The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived Collective Efficacy, Subjective Well-Being And Task Performance Among Electronic Work Groups: An Experimental Study
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of e-groups on well-being and performance, using a collective approach and an objective performance indicator. Furthermore, it includes collective efficacy as a moderator and negative (anxiety) as well as positive (engagement) well-being. A lab experiment with an interval of 3 weeks was performed among 140 students who were randomly distributed across 18 groups using a chat-internet program and 10 groups working face to face. Half the groups performed under time pressure. Results confirm the moderating role of perceived collective efficacy on well-being and task performance. All groups working under time pressure and low in collective efficacy show an increase in collective anxiety. Chat-internet groups under time pressure show an increase in collective engagement but only when they feel high in collective efficacy. Finally, task performance was poorer in chat groups, working under time pressure, and with low levels of collective efficacy than in the other groups.
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
Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 · Cited by 18,093
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 · Cited by 12,852
Self-citationPositive psychology: An introduction.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 · Cited by 11,351
The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1023/a:1015630930326 · Cited by 10,014
Self-citationOrganizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868
Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning
Bandura, A. (1993) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 · Cited by 7,655
The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health.
Warr, P. (1990) · Journal of Occupational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x · Cited by 1,490 · cited 1×
“Collective anxiety was assessed with the Anxiety-Contentment scale developed by Warr (1990).”
Method
Cited by
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217 · Cited by 2,276
Self-citationSocial Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context
Bandura, A. (2002) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00092 · Cited by 2,092
How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.595 · Cited by 2,059
Self-citationSalanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585190701763982 · Cited by 889
Self-citationSalanova, M., Schaufeli, W., Martínez, I., & Bresó, E. (2010) · Anxiety, Stress & Coping · doi:10.1080/10615800802609965 · Cited by 612
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B.
- Venue
- Small Group Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-73
- ISSN
- 1046-4964 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8278
- OpenAlex
- W2006328420
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 8.13
- 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.
