Cooperative communication and individual attraction to the group: Examining the moderating effect of psychological climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that a positive relationship exists between the cooperative communication of sport team members and perceptions of task cohesiveness (e.g., McLaren & Spink, 2018a; 2018b; 2019). Extending this relationship, the purpose of this study was to examine whether psychological safety would moderate this relation, including an extension to social cohesion. Psychological safety is the support and freedom individuals feel to express themselves without fear of negative consequences in a group setting (Brown & Leigh, 1996). If individuals fear expressing themselves (lower psychological safety), then the relationship between communication and cohesion should be stronger as communication might be expected to be more judicious leading to higher cohesion perceptions. To test for this possible moderating effect, team sport athletes (N = 136) completed an online survey containing measures of cooperative communication (Lee, 1997), psychological safety (Brown & Leigh, 1996), and group cohesion (ATG-T, ATG-S; Carron et al., 1985). Regression results for ATG-T (R2 = .42) revealed that the communication-cohesion relationship was significant at lower (-1SD; ? = 1.59) and mean values of psychological safety (? = 0.93), but not at higher values. Similarly, moderation also was found for ATG-S (R2 = .19). The communication-cohesion relationship was significant only at lower (-1SD; ? = 1.05) and mean values of psychological safety (? = 0.61). These results provide preliminary evidence that the relationship between team member communication and perceptions of cohesion in sport teams might be qualified by the member's perception of other aspects of the team's social environment (i.e., psychological climate).
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".