↓ Skip to main content

The Power of “We”: Effects of Psychological Collectivism on Team Performance Over Time

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
363 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Power of “We”: Effects of Psychological Collectivism on Team Performance Over Time
Published in
Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.1037/a0020929
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erich C. Dierdorff, Suzanne T. Bell, James A. Belohlav

Abstract

We examined the influences of different facets of psychological collectivism (Preference, Reliance, Concern, Norm Acceptance, and Goal Priority) on team functioning at 3 different performance depictions: initial team performance, end-state team performance, and team performance change over time. We also tested the extent to which team-member exchange moderated the relationships between facets of psychological collectivism and performance change over time. Results from multilevel growth modeling of 66 teams (N = 264) engaged in a business simulation revealed differential effects across facets of psychological collectivism and across different performance measurements. Whereas facets concerned with affiliation (Preference and Concern) were positively related to initial team performance, reliance was negatively related to initial team performance. Goal Priority was a strong predictor of end-state performance. Team-member exchange moderated the relationship between performance change and 3 of the 5 facets of psychological collectivism (Preference, Reliance, Norm Acceptance). Implications for team composition and team training are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 1%
Germany 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 345 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 97 27%
Student > Master 52 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 31 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 9%
Researcher 26 7%
Other 76 21%
Unknown 50 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 126 35%
Psychology 104 29%
Social Sciences 31 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 2%
Computer Science 5 1%
Other 28 8%
Unknown 63 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Psychology
#2,280
of 3,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,218
of 190,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Psychology
#43
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.