Cited by 52Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Is a partner’s competence threatening during dyadic cooperative work? It depends on resource interdependence

Open access
Buchs, Céline, Butera, Fabrizio·2009·European Journal of Psychology of Education

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf03173007

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Effect-oriented research focuses on the direct relationship between group composition and students' individual posttest performance, whereas process-oriented research also takes the collaborative process into account.

    “Effect-oriented research that investigates these relationships focuses on the direct relationship between, for example, group composition and students' individual performance on a posttest (see, for example, Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Buchs and Butera 2009), whereas process-oriented research also takes the collaborative process into account (for example, Denessen et al. 2008;Webb et al. 1998).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Buchs, C. (2008). La distribution des informations dans les dispositifs d'apprentissage entre pairs. In Y. Rouiller & K. Lehraus (Eds.), Vers des apprentissages en coopération: Rencontres et perspectives (pp. 57-80). Bruxelles: Peter Lang -Exploration.
  2. Clarke, J. (1999). Pieces of the puzzle: The jigsaw method. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 34-50). Westport, CT: Greenwood publishing group.
  3. O'Donnell, A.M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A.M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. The Rutgers invitational symposium on education series (pp. 179-196).
  4. Buchs, C. (2008). La distribution des informations dans les dispositifs d'apprentissage entre pairs. In Y. Rouiller & K. Lehraus (Eds.), Vers des apprentissages en coopération: Rencontres et perspectives (pp. 57-80). Bruxelles: Peter Lang.
  5. Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2004). Socio-cognitive conflict and the role of student interaction in learning. New Review of social Psychology, 3(1-2), 80-87.
  6. Buchs, C., Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (2004). Resource interdependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24(3), 291-314.
  7. Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory Into Practice, 43(1), 23-30.
  8. Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Quiamzade, A. (2007). Performance-approach and performance- avoidance goals: When uncertainty makes a difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 813-827.
  9. Dompnier, B., Darnon, & Butera F. (in press). Faking the desire to learn: A clarification of the link between mastery goals and academic achievement. Psychological Science.
  10. Toma, C., & Butera, F. (in press). Hidden profiles and concealed information: Strategic information sharing and use in group decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buchs, C., & Butera, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • University of Lausanne (CH)
Corresponding author
Buchs, Céline
Venue
European Journal of Psychology of Education
Published
2009-06
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
145-154
ISSN
  • 0256-2928 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-5174
OpenAlex
W2012907540
Cited by
52
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Psychology of Education (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
resource interdependence, peer learning, social comparison, information transmission, complementary information, student interaction, moderating effect

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review