject factors and
two within-subjects factors. The rst between-
subjects factor was team type (civilian vs. mili-
tary), and the second, leader feedback, as before
denoted whether or not the leader received feed-
back on the subordinates performance in the
team task. Because the 16 leaders performed a dif-
ferent task in the team context, data for only the
48 subordinates are included in these analyses,
which focus on a comparison of the solo TITAN
condition with that of the team condition.
Critically, the task requirements for the subor-
dinates in the solo TITAN task were identical to
the team task version that provided no feedback
on the accuracy of the other subordinates. That is,
the only difference was that in the latter case the
participant was performing in the context of a team
and thus had the associated consequences of his or
her own performance on the performance of the
team. Hence, one within-subjects factor, which we
call team/solo, denoted whether the subordinate
participated in the solo TITAN task or in the con-
text of the team. The other within-subject factor
that reected the effect of fatigue attributable to
sleep loss was sessions (seven levels). Again, there
were two dependent measures: mean absolute
accuracy of the threat assessments (denoted by
percentage error from the true score) and mean tar-
get processing time (in seconds). Target process-
ing times greater than three standard deviations
from the mean were trimmed as outliers.
The results of the two ANOVAs were perfect-
ly consistent. First, there were no main effects or
interactions involving the between-group factors
(team type and leader feedback). Second, as ex-
pected, the main effect of sessions was reliable for
both dependent measures, conrming an effect of
fatigue attributable to sleep loss: For accuracy,
F(6, 264) = 5.16, MSE = 37.40, p < .0001; for
processing time, F(6, 264) = 11.66, MSE= 297.3,
p< .0001. Third, each ANOVAalso revealed faster
and more accurate performance in the team than
the solo context: For accuracy, F(1, 44) = 16.76,
MSE = 359.43, p < .0002; for processing time,
F(1, 44) = 5.83, MSE = 353.6, p < .02.
Finally, the latter main effect of team/solo was
moderated by a signicant interaction between
session and team/solo: For accuracy, F(6, 264) =
2.23, MSE = 11.88, p < .05; for processing time,
F(6, 264) = 5.13, MSE = 97.1, p < .0001. The ef-
fects, shown in Figure 4, show that accuracy and
processing time did not differ initially between
the team and solo contexts. However, fatigue in-
duced a much larger performance decrement when
individuals performed alone than when they per-
formed exactly the same task in the context of a
team. Thus, in contrast to the ndings reported by
Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), the present
ndings provide clear evidence of a motivational
gain effect with people performing a highly inter-
dependent team task during sleep deprivation.
DISCUSSION
Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Allnutt
et al., 1990; Banderet et al., 1981; Hoeksema-van
Orden et al., 1998), the present research conrms
the antagonistic effects of fatigue attributable to
sleep loss on team performance, this time in the con-
text of a distributed and interdependent decision-
making task. Although the interdependent nature
of the team task was insufcient to eliminate com-
pletely the effects of fatigue, it was powerful
enough to produce a motivational gain effect,
which was apparent as sleep deprivation condi-
tions continued. That is, participants performing
in the team context displayed signicantly better
performance than they did performing the same
task alone. This result contrasts with those of
Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), who found a
social loang effect in a noninterdependent (i.e.,
additive) team task.
Importantly, providing a unique contribution in
an interdependent team task provides only a par-
tial explanation for obtaining a motivational gain
effect under conditions of fatigue. Specically, as
is evident in Figure 4, if making a unique contri-
bution in an interdependent task was sufcient to
produce a motivational gain, then it would have
been evident at the outset, rather than emerging
only with increasing fatigue caused by sleep depri-
vation. In a recent review, Karau et al. (2000)
expounded upon CEM in the context of several
documented motivating properties of groups that
can give rise to motivational gains, including so-
cial compensation, the Khler effect, group com-
position, and social competition. Of these, social
compensation appears to be particularly relevant
in the present context.
SLEEPY TEAMS 657
Session
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

E
r
r
o
r

(
%
)
4
5
6
7
8
9
Subordinate - Solo
Subordinate - Team
T
a
r
g
e
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g

T
i
m
e

(
s
)
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Session
Day 2
0800-
1100
Day 2
1200-
1500
Day 2
1600-
1900
Day 2
2000-
2300
Day 3
0000-
0300
Day 3
0400-
0700
Day 3
0800-
1100
Day 2
0800-
1100
Day 2
1200-
1500
Day 2
1600-
1900
Day 2
2000-
2300
Day 3
0000-
0300
Day 3
0400-
0700
Day 3
0800-
1100

Figure 4. Mean assessment error (top panel) and mean target processing time (lower panel) during the seven time
periods for individuals in the team and solo versions of the TITAN task. Note that in comparison with Figure 3, the
lower panel of this gure denotes the processing time of individuals as compared with that of the entire team. Error
bars denote the standard error of the mean across participants.
658 August 2007 Human Factors
According to the social compensation model
(Karau et al., 2000), when individuals rely on other
group members for a valued group outcome and
there is some expectation that other group mem-
bers may perform poorly, individuals may exert
additional effort on the task in order to ensure
group success. Of course, this would be the case
only if individuals believed they could actually
compensate for the poorer performance of the
other members and they valued the performance
of the group so much that they were inclined to
take on the added burden of responsibility.
Recall that the conguration of our team task
highlighted the unique contribution that each
member was providing. This task feature enabled
all participants to contribute directly to the overall
accuracy and timeliness of the team and thus pro-
vided them with the opportunity for social com-
pensation. In addition, the presence of feedback in
some of the sessions would have provided some
indication that the performance of their team was
declining. This meets a further criterion of social
compensation: the provision of information that
informs the expectation that others might be per-
forming poorly.
Several observations were at least consistent
with this interpretation, although a denitive con-
clusion will require additional research. First, it
was clear in conducting this study that both civil-
ian and military teams developed a high degree
of camaraderie and cohesion over the course of
the study and that teams were highly motivated to
do well, even when extremely tired. Second, par-
ticipants were uniformly fatigued during the lat-
ter parts of the study and thus were quite aware of
the debilitated state that their fellow team mem-
bers were in, despite being distributed and not be-
ing able to communicate explicitly during the
team tasks. We believe that these factors, taken to-
gether, may well have provided conditions where-
by team members felt some responsibility to exert
additional effort to maintain the team performance
during the difcult sleep-deprivation stage of the
experiment.
The previous discussion may also have some
bearing on our second objective in this research,
which was to examine the impact of various feed-
back manipulations on the tendency toward soci-
al loang under conditions of fatigue. Whereas
the ndings of Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998)
showed a reduction in social loang when feed-
back was provided, our findings revealed that
teams performed equally well (in terms of judg-
ment accuracy and processing time) regardless of
the feedback conditions.
Moreover, there was no effect of the status of
the feedback recipient (i.e., team member or team
leader). Indeed, perhaps the most striking result
was evident in the no-feedback condition. In this
case, participants could have entered random as-
sessments and no one, not even the experimenters,
would have known (until, of course, we analyzed
the data after the study was completed). Recall that
we included this condition precisely in order to
provide a condition in which social loang could
occur.
One interpretation of this result is that the inter-
dependent nature of the task produced an envi-
ronment whereby team members felt accountable
(see Lerner & Tetlock, 1999) for their own perfor-
mance and to their teams, so much so that per-
formance in the no-feedback condition did not
differ from that observed in the full feedback con-
dition. Hence, from the perspective of CEM, par-
ticipants viewed their input as equally valuable
toward the common goal in all feedback condi-
tions. Another interpretation of the results is that
the conditions involving some degree of feedback
established a social or performance norm within
these teams and that these norms produced a carry-
over effect into sessions in which there was no
feedback. Of course, these notions are not mutu-
ally exclusive, and further studies are needed in
order to directly address these explanations.
In summary, when teams are colocated and
members can interact face to face, the effects of
sleep loss may be delayed or even mitigated by the
arousal inherent in social interaction. When teams
are distributed and thus not face to face, such as in
the present study and the studies by Hoeksema-
van Orden et al. (1998), the effects of fatigue
caused by sleep loss on team performance may de-
pend on the degree of uniqueness of the contribu-
tions of the team members. In noninterdependent
tasks, social loang is more likely to occur and the
degree of social loang will be accentuated by
fatigue. In interdependent tasks, on the other hand,
team members make a unique contribution to an
overall objective. When this objective is valued,
team members may be willing to exert additional
effort under the burden of fatigue, resulting in en-
hanced team performance over individual level
performance.
In real-world distributed team contexts (e.g.,
SLEEPY TEAMS 659
military network-enabled operations), these re-
sults suggest that designing team and task struc-
tures so as to encourage interdependency (or the
perception of interdependency) may provide a use-
ful countermeasure when fatigue and the concom-
itant opportunity for social loang are inevitable.
Future research will be required to determine the
boundary conditions of the current results. For in-
stance, one relevant question is the extent to which
the impact of uniqueness of contribution to team
tasks and the effect of at least intermittent team per-
formance feedback can be preserved over longer
periods of time, especially in the face of additional
stressors such as time pressure, ambiguity, and tax-
ing physical conditions. The ultimate key to pro-
moting the conditions in which motivational gains
may be realized is configuring team tasks and
establishing strong team cohesion to ensure that
team-level outcomes are as equally valued as indi-
vidual outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our sincere thanks to Andrea Hawton and
Heather Devine for their invaluable assistance
throughout every phase of this research. We also
thank Tonya Hendricks, Trish Unruh, Andrea
Pfrimmer, Susan Baker, and Jennifer Barrett for
their assistance with the data collection and Marc
Grushcow and NTTSystems Inc. for software de-
velopment. Finally, we would like to thank Eduardo
Salas and three anonymous reviewers for many
insightful comments and suggestions. Portions of
this work were presented at the 43rd Annual Meet-
ing of the Psychonomic Society, Kansas City, Mis-
souri, November 2002.
REFERENCES
Allnutt, M. F., Haslam, D. R., Rejman, M. H., & Green, S. (1990).
Sustained performance and some effects on the design and operation
of complex systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, B327, 529541.
Angus, R. G., & Heselgrave, R. J. (1985). Effects of sleep loss on sus-
tained cognitive performance during a command and control simu-
lation. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers,
17, 5567.
Babkoff, H., Caspy, T., & Mikulincer, M. (1991). Subjective sleepiness
ratings: The effects of sleep deprivation, circadian rhythmicity and
cognitive performance. Sleep, 14, 534539.
Babkoff, H., Caspy, T., Mikulincer, M., & Sing, H. (1991). Monotonic
and rhythmic inuences: Achallenge for sleep deprivation research.
Psychological Bulletin, 109, 411428.
Banderet, L. E., Stokes, J. W., Francesconi, R., Kowal, D. M., & Naitoh,
P. (1981). Artillery teams in simulated sustained combat:
Performance and other measures. In L. C. Johnson, D. J. Tepas, W.
P. Colquhoun, & M. J. Colligan (Eds.), Biological rhythms, sleep
and shiftwork (pp. 459477). New York: Spectrum.
Brehmer, B. (1991). Distributed decision making: Some notes on the
literature. In J. Rasmussen, B. Brehmer, & J. Leplat (Eds.), Distri-
buted decision making: Cognitive models for cooperative work (pp.
314). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Dinges, D. F., & Kribbs, N. B. (1991). Performing while sleepy: Effects
of experimentally induced sleepiness. In T. H. Monk (Ed.), Sleep,
sleepiness, and performance (pp. 97128). New York: Wiley.
Elliott, L., Miller, J., Barnes, C., Dalrymple, M., Brown, L., Whitmore,
J., et al. (2002, September). Investigation of complex command,
control, and communications decision making under sustained
operations. In Proceedings of the 7th International Command and
Control Research and Technology Symposium. Quebec City,
Quebec. Paper retrieved from http://www.dodccrp.org
Foushee, H. C., Lauber, J. K., Baetge, M. M., & Acomb, D. B. (1986).
Crew factors in ight operations: III. The operational signicance
of exposure to short-haul air transport operations. Moffett Field,
CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
Froberg, J. E. (1977). Twenty-four-hour patterns in human performance,
subjective and physiological variables and differences between
morning and evening active subjects. Biological Psychology, 5,
119134.
Geen, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology,
42, 377399.
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Hughson, T. L. (1988). Groups and
productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams.
In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organi-
zations (pp. 295325). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organi-
zations. In M. S. Pallak & R. O. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work:
Productivity, change, and employment (pp. 87136). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self-
evaluation with an objective standard. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 24, 354365.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loang and group eval-
uation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934941.
Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. A. (2000). The impact of sleep deprivation on
decision making: Areview. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 6, 236249.
Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Mess, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in per-
formance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the
Khler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
580601.
Hoddes, E., Zarcone, V., Smythe, H., Phillips, R., & Dement, W. (1973).
Quantication of sleepiness: Anew approach. Psychophysiology,
10, 431436.
Hoeksema-van Orden, C. Y. D., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Buunk, B. P.
(1998). Social loang under fatigue. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 11791190.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A.,
& Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision-making:
Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292316.
Horne, J. A. (1988). Why we sleep: The functions of sleep in humans
and other mammals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explana-
tion of the social loang effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 11991206.
Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loang on difcult
tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 937942.
Johnson, L. C. (1982). Sleep deprivation and performance. In W. Webb
(Ed.), Biological rhythms, sleep, and performance (pp. 111141).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Karau, S. J., Markus, M. J., & Williams, K. D. (2000). On the elusive
search for motivation gains in groups: Insights from the collective
effort model. Zeitschrift fr Sozialpsychologie, 31, 179190.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loang: Ameta-analytic
review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 681706.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and
group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 44, 7894.
Kjellberg, A. (1977). Sleep deprivation and some aspects of performance:
IIII. Waking and Sleeping, 1, 139155.
Khler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit
660 August 2007 Human Factors
[Physical performance in individual and group situations].
Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274282.
Krueger, G. P. (1989). Sustained work, fatigue, sleep loss and perfor-
mance: Areview of the issues. Work and Stress, 3, 129141.
Latan, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American
Psychologist, 36, 343356.
Latan, B., Williams, K. D., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make
light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822832.
Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. (1999). Accounting for the effects of account-
ability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255275.
Lisper, H. O., & Kjellberg, A. (1972). Effects of 24-hour sleep depriva-
tion on rate of decrement in a 10-minute auditory reaction time task.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 287290.
McCann, C., Baranski, J. V., Thompson, M. M., & Pigeau, R. (2000). On
the utility of experiential cross-training for team decision making
under time stress. Ergonomics, 43, 10951110.
Monk, T. H. (1991). Circadian aspects of subjective sleepiness: A
behavioral messenger? In T. H. Monk (Ed.) Sleep, sleepiness, and
performance (pp. 3963). New York: Wiley.
Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the indi-
vidual: Aself-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 19, 295322.
Pilcher, J. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1996). Effects of sleep deprivation on
performance: Ameta analysis. Sleep, 19, 318326.
Rechtschaffen, A., & Kales, A. (1968). A manual of standardized ter-
minology, techniques and scoring system for sleep stages of human
subjects. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Brain
Information Service/Brain Research Institute.
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A
motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 6781.
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensa-
tion and the Khler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of the
motivation gains in group productivity. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis
(Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol. 2. Small group process-
es and interpersonal relations (pp. 3765). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (1992). Teams: Their training and perfor-
mance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Williams, H. L., Lubin, A., & Goodnow, J. J. (1959). Impaired per-
formance with acute sleep loss. Psychological Monographs, 73,
126.
Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loang and social com-
pensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570581.
Joseph V. Baranski is a defense scientist and head of the
Collaborative Performance and Learning Section at De-
fence R&D Canada in Toronto. He obtained his Ph.D. in
cognitive psychology in 1992 from Carleton University
in Ottawa, Canada.
Megan M. Thompson is a defense scientist in the Colla-
borative Performance and Learning Section at Defence
R&D Canada in Toronto. She obtained her Ph.D. in social
psychology in 1992 from the University of Waterloo in
Waterloo, Canada.
Frederick M. J. Lichacz is a defense scientist at the Ca-
nadian Forces Experimentation Centre in Ottawa. He
obtained his Ph.D. in cognitive psychology in 1998 from
Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
Carol McCann is a defense scientist and head of the
Adversary Intent Section at Defence R&D Canada in
Toronto. She obtained her masters degree in mathemat-
ics in 1979 from the University of Toronto.
Valerie Gil is a senior ergonomist with Transport Canada
in Montreal. She obtained her Ph.D. in health and behav-
ioral science in 1997 from the University of Toronto.
Luigi Past is a psychology lecturer at John Abbott
College in Montreal, Canada. He obtained his Ph.D. in
cognitive psychology in 1995 from the University of
Ottawa, Canada.
Ross A. Pigeau is chief scientist at Defence R&D Cana-
da in Toronto. He obtained his Ph.D. in experimental
psychology in 1985 from Carleton University in Ottawa,
Canada.
Date received: August 9, 2005
Date accepted: August 22, 2006