Cited by 34Team Dynamics and PerformanceInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Exploring antecedents of social loafing in students’ group work: A mixed-methods approach

Open access
Luo, Zhenpeng, Marnburg, Einar, Øgaard, Torvald, Okumus, Fevzi·2021·Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100314

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luo, Z., Marnburg, E., Øgaard, T., & Okumus, F.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Union University (CN)
  • University of Stavanger (NO)
Corresponding author
Luo, Zhenpeng
Venue
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
28
Pages
100314
ISSN
1473-8376 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3145081954
Cited by
32
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
social loafing, group work, undergraduate students, shared responsibility, apathy, time constraints, competencies, fairness, group conflict, emotional relationships, collective identity, tourism and hospitality education

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