Multilevel Analysis of the Impact of Cognitive Styles on Group Performance: The Role of Group Cohesion, Group Conflict, and Conflict Handling Styles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the impact of cognitive style (CS), group cohesion and conflict, and group performance, and moderating role of conflict handling strategies (CHS) in the relationship between group conflict and performance. Specifically, this study applies the viewpoint that individual differences, such as CS, vary across groups and impact functioning of groups. Existing literature in group dynamics and diversity links constructs at individual level with group level, however, investigation of these concepts all together and simultaneously through one theoretical model, has not been performed yet. Based on extensive literature review, a research model hypothesizing relationship between these concepts, is proposed. Data collected from a sample of 163 individual students in 34 groups are analyzed by using PLS path modeling. Consistent with existing literature, results indicate that both conflicts have negative association with groups’ performance, and groups’ CHS does moderate that influence. Moreover, CS are found to have a significant positive impact on group task and social cohesion. Support has also been found for group cohesion and conflict as mediators between CS and performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".