Nothing
R/BSG2014.R
In robmed: (Robust) Mediation Analysis
# --------------------------------------
# Author: Andreas Alfons
# Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
# --------------------------------------
#' 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 \eqn{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.
#' \describe{
#'
#' \item{\code{ProcessConflict}}{Based 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{SharedExperience}}{As 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.}
#'
#' \item{\code{TaskConflict}}{Using 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TeamCommitment}}{The 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TeamPerformance}}{Following 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TMS}}{Transactive 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{ValueDiversity}}{Using 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{ProceduralJustice}}{Based 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{InteractionalJustice}}{Using 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{SharedLeadership}}{Following Carson, Tesluk & Marrone (2007),
#' every team member assessed each of their peers on the question of
#' \sQuote{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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{AgeDiversity}}{Following Harrison & Klein (2007), age
#' diversity was operationalized by the coefficient of variation of the
#' team members' ages.}
#'
#' \item{\code{GenderDiversity}}{Gender diversity was measured with Blau's
#' index, \eqn{1 - \sum_{j} p_{j}^{2}}{1 - the sum of the squared values of
#' p_j}, where \eqn{p_{j}}{p_j} is the proportion of team members in the
#' \eqn{j}{j}-th category (Blau, 1977).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TeamScore}}{The 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
#' (\url{https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-4101}).
#'
#' @references
#' Blau, P.M. (1977) \emph{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.
#' \emph{Academy of Management Journal}, \bold{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.), \emph{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.
#' \emph{Academy of Management Review}, \bold{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. \emph{Administrative Science Quarterly},
#' \bold{40}(2), 256--285. doi:10.2307/2393638.
#'
#' Lewis, K. (2003) Measuring Transactive Memory Systems in the Field: Scale
#' Development and Validation. \emph{Journal of Applied Psychology},
#' \bold{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. \emph{Journal of Management},
#' \bold{35}(3), 564--599. doi:10.1177/0149206308330557.
#'
#' Lindeman, M. and Verkasalo, M. (2005) Measuring Values With the Short
#' Schwartz's Value Survey. \emph{Journal of Personality Assessment},
#' \bold{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. \emph{Journal of Applied Psychology}, \bold{94}(1), 90--103.
#' doi:10.1037/a0013257.
#'
#' Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979) The Measurement of
#' Organizational Commitment. \emph{Journal of Vocational Behavior},
#' \bold{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.
#' \emph{Group Decision and Negotiation}, \bold{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")
"BSG2014"
Try the robmed package in your browser
Any scripts or data that you put into this service are public.
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.
# --------------------------------------
# Author: Andreas Alfons
# Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
# --------------------------------------
#' 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 \eqn{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.
#' \describe{
#'
#' \item{\code{ProcessConflict}}{Based 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{SharedExperience}}{As 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.}
#'
#' \item{\code{TaskConflict}}{Using 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TeamCommitment}}{The 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TeamPerformance}}{Following 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TMS}}{Transactive 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{ValueDiversity}}{Using 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{ProceduralJustice}}{Based 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{InteractionalJustice}}{Using 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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{SharedLeadership}}{Following Carson, Tesluk & Marrone (2007),
#' every team member assessed each of their peers on the question of
#' \sQuote{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).}
#'
#' \item{\code{AgeDiversity}}{Following Harrison & Klein (2007), age
#' diversity was operationalized by the coefficient of variation of the
#' team members' ages.}
#'
#' \item{\code{GenderDiversity}}{Gender diversity was measured with Blau's
#' index, \eqn{1 - \sum_{j} p_{j}^{2}}{1 - the sum of the squared values of
#' p_j}, where \eqn{p_{j}}{p_j} is the proportion of team members in the
#' \eqn{j}{j}-th category (Blau, 1977).}
#'
#' \item{\code{TeamScore}}{The 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
#' (\url{https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-4101}).
#'
#' @references
#' Blau, P.M. (1977) \emph{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.
#' \emph{Academy of Management Journal}, \bold{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.), \emph{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.
#' \emph{Academy of Management Review}, \bold{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. \emph{Administrative Science Quarterly},
#' \bold{40}(2), 256--285. doi:10.2307/2393638.
#'
#' Lewis, K. (2003) Measuring Transactive Memory Systems in the Field: Scale
#' Development and Validation. \emph{Journal of Applied Psychology},
#' \bold{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. \emph{Journal of Management},
#' \bold{35}(3), 564--599. doi:10.1177/0149206308330557.
#'
#' Lindeman, M. and Verkasalo, M. (2005) Measuring Values With the Short
#' Schwartz's Value Survey. \emph{Journal of Personality Assessment},
#' \bold{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. \emph{Journal of Applied Psychology}, \bold{94}(1), 90--103.
#' doi:10.1037/a0013257.
#'
#' Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979) The Measurement of
#' Organizational Commitment. \emph{Journal of Vocational Behavior},
#' \bold{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.
#' \emph{Group Decision and Negotiation}, \bold{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")
"BSG2014"
Try the robmed package in your browser
Any scripts or data that you put into this service are public.
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.