How I See Me-A Meta-Analysis Investigating the Association Between Identities and Pro-environmental Behaviour.

Prolific research suggests identity associates with pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) that are individual and/or group focused. Individual PEB is personally driven, self-reliant, and are conducted on one's own (e.g., home recycling). Group focused PEB is other people-reliant and completed as part of a group (e.g., attending meetings of an environmental organisation). A wide range of identities have been related to PEBs. For example, a recent systematic qualitative review revealed 99 different types of identities studied in a PEB context. Most studies were correlational, few had an experimental design. However, the relationships between all these identities and PEBs have so far not been tested quantitatively with meta-analytical techniques. As such, a clear overview of this field is currently lacking. Due to the diverse nature of the field, a priori hypotheses were not possible and relatively broad definitions of identity had to be used to encompass all types of identities and the diverse meanings of identity that have been included in PEB research. What prior theory did allow for was to assess the distinction between two main types of identity, namely how people label, describe, and recognise oneself individually (individual identity), or as part of a group (group identity). Our overall goal was thus to assess the current state of knowledge on identities and PEBs. In 104 studies using a meta-regression following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, our random-effects meta-analysis showed that the overall concept of identity associated with PEB with a medium Pearson's r (Aim 1). Furthermore, we found that individual identities associated more strongly with PEBs than group identities (Aim 2). The associations between individual and group identities were stronger when the identity and PEB were from the same category (e.g., when both were group-focused; Aim 3). Methodologically, the findings revealed that group identities and group PEBs were most strongly associated for self-reported rather than observed PEBs (Aim 4). Overall identity associated most strongly with group PEBs in the field rather than in the lab (Aim 5) and in student- rather than non-student samples (Aim 6). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications.

The Five-Factor Perceived Shared Mental Model Scale: A Consolidation of Items Across the Contemporary Literature.

Literature on Shared Mental Models (SMMs) has been burgeoning in recent years and this has provided increasingly detailed insight and evidence into the importance of SMMs within specific contexts. However, because past research predominantly focused on SMM structure as measured by diverse, context-dependent measures, a consolidated multi-dimensional measure of perceived SMMs that can be used across diverse team contexts is currently lacking. Furthermore, different conceptualizations of the dimensionality of SMMs exist, which further impedes the comparison between studies. These key limitations might hinder future development in the SMM literature. We argue that the field of SMMs has now matured enough that it is possible to take a deductive approach and evaluate the prior studies in order to refine the key SMMs dimensions, operationalizations, and measurement. Hence, we take a three-stage approach to consolidate existing literature scale-based measures of SMMs, using four samples. Ultimately, this leads to a 20-item five-dimensional scale (i.e., equipment, execution, interaction, composition, and temporal SMMs) - the Five Factor Perceived Shared Mental Model Scale (5-PSMMS). Our scale provides scholars with a tool which enables the measurement, and comparison, of SMMs across diverse team contexts. It offers practitioners the option to more straightforwardly assess perceived SMMs in their teams, allowing the identification of challenges in their teams and facilitating the design of appropriate interventions.

Buffering the Breach: Examining the Three-Way Interaction Between Unit Climate Level, Strength, and Psychological Contract Breach.

Despite the wealth of research showing that psychological contract breach (PCB) has negative outcomes for individuals, knowledge about the influence of the social context in which breaches are experienced is still scarce. This is surprising, as scholars have argued that work climates, such as when unit members are generally highly committed, could buffer an individual's negative experiences at work. Yet, to date, the unit climate and PCB literatures have largely remained separated and our main goal is to integrate these fields. This is especially timely and relevant, because recent work in the unit climate literature indicates that merely looking at the average climate level might not be enough, because the climate's strength (i.e., the agreement or homogeneity within the unit) could also provide important social cues. Building on these recent advances, we develop and test a theoretical framework which links both climate concepts to PCB. More specifically, we hypothesized that especially when all unit members are highly and homogeneously committed, an employee would reframe their PCB in such a way that it would less adversely affect work engagement and turnover intentions. Using data from 1,272 employees across 36 healthcare units, multilevel structural path analyses supported this three-way interaction. By answering recent calls for more "social PCB research" and integrating the unit climate and PCB literatures, we aim to provide guidance to scholars and practitioners who want to understand in more depth the social context's influence on PCB.

Working together versus working autonomously: a new power-dependence perspective on the individual-level of analysis.

Recent studies have indicated that it is important to investigate the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy because this interaction can affect team effectiveness. However, only a limited number of studies have been conducted and those studies focused solely on the team level of analysis. Moreover, there has also been a dearth of theoretical development. Therefore, this study develops and tests an alternative theoretical perspective in an attempt to understand if, and if so why, this interaction is important at the individual level of analysis. Based on interdependence theory and power-dependence theory, we expected that highly task-interdependent individuals who reported high task autonomy would be more powerful and better performers. In contrast, we expected that similarly high task-interdependent individuals who reported less task autonomy would be less powerful and would be weaker performers. These expectations were supported by multi-level and bootstrapping analyses performed on a multi-source dataset (self-, peer-, manager-ratings) comprised of 182 employees drawn from 37 teams. More specifically, the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy was γ =.128, p <.05 for power and γ =.166, p <.05 for individual performance. The 95% bootstrap interval ranged from .0038 to .0686.

The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust.

Social relations analyses involving 132 working relationships among 60 individuals from 29 teams revealed that an increase in a team member's task dependence on another team member was associated with higher levels of perceived help from and interpersonal trust in that specific team member, provided the other member was highly task dependent on the focal member. The degree to which an actor perceived a relationship with a partner to be helpful partially mediated the relationship between task dependence and trust. These findings highlight the importance of attending to asymmetries in task dependence and provide valuable insights into mechanisms that can explain the development of trust in organizational work teams.