Initial Expectations of Team Performance: Specious Speculation or Framing the Future?
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
This study demonstrates that the initial performance expectations of teams, formed even before members are very familiar with each other or the team’s task, are a key determinant of the team’s ultimate success. Specifically, we argue that such early formed beliefs determine the extent to which teams frame their task as a gain or loss context, which affects their orientation toward risk-taking. Our results suggest a self-fulfilling prophecy effect: Initial team performance expectations lead to the fulfillment of such expectations via risk-taking behavior. We also show that teams are less susceptible to this “risk-taking trap” to the extent that members have low avoidant or high dependent decision-making styles. We tested and found support for our predictions in a study of 540 individuals comprising 108 five-member teams working in a controlled environment. Our study contributes to theory on emergent states and decision biases in teams, and we offer a number of practical implications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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