Self‐efficacy changes in groups: effects of diversity, leadership, and group climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Self‐efficacy belief is a significant predictor of behavioral choices in terms of goal setting, the amount of effort devoted to a particular task, and actual performance. This study conceives of formation and change of self‐efficacy as a social and context‐dependent process. We hypothesized that different group factors (discretionary and ambient group stimuli) influence changes in members' self‐efficacy through differing routes (individual‐level and cross‐level processes). We tested our hypotheses using data from individuals in 169 training groups who attended a 5‐day workshop designed to increase participants' job‐search skills and efficacy. Specifically, we examined the degree of change in participants' job‐search efficacy before and after the workshop. The results showed that (a) membership diversity in education was positively related to increases in job‐search efficacy, (b) supportive leadership contributed to job‐search efficacy at the individual level of analysis with no cross‐level effects, and (c) open group climate contributed to job‐search efficacy through both individual‐level and cross‐level processes. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".