Honor among thieves: The interaction of team and member deviance on trust in the team.
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
In this article, we examine member trust in deviant teams. We contend that a member's trust in his or her deviant team depends on the member's own deviant actions; although all members will judge the actions of their deviant teams as rational evidence that they should not be trusted, deviant members, but not honest members, can hold on to trust in their teams because of a sense of connection to the team. We tested our predictions in a field study of 562 members across 111 teams and 24 organizations as well as in an experiment of 178 participants in deviant and non-deviant teams. Both studies show that honest members experience a greater decline in trust as team deviance goes up. Moreover, our experiment finds that deviant members have as much trust in their deviant teams as honest members do in honest teams, but only in teams with coordinated rather than independent acts of deviance, in which deviant members engage in a variety of ongoing dynamics foundational to a sense of connection and affective-based trust. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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