The Effect of a Context‐Specific Primed Goal on Goal Commitment and Team Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of a context‐specific prime for cooperation on goal commitment and team performance were examined. In the first experiment, the participants ( n = 139) performed the Lost on the Moon simulation (Hall & Watson, 1970) individually and as a team ( n = 50). The teams were randomly assigned to a condition where they were assigned the same goal. They were then primed ( n = 23) through a photograph of cooperation or to the control condition ( n = 27). Consistent with NASA’s directions for performing the simulation, performance was measured by how well a team performed relative to the answers of experts, namely, staff at NASA. The results showed that a primed behavioural goal to cooperate has a positive effect on team performance. These results were replicated in a second and third experiment involving a social dilemma where both a pro‐social, group‐centric goal and a pro‐self, egocentric goal could be self‐set for the amount of points to make. Thus the positive effect of a goal primed for cooperation on a team’s performance was shown to be robust even when there was an explicit mixture of cooperative and competitive incentives. This finding was replicated in a third experiment with actual money. Consistent with goal setting theory, commitment to the team’s goal moderated the primed goal‐performance relationship.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".