The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance
Abstract
This study continued past research on the relationship between personality composition in teams and social cohesion and team performance (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998). Results from the Barrick et al. sample (N = 50) were compared with data from two new samples, one comprising drilling teams in the US (N = 24), and the other comprising student teams in The Netherlands (N = 25). Furthermore, this study examined the relationship between personality composition and task cohesion, usually considered to be a stronger predictor of team performance than social cohesion. Results partly confirmed the relationships between personality composition, cohesion, and team performance that were found previously. Minimum levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness contributed positively to both task cohesion and team performance. High mean levels of extraversion and emotional stability contributed positively to social cohesion. Some results differed across the three samples, stressing the importance of task characteristics as a factor influencing relationships between team personality, team processes, and team performance. Although significant relationships were found between social cohesion, task cohesion, and performance, cohesion measures did not mediate relationships between personality composition and team performance.
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
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210 · Cited by 1,398
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985) · Journal of Sport Psychology · doi:10.1123/jsp.7.3.244 · Cited by 1,050 · cited 3×
“This was measured with five items derived from the Group Environment Questionnaire developed by Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1985) and used in previous studies (e.g., Brawley et al., 1987).”
MethodOn the logic and purpose of significance testing.
Cortina, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1997) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.2.2.161 · Cited by 166 · cited 1×
“Schmidt (1996) showed that the possibility of a type II error easily exceeds .40 (see also, Hunter, 1997; for discussions, see Abelson, 1997; Cortina & Dunlap, 1997; Estes, 1997).”
Background
Cited by
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546 · Cited by 2,200
van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003 · Cited by 514
Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012 · Cited by 188
Grossman, R., Nolan, K., Rosch, Z., Mazer, D., & Salas, E. (2022) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/20413866211041157 · Cited by 133
A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership and performance
Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. (2010) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/1548051809359184 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W.
- Venue
- European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 97-120
- ISSN
- 1359-432X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0643
- OpenAlex
- W2118283032
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 5.98
- 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
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.
