Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust.

Open access
Curşeu, Petru Lucian, Schruijer, Sandra G. L.·2010·Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

Abstract

This article explores the interplay between trust and conflict as antecedents of team effectiveness. In the first cross-sectional study, two alternative path models are tested in a sample of 174 teams (897 participants) with the emergent states of task conflict, relationship conflict, and trust acting as mediators between team demographic diversity (gender and nationality) on the one hand and perceived team effectiveness on the other. In one model trust is considered as an antecedent for the two types of conflict, while in the other the two types of conflict precede the emergence of trust. Although the fit indices for the model in which trust is considered the antecedent of conflict were slightly better, both models fitted the data well. The interdependence of trust and conflict was further explored in a second longitudinal study (49 teams), and the results showed that trust emerging in the initial team interaction phases is a good predictor for the emergence of both task and relationship conflict in further stages of team development.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017104

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.

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

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L.
Venue
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
Published
2010-03
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
66-79
ISSN
  • 1089-2699 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7802
OpenAlex
W2171757172
Cited by
162
References
0
FWCI
13.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.