We win together, we lose together: Effect of group constructs on collective responsibility
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
While sport teams are often lauded for their all-for-one mentality, the reality is that games are often lost by the play of one member. Are all members collectively responsible or is the loss attributed to the individual? Further, do group factors affect the way members attribute team failures? Both cohesion (e.g., Brawley et al., 1987) and the perception of groupness (e.g., Denson et al., 2006) have been associated with members assuming collective responsibility for different events. However, little is known about how consideration of these constructs together impacts these decisions. To answer this question, adult soccer players (N = 69) read four vignettes describing hypothetical soccer teams that differed in levels of cohesion (high[HC] vs. low[LC]) and groupness (high[HG] vs. low[LG]). While imagining themselves as a member of each of the four hypothetical teams, participants were asked to report whether the individual or the team would assume responsibility for three scenarios where a teammate mistake resulted in a loss. ANOVA results revealed a significant main effect, p < .001, ηp2 = .33. Post-hoc tests revealed significant differences between conditions (all ps < .01, .57 < Cohen's d < 1.08). Collective responsibility was highest after reading the vignette describing the HC/HG team, followed by the HC/LG and LC/HG (which did not differ), and LC/LG teams. These results provide preliminary evidence that group-level constructs (i.e., cohesion, groupness) influence athletes' allocation of responsibility in team sport. Further, it appears that perceptions of cohesion and groupness have independent and additive effects on collective responsibility.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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