A meta-analytic test of trust formation and development in swift starting action teams.

Abstract

Trust is essential for operational and organizational effectiveness in high-stakes environments where cooperation and coordination among team members is key, particularly among swift starting action teams (STATs) who are composed of individuals with little or no previous experience of working together. Wildman et al. (2012) developed a multilevel conceptual framework in which they characterized the formation and development of swift team trust according to an input–mediator–output–input model (IMOI). We conducted a preregistered systematic review of six electronic databases (Web of Science [core collection], Scopus, Business Source Complete, PsycInfo, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) to identify literature that could be used to test this conceptual model. From an examination of 19,249 potentially relevant items that studied STATs composed of adults (aged 18 years or more), we found no single comprehensive test of this model in its entirety nor a sufficient examination of key structural sections of Wildman and colleagues’ model. Cumulating evidence from 53 primary studies via meta-analytic structural equation modeling (199 effects, Nteams = 2,380, Nindividuals = 9,975), we found that individual-level propensity to trust was positively related to one’s perceptions of trust in their team; one’s trust in their team was positively related to emotional reactions, team processes, and team performance; and team processes and performance were positively associated with individuals’ subsequent trust in their team. We also revealed an indirect effect of trust perceptions on collective performance via team processes. Our findings underscore the need to consider innovative methodologies and technologies to study swift trust dynamics temporally in ways that permit empirical tests of multicomponent conceptual models of trust formation and development.

Testing theory predictions and intervention mechanisms of action in sport and exercise psychology using meta-analysis.

“…Based on general recommendations on theory specification (Davis et al, 2015), ensure clarity in the specification of theory predictions and associated subhypotheses (e.g., a nomological network of associations; Bagozzi, 1981), as well as clarity in the following: (a) definitions of constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, psychological skill use) and outcomes (e.g., behavior, sport performance), (b) proposed associations among constructs and outcomes, (c) process-related effects such as mediation and moderation effects among constructs and outcomes, (d) effects of extraneous factors on theory effects that represent boundary conditions or auxiliary assumptions (e); and (f) grounds for falsification. Ensure that there are sufficient studies offering effect size data for each effect of the theory of interest prior to analysis, and consider possible compromise positions in the event of "empty cells" in the matrix of effect sizes used (Hagger & Hamilton, 2021;Lines et al, 2022). Consider preregistering theory predictions prior to conducting the analysis (Hagger, 2022a;Quintana, 2015).…”

“…This means that the matrices of zero-order effect sizes (e.g., correlations among constructs or variables) that serve as input for the analysis cannot have “empty cells.” This can place restrictions on the scope of the model that can be tested in cases where data for some effect sizes in a matrix are unavailable. In such cases, researchers may have to make compromises to be able to test their model, such as testing a truncated model in which effect sizes for conceptually related constructs are aggregated (Hagger & Hamilton, 2021) or testing key sets of predictions from the larger model separately (Lines et al, 2022). 4 An in-depth discussion of the technical details of these analytic approaches and their respective merits and limitations is beyond the scope of this article.…”

“…For example, the approach allows researchers to synthesize sets of relations among psychological constructs from a particular theory and behavioral outcomes—often represented in a theory-specified nomological network —test the proposed unique effects among them, and importantly, investigate mediation or moderation effects that represent key mechanisms or processes in the theory. Numerous examples of studies in which theoretical predictions are expressed as nomological networks, including process-related effects such as mediation and moderation, and tested using meta-analysis are available (e.g., Hagger et al, 2022; Lines et al, 2022; Ng et al, 2012). Similarly, the approach allows researchers to test the effects of particular intervention techniques or therapies on behavioral outcomes in studies adopting experimental or randomized controlled designs and to also examine potential mechanisms, such as the mediation of effects of the techniques or therapies on outcomes by the psychological constructs that represent a theory-specified mechanism of action (Rothman et al, 2020; Sheeran et al, 2017).…”

“…Furthermore, the approach enables researchers to not only provide the robust effect size and variability estimates based, potentially, on a large and diverse research corpus, but also, data permitting, the testing of the effects of salient moderators on the component effects of the entire network rather than on single zero-order effects (Rothman & Sheeran, 2021). A final advantage of this approach is its capacity to test novel theories—it allows researchers to propose models summarizing the predictions of new theories and leverage the meta-analytically synthesized data to provide an initial empirical test of its predictions (e.g., Hagger & Hamilton, 2021; Lines et al, 2022).…”

Advancing open science and methodological rigor in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology.

“…A unique feature of the journal is its focus on performance psychology, which includes sport and physical activity settings, but also in other performance domains as well. Recent examples include the development and evaluation of a novel resilience-enhanced reflection protocol within military settings (Chapman et al, 2022), a meta-analytic test of trust formation and development within swift starting action teams (Lines et al, 2022), an experimental study designed to examine the effects of goal types on cognitive performance (Pilcher et al, 2022), and a qualitative study designed to examine the interpersonal emotional experiences of ambulance service dyads when working shifts together (Freemantle et al, 2022). It is my hope that performance-based research conducted in such settings (e.g., military, health care, performing arts) will advance, but also be advanced by, innovative inquiry in sport and physical activity settings.…”