The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective.
Abstract
A motivated information processing perspective (C. K. W. De Dreu & P. J. D. Carnevale, 2003; see also V. B. Hinsz, R. S. Tindale, & D. A. Vollrath, 1997) was used to predict that perceived cooperative outcome interdependence interacts with team-level reflexivity to predict information sharing, learning, and team effectiveness. A cross-sectional field study involving management and cross-functional teams (N = 46) performing nonroutine, complex tasks corroborated predictions: The more team members perceived cooperative outcome interdependence, the better they shared information, the more they learned and the more effective they were, especially when task reflexivity was high. When task reflexivity was low, no significant relationship was found between cooperative outcome interdependence and team processes and performance. The author concludes that the motivated information processing perspective is valid outside the confines of the laboratory and can be extended toward teamwork in organizations.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
(1963) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 15,085
The Social Psychology of Organizations.
Hackman, J. R., Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2989929 · Cited by 12,235
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Hammer, T. H., Anderson, J., Gurdon, M., Jick, T., Petit, A., Stern, R., Schwartz, H., Vardi, Y., & Dunnette, M. D. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391755 · Cited by 11,945
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
Schelling, T. C. (1960) · Cited by 7,673
(2013) · Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,486
(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000) · Cited by 4,914
(2000) · Cited by 3,573
Cited by
Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868307304092 · Cited by 754
Self-citationHoman, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189 · Cited by 685
Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001 · Cited by 346
The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis.
Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0024315 · Cited by 341
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2012.1142 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- De Dreu, C. K. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 628-638
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2129002736
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 81
- FWCI
- 21.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628
- The paper
- De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
