BSG2014: Business simulation game data
In robmed: (Robust) Mediation Analysis
BSG2014 R Documentation
Business simulation game data
Description
The data were collected from 354 senior business administration students
during a business simulation game at a Western European University.
The game was played for a total of 12 rounds (i.e., two separate games of 6
rounds) as part of the capstone strategy class. Students were randomly
assigned to teams of four, and surveyed in three waves: prior to the first
game, in between the two games, and after the second game (with different
variables being surveyed in the different waves).
The 354 students formed 92 teams, and the responses of individual students
were aggregated to the team level. Leaving out teams with less than 50
percent response rate yields n = 89 teams. Only a small subset of the
collected variables are included here.
Usage
data("BSG2014")
Format
A data frame with 89 observations on the following 13 variables.
ProcessConflictBased on Shah & Jehn (1993), the team
members rated three items on the presence of conflict related to the
process of working together, using a 5-point scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot).
The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across
items and team members. Process conflict was measured in the second
survey (between the two games).
SharedExperienceAs teams were randomly formed, no prior
shared group experience is expected, and shared group experience and
training is developed during the first game for the second game. Hence
the team performance score on the first game is used as a proxy for the
level of shared group experience and training. Those scores were computed
through a mix of five objective performance measures: return on equity,
earnings-per-share, stock price, credit rating, and image rating. The
computation of the scores is handled by the simulation game software, and
details can be found in Mathieu & Rapp (2009). The scores ranged from 57
to 111, and they were communicated to the teams only after the third
survey.
TaskConflictUsing the intra-group conflict scale of Jehn
(1995), the team members rated four items on the presence of conflict
regarding the work on a 5-point scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot).
The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across
items and team members. Task conflict was measured in the second survey
(between the two games).
TeamCommitmentThe team members indicated the extent to
which they agree or disagree with four items on commitment to the team,
which are based on Mowday, Steers & Porter (1979), using a 5-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The individual responses
were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members.
Team commitment was measured in the third survey (after the second game).
TeamPerformanceFollowing Hackman (1986), the team members
indicated the extent to which they agree or disagree with four items on
the team's functioning, using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree). The individual responses were aggregated by taking the
average across items and team members. Subjective team performance was
measured in the third survey (after the second game).
TMSTransactive memory systems (TMS) are defined as shared
systems that people in relationships develop for encoding, storing, and
retrieving information about different substantive domains. TMS was
operationalized with Lewis’ (2003) 15-item scale that measures the three
sub-dimensions of TMS (specialization, credibility, and coordination).
For each item, the team members responded on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Following Lewis (2003), the three sub
dimensions were aggregated to form the TMS construct. That is, the
individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across all 15
items and team members. TMS was measured in the second survey (between
the two games).
ValueDiversityUsing the short Schwartz’s value survey
(Lindeman & Verkasalo, 2005), the team members rated ten items on the
importance of certain values (1 = not important, 10 = highly important).
For each value item, the coefficient of variation of the individual
responses across team members was computed, and the resulting coefficients
of variation were averaged across the value items. Value diversity was
measured in the first survey (before the first game).
ProceduralJusticeBased on the intra-unit procedural justice
climate scale of Li & Cropanzano (2009), the team members indicated the
extent to which they agree or disagree with four items on a 5-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The individual responses
were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members.
Procedural justice was measured in the third survey (after the second
game).
InteractionalJusticeUsing the intra-unit interactional
justice climate scale of Li & Cropanzano (2009), the team members
indicated the extent to which they agree or disagree with four items on a
5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The individual
responses were aggregated by taking the average across items and team
members. Interactional justice was measured in the third survey (after
the second game).
SharedLeadershipFollowing Carson, Tesluk & Marrone (2007),
every team member assessed each of their peers on the question of
‘To what degree does your team rely on this individual for
leadership?’ using a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very large
extent). The leadership ratings were aggregated by taking the sum and
dividing it by the number of pairwise relationships among team members.
Shared leadership was measured in the second survey (between the two
games).
AgeDiversityFollowing Harrison & Klein (2007), age
diversity was operationalized by the coefficient of variation of the
team members' ages.
GenderDiversityGender diversity was measured with Blau's
index, 1 - \sum_{j} p_{j}^{2}, where p_{j} is the proportion of team members in the
j-th category (Blau, 1977).
TeamScoreThe team performance scores on the second game
were computed at the end of the simulation through a mix of five objective
performance measures: return on equity, earnings-per-share, stock price,
credit rating, and image rating. The computation of the scores is handled
by the simulation game software, and details can be found in Mathieu &
Rapp (2009). The scores ranged from 49 to 110, and they were communicated
to the teams only after the third survey.
Source
The data were collected and provided by Nufer Y. Ates
(https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-4101).
References
Blau, P.M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of
Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007) Shared Leadership in
Teams: An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.
doi:10.5465/amj.2007.20159921.
Hackman, J.R. (1986) The Psychology of Self-Management in Organizations.
In Pallack, M.S and Perloff, R.O. (Eds.), Psychology and Work:
Productivity, Change, and Employment, 89–136. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007) What's the Difference? Diversity
Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1199–1228.
doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586096.
Jehn, K.A. (1995) A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments
of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40(2), 256–285. doi:10.2307/2393638.
Lewis, K. (2003) Measuring Transactive Memory Systems in the Field: Scale
Development and Validation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(4), 587–604. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587.
Li, A. and Cropanzano, R. (2009) Fairness at the Group Level: Justice
Climate and Intraunit Justice Climate. Journal of Management,
35(3), 564–599. doi:10.1177/0149206308330557.
Lindeman, M. and Verkasalo, M. (2005) Measuring Values With the Short
Schwartz's Value Survey. Journal of Personality Assessment,
85(2), 170–178. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8502_09.
Mathieu, J.E. and Rapp, T.L. (2009). Laying the Foundation for Successful
Team Performance Trajectories: The Roles of Team Charters and Performance
Strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103.
doi:10.1037/a0013257.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979) The Measurement of
Organizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
14(2), 224–247. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1.
Shah, P.P. and Jehn, K.A. (1993) Do Friends Perform Better than
Acquaintances? The Interaction of Friendship, Conflict, and Task.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149–165.
doi:10.1007/bf01884769.
Examples
data("BSG2014")
summary(BSG2014)
# scatterplot matrix for the variables included in the
# illustrative mediation analysis
x <- "ValueDiversity"
y <- "TeamCommitment"
m <- "TaskConflict"
plot(BSG2014[, c(x, y, m)], pch = 21, bg = "black")
robmed documentation built on July 9, 2023, 6:29 p.m.
R Package Documentation
Browse R Packages
We want your feedback!
Note that we can't provide technical support on individual packages. You should contact the package authors for that.
| BSG2014 | R Documentation |
Business simulation game data
Description
The data were collected from 354 senior business administration students during a business simulation game at a Western European University.
The game was played for a total of 12 rounds (i.e., two separate games of 6 rounds) as part of the capstone strategy class. Students were randomly assigned to teams of four, and surveyed in three waves: prior to the first game, in between the two games, and after the second game (with different variables being surveyed in the different waves).
The 354 students formed 92 teams, and the responses of individual students
were aggregated to the team level. Leaving out teams with less than 50
percent response rate yields n = 89 teams. Only a small subset of the
collected variables are included here.
Usage
data("BSG2014")
Format
A data frame with 89 observations on the following 13 variables.
ProcessConflictBased on Shah & Jehn (1993), the team members rated three items on the presence of conflict related to the process of working together, using a 5-point scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot). The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members. Process conflict was measured in the second survey (between the two games).
SharedExperienceAs teams were randomly formed, no prior shared group experience is expected, and shared group experience and training is developed during the first game for the second game. Hence the team performance score on the first game is used as a proxy for the level of shared group experience and training. Those scores were computed through a mix of five objective performance measures: return on equity, earnings-per-share, stock price, credit rating, and image rating. The computation of the scores is handled by the simulation game software, and details can be found in Mathieu & Rapp (2009). The scores ranged from 57 to 111, and they were communicated to the teams only after the third survey.
TaskConflictUsing the intra-group conflict scale of Jehn (1995), the team members rated four items on the presence of conflict regarding the work on a 5-point scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot). The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members. Task conflict was measured in the second survey (between the two games).
TeamCommitmentThe team members indicated the extent to which they agree or disagree with four items on commitment to the team, which are based on Mowday, Steers & Porter (1979), using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members. Team commitment was measured in the third survey (after the second game).
TeamPerformanceFollowing Hackman (1986), the team members indicated the extent to which they agree or disagree with four items on the team's functioning, using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members. Subjective team performance was measured in the third survey (after the second game).
TMSTransactive memory systems (TMS) are defined as shared systems that people in relationships develop for encoding, storing, and retrieving information about different substantive domains. TMS was operationalized with Lewis’ (2003) 15-item scale that measures the three sub-dimensions of TMS (specialization, credibility, and coordination). For each item, the team members responded on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Following Lewis (2003), the three sub dimensions were aggregated to form the TMS construct. That is, the individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across all 15 items and team members. TMS was measured in the second survey (between the two games).
ValueDiversityUsing the short Schwartz’s value survey (Lindeman & Verkasalo, 2005), the team members rated ten items on the importance of certain values (1 = not important, 10 = highly important). For each value item, the coefficient of variation of the individual responses across team members was computed, and the resulting coefficients of variation were averaged across the value items. Value diversity was measured in the first survey (before the first game).
ProceduralJusticeBased on the intra-unit procedural justice climate scale of Li & Cropanzano (2009), the team members indicated the extent to which they agree or disagree with four items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members. Procedural justice was measured in the third survey (after the second game).
InteractionalJusticeUsing the intra-unit interactional justice climate scale of Li & Cropanzano (2009), the team members indicated the extent to which they agree or disagree with four items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The individual responses were aggregated by taking the average across items and team members. Interactional justice was measured in the third survey (after the second game).
SharedLeadershipFollowing Carson, Tesluk & Marrone (2007), every team member assessed each of their peers on the question of ‘To what degree does your team rely on this individual for leadership?’ using a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very large extent). The leadership ratings were aggregated by taking the sum and dividing it by the number of pairwise relationships among team members. Shared leadership was measured in the second survey (between the two games).
AgeDiversityFollowing Harrison & Klein (2007), age diversity was operationalized by the coefficient of variation of the team members' ages.
GenderDiversityGender diversity was measured with Blau's index,
1 - \sum_{j} p_{j}^{2}, wherep_{j}is the proportion of team members in thej-th category (Blau, 1977).TeamScoreThe team performance scores on the second game were computed at the end of the simulation through a mix of five objective performance measures: return on equity, earnings-per-share, stock price, credit rating, and image rating. The computation of the scores is handled by the simulation game software, and details can be found in Mathieu & Rapp (2009). The scores ranged from 49 to 110, and they were communicated to the teams only after the third survey.
Source
The data were collected and provided by Nufer Y. Ates (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-4101).
References
Blau, P.M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007) Shared Leadership in Teams: An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.20159921.
Hackman, J.R. (1986) The Psychology of Self-Management in Organizations. In Pallack, M.S and Perloff, R.O. (Eds.), Psychology and Work: Productivity, Change, and Employment, 89–136. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007) What's the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1199–1228. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586096.
Jehn, K.A. (1995) A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–285. doi:10.2307/2393638.
Lewis, K. (2003) Measuring Transactive Memory Systems in the Field: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587–604. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587.
Li, A. and Cropanzano, R. (2009) Fairness at the Group Level: Justice Climate and Intraunit Justice Climate. Journal of Management, 35(3), 564–599. doi:10.1177/0149206308330557.
Lindeman, M. and Verkasalo, M. (2005) Measuring Values With the Short Schwartz's Value Survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(2), 170–178. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8502_09.
Mathieu, J.E. and Rapp, T.L. (2009). Laying the Foundation for Successful Team Performance Trajectories: The Roles of Team Charters and Performance Strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103. doi:10.1037/a0013257.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979) The Measurement of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1.
Shah, P.P. and Jehn, K.A. (1993) Do Friends Perform Better than Acquaintances? The Interaction of Friendship, Conflict, and Task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149–165. doi:10.1007/bf01884769.
Examples
data("BSG2014")
summary(BSG2014)
# scatterplot matrix for the variables included in the
# illustrative mediation analysis
x <- "ValueDiversity"
y <- "TeamCommitment"
m <- "TaskConflict"
plot(BSG2014[, c(x, y, m)], pch = 21, bg = "black")
R Package Documentation
Browse R Packages
We want your feedback!
Note that we can't provide technical support on individual packages. You should contact the package authors for that.
Embedding an R snippet on your website
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.