OPAC - Pencarian Artikel Jurnal & Majalah Library USD
Menampilkan semua artikel (Halaman 822 dari 34166, Total: 341652 data)
Implications of research staff demographics for psychological science.
klik untuk membaca file PDF
| Pengarang | : | Does, Serena; Ellemers, Naomi; Dovidio, John F.; Norman, Jasmine B.; Mentovich, Avital; van der Lee, Romy; Goff, Phillip Atiba |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 5) |
| Halaman | : | 639-650 |
| Abstrak | : | Long-standing research traditions in psychology have established the fundamental impact of social categories, such as race and gender, on people’s perceptions of themselves and others, as well as on general human cognition and behavior. However, there is a general tendency to ignore research staff demographics (e.g., researchers’ race and gender) in research development and research reports. Variation in research staff demographics can exert systematic and scientifically informative influences on results from psychological research. Consequently, research staff demographics need to be considered, studied, and/or reported, along with how these demographics were allowed to vary across participants or conditions (e.g., random assignment, matched with participant demographics, or included as a factor in the experimental design). In addition to providing an overview of multidisciplinary evidence of research staff demographics effects, it is discussed how research staff demographics might influence research findings through (a) ingroup versus outgroup effects, (b) stereotype and (implicit) bias effects, and (c) priming and social tuning effects. Finally, an overview of recommended considerations is included (see Appendix) to help illustrate how to systematically incorporate relevant research staff demographics in psychological science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) |
The strength of the causal evidence against physical punishment of children and its implications for parents, psychologists, and policymakers.
| Pengarang | : | Gershoff, Elizabeth T.; Goodman, Gail S.; Miller-Perrin, Cindy L.; Holden, George W.; Jackson, Yo; Kazdin, Alan E. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 5) |
| Halaman | : | 626-638 |
| Abstrak | : | The question of whether physical punishment is helpful or harmful to the development of children has been subject to hundreds of research studies over the past several decades. Yet whether causal conclusions can be drawn from this largely nonexperimental research and whether the conclusions generalize across contexts are issues that remain unresolved. In this article, the authors summarize the extent to which the empirical research on physical punishment meets accepted criteria for causal inference. They then review research demonstrating that physical punishment is linked with the same harms to children as is physical abuse and summarize the extant research that finds links between physical punishment and detrimental outcomes for children are consistent across cultural, family, and neighborhood contexts. The strength and consistency of the links between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes lead the authors to recommend that parents should avoid physical punishment, psychologists should advise and advocate against it, and policymakers should develop means of educating the public about the harms of and alternatives to physical punishment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) |
Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Application of Psychology: Marvin Goldfried.
| Pengarang | : | |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 5) |
| Halaman | : | 611-613 |
| Abstrak | : | The American Psychological Foundation (APF) Gold Medal Awards recognize distinguished and engaging records of accomplishment in 4 areas of psychology. The 2018 recipient of the Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Application of Psychology is Marvin Goldfried, PhD. Terence M. Keane, PhD, president of the APF, will present the APF Gold Medal Awards at the 126th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association on August 10, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Members of the 2018 APF Board of Trustees are Terence M. Keane, PhD, president; Melba J. T. Vasquez, PhD, vice president; W. Bruce Walsh, PhD, secretary; Richard C. McCarty, PhD, treasurer; Camilla Benbow, EdD; Dorothy W. Cantor, PsyD; Connie S. Chan, PhD; Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD; Linda M. Forrest, PhD; Douglas C. Haldeman, PhD; Anthony W. Jackson, PhD; Archie L. Turner; and Stewart E. Cooper, PhD, American Psychological Association Board of Directors liaison. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) |
The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead.
| Pengarang | : | Salas, Eduardo; Reyes, Denise L.; McDaniel, Susan H. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 4) |
| Halaman | : | 593-600 |
| Abstrak | : | We need teams in nearly every aspect of our lives (e.g., hospitals, schools, flight decks, nuclear power plants, oil rigs, the military, and corporate offices). Nearly a century of psychological science has uncovered extensive knowledge about team-related processes and outcomes. In this article, we draw from the reviews and articles of this special issue to identify 10 key reflections that have arisen in the team literature, briefly summarized here. Team researchers have developed many theories surrounding the multilayered aspects of teams, such that now we have a solid theoretical basis for teams. We have recognized that the collective is often stronger than the individual, initiating the shift from individual tasks to team tasks. All teams are not created equal, so it is important to consider the context to understand relevant team dynamics and outcomes, but sometimes teams performing in different contexts are more similar than not. It is critical to have teamwork-supportive organizational conditions and environments where psychological safety can flourish and be a mechanism to resolve conflicts, ensure safety, mitigate errors, learn, and improve performance. There are also helpful teamwork competencies that can increase effectiveness across teams or tasks that have been identified (e.g., coordination, communication, and adaptability). Even if a team is made up of experts, it can still fail if they do not know how to cooperate, coordinate, and communicate well together. To ensure the improvement and maintenance of effective team functioning, the organization must implement team development interventions and evaluate relevant team outcomes with robust diagnostic measurement. We conclude with 3 main directions for scientists to expand upon in the future: (a) address issues with technology to make further improvements in team assessment, (b) learn more about multiteam systems, and (c) bridge the gap between theory and practice. In summary, the science of teams has made substantial progress but still has plenty of room for advancement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) |
Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: Challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods.
| Pengarang | : | Kozlowski, Steve W. J.; Chao, Georgia T. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 4) |
| Halaman | : | 576-592 |
| Abstrak | : | Psychologists have studied small-group and team effectiveness for decades, and although there has been considerable progress, there remain significant challenges. Meta-analyses and systematic research have provided solid evidence for core team cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral processes that contribute to team effectiveness and empirical support for interventions that enhance team processes (e.g., team design, composition, training, and leadership); there has been substantial evidence for a science of team effectiveness. Nonetheless, there have also been concerns that team processes, which are inherently dynamic, have primarily been assessed as static constructs. Team-level processes and outcomes are multilevel phenomena that emerge, bottom-up from the interactions among team members over time, under the shifting demands of a work context. Thus, theoretical development that appropriately conceptualizes the multiple levels, process dynamics, and emergence of team phenomena over time are essential to advance understanding. Moreover, these conceptual advances necessitate innovative research methodologies to better capture team process dynamics. We explicate this foundation and then describe 2 promising streams of scientific inquiry—team interaction sensors and computational modeling—that are advancing new, unobtrusive measurement techniques and process-oriented research methods focused on understanding the dynamics of cohesion and cognition in teamwork. These are distinct lines of research, each endeavoring to advance the science, but doing so through the development of very different methodologies. We close by discussing the near-term research challenges and the potential long-term evolution of these innovative methods, with an eye toward the future for process-oriented theory and research on team effectiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) |
Teamwork and collaboration in long-duration space missions: Going to extremes.
| Pengarang | : | Landon, Lauren Blackwell; Slack, Kelley J.; Barrett, Jamie D. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 4) |
| Halaman | : | 563-575 |
| Abstrak | : | The scientific study of teamwork in the context of spaceflight has uncovered a considerable amount of knowledge over the past 20 years. Although much is known about the underlying factors and processes of teamwork, much is left to be discovered for teams who will be operating in extreme isolation and confinement during a future Mars mission. Special considerations must be made to enhance teamwork and team well-being for multi-year missions during which the small team will live and work together. We discuss the unique challenges of effective teamwork in a Mars mission scenario, and the difficulties of studying teamwork using analogs of the space environment. We then describe the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s current practices and research on teamwork, which includes team selection and composition, teamwork training, countermeasures to mitigate risks to effective team performance, and the measurement and monitoring of team functioning. We end with a discussion of the teamwork research areas that are most critical for a successful journey to Mars. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) |
Interdisciplinary team science and the public: Steps toward a participatory team science.
| Pengarang | : | Tebes, Jacob Kraemer; Thai, Nghi D. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 4) |
| Halaman | : | 549-562 |
| Abstrak | : | Interdisciplinary team science involves research collaboration among investigators from different disciplines who work interdependently to share leadership and responsibility. Although over the past several decades there has been an increase in knowledge produced by science teams, the public has not been meaningfully engaged in this process. We argue that contemporary changes in how science is understood and practiced offer an opportunity to reconsider engaging the public as active participants on teams and coin the term participatory team science to describe public engagement in team science. We discuss how public engagement can enhance knowledge within the team to address complex problems and suggest a different organizing framework for team science that aligns better with how teams operate and with participatory approaches to research. We also summarize work on public engagement in science, describe opportunities for various types of engagement, and provide an example of participatory team science carried out across research phases. We conclude by discussing implications of participatory team science for psychology, including changing the default when assembling an interdisciplinary science team by identifying meaningful roles for public engagement through participatory team science. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) |
The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science.
| Pengarang | : | Hall, Kara L.; Vogel, Amanda L.; Huang, Grace C.; Serrano, Katrina J.; Rice, Elise L.; Tsakraklides, Sophia P.; Fiore, Stephen M. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 4) |
| Halaman | : | 532-548 |
| Abstrak | : | Collaborations among researchers and across disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries are vital to address increasingly complex challenges and opportunities in science and society. In addition, unprecedented technological advances create new opportunities to capitalize on a broader range of expertise and information in scientific collaborations. Yet rapid increases in the demand for scientific collaborations have outpaced changes in the factors needed to support teams in science, such as institutional structures and policies, scientific culture, and funding opportunities. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) field arose with the goal of empirically addressing questions from funding agencies, administrators, and scientists regarding the value of team science (TS) and strategies for successfully leading, engaging in, facilitating, and supporting science teams. Closely related fields have rich histories studying teams, groups, organizations, and management and have built a body of evidence for effective teaming in contexts such as industry and the military. Yet few studies had focused on science teams. Unique contextual factors within the scientific enterprise create an imperative to study these teams in context, and provide opportunities to advance understanding of other complex forms of collaboration. This review summarizes the empirical findings from the SciTS literature, which center around five key themes: the value of TS, team composition and its influence on TS performance, formation of science teams, team processes central to effective team functioning, and institutional influences on TS. Cross-cutting issues are discussed in the context of new research opportunities to further advance SciTS evidence and better inform policies and practices for effective TS. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) |
Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork.
| Pengarang | : | Lacerenza, Christina N.; Marlow, Shannon L.; Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Salas, Eduardo. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 4) |
| Halaman | : | 517-531 |
| Abstrak | : | The rate of teamwork and collaboration within the workforce has burgeoned over the years, and the use of teams is projected to continue increasing. With the rise of teamwork comes the need for interventions designed to enhance teamwork effectiveness. Successful teams produce desired outcomes; however, it is critical that team members demonstrate effective processes to achieve these outcomes. Team development interventions (TDIs) increase effective team competencies and processes, thereby leading to improvements in proximal and distal outcomes. The effectiveness of TDIs is evident across domains (e.g., education, health care, military, aviation), and they are applicable in a wide range of settings. To stimulate the adoption and effective use of TDIs, the current article provides a review of four types of evidence-based TDIs including team training, leadership training, team building, and team debriefing. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles underlying TDIs and their impact on team dynamics. Moreover, we provide evidence-based recommendations regarding how to increase the effectiveness of TDIs as well as a discussion on future research needed within this domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) |
Debriefs: Teams learning from doing in context.
| Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | American Psychologist |
| Volume / Edisi | : | 73 (No. 4) |
| Halaman | : | 504-516 |
| Abstrak | : | Debriefs are a type of work meeting in which teams discuss, interpret, and learn from recent events during which they collaborated. In a variety of forms, debriefs are found across a wide range of organizational types and settings. Well-conducted debriefs can improve team effectiveness by 25% across a variety of organizations and settings. For example, the U.S. military adopted debriefs decades ago to promote learning and performance across the various services. Subsequently, debriefs have been introduced in the medical field, the fire service, aviation, education, and in a variety of organizational training and simulation environments. After a discussion of various purposes for which debriefs have been used, we proceed with a historical review of development of the concepts and use in industries and contexts. We then review the psychological factors relevant to debrief effectiveness and the outcomes for individuals, teams, and organizations that deploy debriefs. Future directions of particular interest to team researchers across a variety of psychological disciplines are presented along with a review of how best to implement debriefs from a practical perspective. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) |