The DOI matches its Crossref record.
EXPLORING THE NEED FOR A SHARED COGNITIVE MAP
Abstract
This article reports on an experiment that was undertaken to elicit the shared perceptions of a group of individuals in relation to a particular organizational domain. These shared perceptions were termed collective beliefs, and were to be modelled in the form of a causal cognitive map. An initial conceptual framework was presented in which it was posited that groups of individuals who work closely together share a set of common beliefs which enable them to function successfully as a group. These shared beliefs are an integral part of the group's cultural identity. Collective beliefs were defined as those beliefs which are a function of the group, encompassing more than those beliefs that are shared by the individuals within the group. Following the experiment it was proposed that it is not necessary for members of a group to have a complete set of shared beliefs in order to function as a decision‐making group. In the new model, collective cognitions are described as merely transitory phenomena, changing in response to circumstances. The reforming of such phenomena over time results in the formation of shared belief systems. This framework was supported by the literature.
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
Cited by
Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310388419 · Cited by 6,735
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361 · Cited by 2,829
Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639402000206 · Cited by 1,632
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496406292938 · Cited by 792
Olazabal, M., Neumann, M. B., Foudi, S., & Chiabai, A. (2018) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.2519 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Langfield‐Smith, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-05
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 349-368
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2072959128
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.67
- 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: EXPLORING THE NEED FOR A SHARED COGNITIVE MAP. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00669.x
- The paper
- Langfield‐Smith, K. (1992). EXPLORING THE NEED FOR A SHARED COGNITIVE MAP. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00669.x
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.