The Impact of Poor Performers on Team Outcomes: An Empirical Examination of Attribution Theory*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We test assertions that attribution theory (AT) can explain the responses of peers to the characteristics of a poor performing team member. Study 1 assessed the processes used to interpret the behavior of a poor performer and found that behavioral manifestations of cognitive ability ( g ) and Conscientiousness were associated with causal attributions (locus, controllability, and stability), emotional and cognitive reactions, and behavioral intentions to help or punish a fellow team member. Building on Study 1, Study 2 focused on team level responses to the lowest performer. It assessed the impact of g /Conscientiousness of a poorly performing team member on involving others, communication, feedback, and citizenship behaviors of team members at the team level. Both studies converged in finding that individual team members' intentions to help or punish were related to poor performer traits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it