MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lability and Interactive EDA Predict Leadership Emergence

2025· article· en· W4416002442 on OpenAlexaff
Nir Milstein, Yair Berson, Ilanit Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabilityMultilevel modelTask (project management)Association (psychology)PerceptionPsychophysiologyValue (mathematics)Regression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leadership emergence (LE), the process by which individuals are recognized as leaders within their groups, has a significant impact on group performance. However, the physiological processes underlying LE remain largely unexplored. This study investigates the role of objective physiological measures, specifically electrodermal activity (EDA), in uncovering the mechanisms that contribute to LE. EDA reflects sympathetic nervous system activation and provides real-time insights into processes such as emotional arousal, attention, and vigilance—factors previously linked to LE. Participants (N = 144), nested in 48 three-person groups, completed a group decision-making task while their physiological data were continuously recorded. Two EDA components were analyzed: lability (baseline activity) and interactive EDA (dynamic responses during group interactions). LE was assessed using peer rankings conducted at the end of the group interaction. Multilevel Poisson regression analyses revealed that both mean baseline and interactive EDA positively predicted LE, even after controlling for variables such as gender, age, intelligence proxies, and other relevant factors. These findings suggest that processes associated with elevated EDA levels, such as emotional arousal, attention, and vigilance, promote the emergence of leaders in small groups. This study highlights the value of physiological measures like EDA in overcoming the limitations of traditional self-report tools, offering deeper and more accurate insights into the mechanisms driving LE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207