Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619892262
S. Waring
Multiteam systems (MTSs) are comprised of two or more teams working toward shared superordinate goals but with unique subgoals. In large MTSs operating in extreme environments, coordination difficulties have repeatedly been found, which compromise response effectiveness. Research is needed that examines MTSs in situ within extreme environments to develop temporal theories of inter-team processes and understanding of how coordination may be improved within these challenging contexts. Live disaster exercises replicate the complexities of extreme environments, providing a valuable avenue for observing inter-team processes in situ. This article seeks to contribute to MTS research by highlighting (i) a mixed-method framework for collecting data during live disaster exercises that uses both inductive and deductive approaches to promote methodological and measurement fit; (ii) ways in which data can be collected and combined to meet the appropriate standards of their methodological class; and (iii) a case example of a National exercise.
{"title":"Using live disaster exercises to study large multiteam systems in extreme environments: Methodological and measurement fit","authors":"S. Waring","doi":"10.1177/2041386619892262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619892262","url":null,"abstract":"Multiteam systems (MTSs) are comprised of two or more teams working toward shared superordinate goals but with unique subgoals. In large MTSs operating in extreme environments, coordination difficulties have repeatedly been found, which compromise response effectiveness. Research is needed that examines MTSs in situ within extreme environments to develop temporal theories of inter-team processes and understanding of how coordination may be improved within these challenging contexts. Live disaster exercises replicate the complexities of extreme environments, providing a valuable avenue for observing inter-team processes in situ. This article seeks to contribute to MTS research by highlighting (i) a mixed-method framework for collecting data during live disaster exercises that uses both inductive and deductive approaches to promote methodological and measurement fit; (ii) ways in which data can be collected and combined to meet the appropriate standards of their methodological class; and (iii) a case example of a National exercise.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"219 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619892262","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47244960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619886674
Florian E. Klonek, Fabiola H. Gerpott, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, S. Parker
Team processes are interdependent activities among team members that transform inputs into outputs, vary over time, and are critical for team effectiveness. Understanding the temporal dynamics of team processes and related team phenomena with a high-resolution lens (i.e., methods with high sampling rates) is particularly challenging when going “into the wild” (i.e., studying teams operating in their full situated context). We review quantitative field studies using high-resolution methods (e.g., video, chat/text data, archival, wearables) and map out the various temporal lenses for studying team dynamics. We synthesize these different lenses and present an integrated temporal framework that is of help in theorizing about team dynamics. We also provide readers with a “how to” guide that summarizes four essential steps along with analytical methods (e.g., sequential and pattern analyses, mixed-methods research, abductive reasoning) that are applicable to the broad scope of high-resolution methods.
{"title":"Time to go wild: How to conceptualize and measure process dynamics in real teams with high-resolution","authors":"Florian E. Klonek, Fabiola H. Gerpott, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, S. Parker","doi":"10.1177/2041386619886674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619886674","url":null,"abstract":"Team processes are interdependent activities among team members that transform inputs into outputs, vary over time, and are critical for team effectiveness. Understanding the temporal dynamics of team processes and related team phenomena with a high-resolution lens (i.e., methods with high sampling rates) is particularly challenging when going “into the wild” (i.e., studying teams operating in their full situated context). We review quantitative field studies using high-resolution methods (e.g., video, chat/text data, archival, wearables) and map out the various temporal lenses for studying team dynamics. We synthesize these different lenses and present an integrated temporal framework that is of help in theorizing about team dynamics. We also provide readers with a “how to” guide that summarizes four essential steps along with analytical methods (e.g., sequential and pattern analyses, mixed-methods research, abductive reasoning) that are applicable to the broad scope of high-resolution methods.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"245 - 275"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619886674","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41355991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620901884
Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin
Teams are ubiquitous in organizations, yet work contexts now make traditional teams—those that have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, and members who belong only to that single team—a rarity. Teamwork has evolved along with work itself, making the traditional means of studying and validating team experiences (e.g., agreement statistics) inadequate. Yet it is not merely that current measures are antiquated, many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct. We felt that rather than simply trying to further exploit our traditional approaches to studying teams, the field should explore new or different ways to capture the team experience. New ideas about how to study teams will necessarily start out as theoretical—arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. If those who study new forms of teams can then validate these theories, then such new approaches expand the field’s capabilities. Thus, over the next few issues of OPR, we will be featuring papers that present new stances on how to study real teams. Such papers will provide arguments as to why these approaches are legitimate and necessary, to hopefully help bring these new approaches to future empirical work on teams in the real world.
{"title":"The challenges of working with “real” teams: Challenges, needs, and opportunities","authors":"Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin","doi":"10.1177/2041386620901884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620901884","url":null,"abstract":"Teams are ubiquitous in organizations, yet work contexts now make traditional teams—those that have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, and members who belong only to that single team—a rarity. Teamwork has evolved along with work itself, making the traditional means of studying and validating team experiences (e.g., agreement statistics) inadequate. Yet it is not merely that current measures are antiquated, many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct. We felt that rather than simply trying to further exploit our traditional approaches to studying teams, the field should explore new or different ways to capture the team experience. New ideas about how to study teams will necessarily start out as theoretical—arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. If those who study new forms of teams can then validate these theories, then such new approaches expand the field’s capabilities. Thus, over the next few issues of OPR, we will be featuring papers that present new stances on how to study real teams. Such papers will provide arguments as to why these approaches are legitimate and necessary, to hopefully help bring these new approaches to future empirical work on teams in the real world.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"211 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620901884","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47394044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620962554
E. Liao, A. Wang, Cheryl Qianru Zhang
We adopt a multi-foci perspective to provide a theory-driven quantitative review of employee counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) by meta-analyzing the relationships between CWB and four groups of antecedents. Specifically, CWB antecedents stemming from four sources—supervisors, organization, coworkers, and private life—were included to investigate differences in their relationships with employee CWB. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, we argue that favorable and unfavorable correlates relate to employee CWB to different degrees. The meta-analysis included 181 field studies with 223 independent samples. Results indicated that unfavorable antecedents correlate more strongly with CWB than favorable antecedents. We also found that supervisor- and organization-related antecedents have stronger relationships with CWB than those from the two other groups. Implications include a deeper understanding of which situational factors relate the most—or least—to CWB which can help better address CWB in the workplace.
{"title":"Who influences employees’ dark side: A multi-foci meta-analysis of counterproductive workplace behaviors","authors":"E. Liao, A. Wang, Cheryl Qianru Zhang","doi":"10.1177/2041386620962554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962554","url":null,"abstract":"We adopt a multi-foci perspective to provide a theory-driven quantitative review of employee counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) by meta-analyzing the relationships between CWB and four groups of antecedents. Specifically, CWB antecedents stemming from four sources—supervisors, organization, coworkers, and private life—were included to investigate differences in their relationships with employee CWB. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, we argue that favorable and unfavorable correlates relate to employee CWB to different degrees. The meta-analysis included 181 field studies with 223 independent samples. Results indicated that unfavorable antecedents correlate more strongly with CWB than favorable antecedents. We also found that supervisor- and organization-related antecedents have stronger relationships with CWB than those from the two other groups. Implications include a deeper understanding of which situational factors relate the most—or least—to CWB which can help better address CWB in the workplace.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"97 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620962554","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47405283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-09DOI: 10.1177/2041386619846948
D. Kong, Cecily D. Cooper, John J. Sosik
During the past two decades, the burgeoning literature on leader humor has documented various ways that humor enables leadership effectiveness. Yet there are problems of construct clarity and measurement associated with leader humor, as well as unanswered questions related to the theoretical frameworks and predictive value of leader humor. We provide a systematic review on leader humor, in which we address the issues of constructs—trait humor versus (behavioral) humor expression—and associated measures, discuss the main and emerging theoretical frameworks, assess the empirical literature via a meta-analysis and path analyses, and offer directions for future research. Our review not only offers theoretical insights for this research area, but also presents empirical gaps and opportunities through a quantitative summary.
{"title":"The state of research on leader humor","authors":"D. Kong, Cecily D. Cooper, John J. Sosik","doi":"10.1177/2041386619846948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619846948","url":null,"abstract":"During the past two decades, the burgeoning literature on leader humor has documented various ways that humor enables leadership effectiveness. Yet there are problems of construct clarity and measurement associated with leader humor, as well as unanswered questions related to the theoretical frameworks and predictive value of leader humor. We provide a systematic review on leader humor, in which we address the issues of constructs—trait humor versus (behavioral) humor expression—and associated measures, discuss the main and emerging theoretical frameworks, assess the empirical literature via a meta-analysis and path analyses, and offer directions for future research. Our review not only offers theoretical insights for this research area, but also presents empirical gaps and opportunities through a quantitative summary.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"3 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619846948","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43915835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619874870
Yimin He, Yi Wang, Stephanie C Payne
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive quantitative review of research to date on the antecedents of psychological and organizational safety climate. Building upon and expanding Zohar’s conceptual model, antecedents were organized into three broad categories: situational factors, interpersonal interactions, and personal factors. Data were gleaned from 136 primary studies to calculate effect sizes for 38 antecedents and the relative importance of each antecedent within the three categories. Antecedent effect sizes were generally homologous for psychological and organizational safety climate, with the strongest effect sizes for interpersonal interactions followed by organizational climate and leadership. The magnitude of the safety climate antecedent effect sizes tended to be stronger in health-care industry studies and varied inconsistently as a function of the industry-specific nature of the safety climate measure. This meta-analysis provides a much needed summary of the research to date in an effort to guide future research and practice on the development and improvement of safety climate in organizations.
{"title":"How is safety climate formed? A meta-analysis of the antecedents of safety climate","authors":"Yimin He, Yi Wang, Stephanie C Payne","doi":"10.1177/2041386619874870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619874870","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive quantitative review of research to date on the antecedents of psychological and organizational safety climate. Building upon and expanding Zohar’s conceptual model, antecedents were organized into three broad categories: situational factors, interpersonal interactions, and personal factors. Data were gleaned from 136 primary studies to calculate effect sizes for 38 antecedents and the relative importance of each antecedent within the three categories. Antecedent effect sizes were generally homologous for psychological and organizational safety climate, with the strongest effect sizes for interpersonal interactions followed by organizational climate and leadership. The magnitude of the safety climate antecedent effect sizes tended to be stronger in health-care industry studies and varied inconsistently as a function of the industry-specific nature of the safety climate measure. This meta-analysis provides a much needed summary of the research to date in an effort to guide future research and practice on the development and improvement of safety climate in organizations.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"124 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619874870","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46104080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619878876
Danni Wang, D. Waldman, Blake E. Ashforth
Previous literature has focused on how external forces impose accountability on individuals (i.e., holding individuals to account), but has not considered the possibility of internal, personal accountability. We explain how an internalized sense of accountability, which we term internally assumed accountability, can enrich our understanding of why some organizational members might assume ownership for organizational problems, even ones that they did not actually cause. We offer a typology of accountability in organizations based on contrasting relationship norms and personal orientations. Our article concludes with a discussion on connections between different kinds of accountability and stakeholder relationships, suggesting a number of avenues for further investigation and practice.
{"title":"Building relationships through accountability: An expanded idea of accountability","authors":"Danni Wang, D. Waldman, Blake E. Ashforth","doi":"10.1177/2041386619878876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619878876","url":null,"abstract":"Previous literature has focused on how external forces impose accountability on individuals (i.e., holding individuals to account), but has not considered the possibility of internal, personal accountability. We explain how an internalized sense of accountability, which we term internally assumed accountability, can enrich our understanding of why some organizational members might assume ownership for organizational problems, even ones that they did not actually cause. We offer a typology of accountability in organizations based on contrasting relationship norms and personal orientations. Our article concludes with a discussion on connections between different kinds of accountability and stakeholder relationships, suggesting a number of avenues for further investigation and practice.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"184 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619878876","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42084492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619878837
Rajesh Kumar, Gerben A. van Kleef, E. Higgins
This article utilizes a motivational perspective on emotions to reconceptualize the impact of negative emotions on relationship dynamics between alliance partners. Alliance failure is endemic and yet we know little about how alliance partners manage the interface between them. We draw upon the alliance discrepancy model, self-discrepancy theory, appraisal theory, emotions as social information theory, and Horney’s behavioral typology of moving toward, moving against, or moving away to analyze the emotional, motivational, and behavioral dynamics among alliance decision makers. We propose that process discrepancies predominantly produce agitation-related emotions such as anger and anxiety, whereas outcome discrepancies predominantly produce dejection-related emotions such as sadness and disappointment. We analyze the impact of emotions at both the intrapersonal and the interpersonal levels. The intrapersonal level captures the impact of alliance decision makers’ experienced emotions on their own behavior, whereas the interpersonal level captures the impact of alliance decision makers’ expressed emotions on their partners’ behavior. At the intrapersonal level, agitation-related emotions lead alliance decision makers to move against (or away from) their partner, whereas dejection-related emotions lead them to move toward their partner. At the interpersonal level, the expression of dejection-related emotions leads alliance decision makers to move toward their partner, whereas the expression of agitation-related emotions leads alliance partners to either move toward or against their partner depending upon the relative power of the parties and the specific agitation emotion that is expressed. We develop a series of propositions linking discrepancies with emotions and alliance management, which highlight a different way of thinking about emotions in alliances. Rather than treating negative emotions as destructive forces, our model points to the potential functionality of the experience and expression of negative emotions in alliances. We conclude by outlining some boundary conditions of our model and discussing implications for research and practice.
{"title":"How emotions influence alliance relationships: The potential functionality of negative emotions","authors":"Rajesh Kumar, Gerben A. van Kleef, E. Higgins","doi":"10.1177/2041386619878837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619878837","url":null,"abstract":"This article utilizes a motivational perspective on emotions to reconceptualize the impact of negative emotions on relationship dynamics between alliance partners. Alliance failure is endemic and yet we know little about how alliance partners manage the interface between them. We draw upon the alliance discrepancy model, self-discrepancy theory, appraisal theory, emotions as social information theory, and Horney’s behavioral typology of moving toward, moving against, or moving away to analyze the emotional, motivational, and behavioral dynamics among alliance decision makers. We propose that process discrepancies predominantly produce agitation-related emotions such as anger and anxiety, whereas outcome discrepancies predominantly produce dejection-related emotions such as sadness and disappointment. We analyze the impact of emotions at both the intrapersonal and the interpersonal levels. The intrapersonal level captures the impact of alliance decision makers’ experienced emotions on their own behavior, whereas the interpersonal level captures the impact of alliance decision makers’ expressed emotions on their partners’ behavior. At the intrapersonal level, agitation-related emotions lead alliance decision makers to move against (or away from) their partner, whereas dejection-related emotions lead them to move toward their partner. At the interpersonal level, the expression of dejection-related emotions leads alliance decision makers to move toward their partner, whereas the expression of agitation-related emotions leads alliance partners to either move toward or against their partner depending upon the relative power of the parties and the specific agitation emotion that is expressed. We develop a series of propositions linking discrepancies with emotions and alliance management, which highlight a different way of thinking about emotions in alliances. Rather than treating negative emotions as destructive forces, our model points to the potential functionality of the experience and expression of negative emotions in alliances. We conclude by outlining some boundary conditions of our model and discussing implications for research and practice.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"157 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619878837","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46314176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619869972
Ramón Rico, C. Gibson, Miriam Sanchez-Manzanares, Mark A. Clark
We develop a theory of team adaptation that centers on team knowledge structures and coordination processes. Specifically, we explain that when a team’s task changes, there may be a disruption in the extent to which their team mental model (TMM) fits the current situation. Whether this is the case is likely to depend on team compositional factors, emergent states, and structural characteristics of the team. When there is a lack of correspondence between the TMM and the situation, this then requires a shift in the extent to which the team uses implicit or explicit coordination processes. We also explain that the team performance phase matters, such that during action phases, a prevalence of implicit coordination relative to explicit coordination results in greater effectiveness; during a transition phase, the opposite is likely. In this way, we address central questions in the field: what types of task changes require team adaptive response, what happens during the adaptation process, and how this influences team effectiveness over time.
{"title":"Building team effectiveness through adaptation: Team knowledge and implicit and explicit coordination","authors":"Ramón Rico, C. Gibson, Miriam Sanchez-Manzanares, Mark A. Clark","doi":"10.1177/2041386619869972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619869972","url":null,"abstract":"We develop a theory of team adaptation that centers on team knowledge structures and coordination processes. Specifically, we explain that when a team’s task changes, there may be a disruption in the extent to which their team mental model (TMM) fits the current situation. Whether this is the case is likely to depend on team compositional factors, emergent states, and structural characteristics of the team. When there is a lack of correspondence between the TMM and the situation, this then requires a shift in the extent to which the team uses implicit or explicit coordination processes. We also explain that the team performance phase matters, such that during action phases, a prevalence of implicit coordination relative to explicit coordination results in greater effectiveness; during a transition phase, the opposite is likely. In this way, we address central questions in the field: what types of task changes require team adaptive response, what happens during the adaptation process, and how this influences team effectiveness over time.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"71 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619869972","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43104138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：