An Investigation of the Relationship among Conformity, Communication, and Anxiety in Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care members can face challenging situations when learning and working within multidisciplinary teams, such as when they are confronted with information that is contrary to their own understanding and knowledge. Consequently, some medical team members could feel pressure to conform to peers if they are required to make decisions. Over the years, many researchers in the field of psychology have defined that conformity occurs when an individual follows a course of action that is socially acceptable or in agreement with a majority of group members, even when this actions seems incorrect. In examining why group members might conform, some studies have suggested that poor communication and anxiety may be reasons for conformity behaviour; however, this possibility has not yet been clearly examined. The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship among learners’ communication competency, anxiety, and conformity behaviours in simulation exercises. Thirty male and female participants of various ages, medical specialties, and positions (i.e., medical clerks and residents) were observed in a simulation lab at Rockyview General Hospital in Calgary, Canada. Three measures were used in this study to observe the participants’ behaviours: A List of Potential Conformity Behaviours (LPCB), the Non-Technical Skills (NOTECHS) system, and the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI). Participants were also interviewed to explore their reasons for conforming. The study results showed that individuals with higher leadership and managerial skills exhibited more verbal and non-verbal behaviours. The anxiety levels of participants were found to be unrelated to their verbal and non-verbal behaviours, but changes in anxiety levels were associated with more verbal behaviours. Also, no relationship was found among the communication skills of participants and their anxiety levels. Finally, no link was established among conformity status, communication skill, and anxiety. Many participants also justified their feelings of pressure to conform during the study’s simulation exercises and also in clinic as related to medical hierarchies and their own knowledge level. Additionally, some medical situations, such as dealing with emergencies and participants’ concerns about their image in front of other team members, may create pressure to conform. Although this study’s results showed no significant relationship among conformity, communication, and anxiety, it enhances our understanding of the complexity of studying the relationship among different constructs
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".