scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Feng Jiang

Bio: Feng Jiang is an academic researcher from Central University of Finance and Economics. The author has contributed to research in topics: Psychology & Happiness. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 37 publications receiving 2536 citations. Previous affiliations of Feng Jiang include Peking University & Huaqiao University.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel Conroy-Beam1, David M. Buss2, Kelly Asao2, Agnieszka Sorokowska3, Agnieszka Sorokowska4, Piotr Sorokowski3, Toivo Aavik5, Grace Akello6, Mohammad Madallh Alhabahba7, Charlotte Alm8, Naumana Amjad9, Afifa Anjum9, Chiemezie S. Atama10, Derya Atamtürk Duyar11, Richard Ayebare, Carlota Batres12, Mons Bendixen13, Aicha Bensafia14, Boris Bizumic15, Mahmoud Boussena14, Marina Butovskaya16, Marina Butovskaya17, Seda Can18, Katarzyna Cantarero19, Antonin Carrier20, Hakan Cetinkaya21, Ilona Croy4, Rosa María Cueto22, Marcin Czub3, Daria Dronova16, Seda Dural18, İzzet Duyar11, Berna Ertuğrul23, Agustín Espinosa22, Ignacio Estevan24, Carla Sofia Esteves25, Luxi Fang26, Tomasz Frackowiak3, Jorge Contreras Garduño27, Karina Ugalde González, Farida Guemaz, Petra Gyuris28, Mária Halamová29, Iskra Herak20, Marina Horvat30, Ivana Hromatko31, Chin Ming Hui26, Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar32, Feng Jiang33, Konstantinos Kafetsios34, Tina Kavčič35, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair13, Nicolas Kervyn20, Truong Thi Khanh Ha19, Imran Ahmed Khilji36, Nils C. Köbis37, Hoang Moc Lan19, András Láng28, Georgina R. Lennard15, Ernesto León22, Torun Lindholm8, Trinh Thi Linh19, Giulia Lopez38, Nguyen Van Luot19, Alvaro Mailhos24, Zoi Manesi39, Rocio Martinez40, Sarah L. McKerchar15, Norbert Meskó28, Girishwar Misra41, Conal Monaghan15, Emanuel C. Mora42, Alba Moya-Garófano40, Bojan Musil30, Jean Carlos Natividade43, Agnieszka Niemczyk3, George Nizharadze, Elisabeth Oberzaucher44, Anna Oleszkiewicz4, Anna Oleszkiewicz3, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee45, Ike E. Onyishi10, Barış Özener11, Ariela Francesca Pagani38, Vilmante Pakalniskiene46, Miriam Parise38, Farid Pazhoohi47, Annette Pisanski42, Katarzyna Pisanski48, Katarzyna Pisanski3, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano, Camelia Popa49, Pavol Prokop50, Pavol Prokop51, Muhammad Rizwan, Mario Sainz52, Svjetlana Salkičević31, Ruta Sargautyte46, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller53, Susanne Schmehl44, Shivantika Sharad41, Razi Sultan Siddiqui54, Franco Simonetti55, Stanislava Stoyanova56, Meri Tadinac31, Marco Antonio Correa Varella57, Christin-Melanie Vauclair25, Luis Diego Vega, Dwi Ajeng Widarini, Gyesook Yoo58, Marta Zaťková29, Maja Zupančič59 
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, University of Wrocław3, Dresden University of Technology4, University of Tartu5, Gulu University6, Middle East University7, Stockholm University8, University of the Punjab9, University of Nigeria, Nsukka10, Istanbul University11, Franklin & Marshall College12, Norwegian University of Science and Technology13, University of Algiers14, Australian National University15, Russian Academy of Sciences16, Russian State University for the Humanities17, İzmir University of Economics18, University of Social Sciences and Humanities19, Université catholique de Louvain20, Ankara University21, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru22, Cumhuriyet University23, University of the Republic24, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon25, The Chinese University of Hong Kong26, National Autonomous University of Mexico27, University of Pécs28, University of Constantine the Philosopher29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology36, University of Amsterdam37, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart38, VU University Amsterdam39, University of Granada40, University of Delhi41, University of Havana42, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro43, University of Vienna44, Universiti Utara Malaysia45, Vilnius University46, University of British Columbia47, University of Sussex48, Romanian Academy49, Slovak Academy of Sciences50, Comenius University in Bratislava51, University of Monterrey52, SAS Institute53, DHA Suffa University54, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile55, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"56, University of São Paulo57, Kyung Hee University58, University of Ljubljana59
TL;DR: This work combines this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets and finds that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
Abstract: Humans express a wide array of ideal mate preferences. Around the world, people desire romantic partners who are intelligent, healthy, kind, physically attractive, wealthy, and more. In order for these ideal preferences to guide the choice of actual romantic partners, human mating psychology must possess a means to integrate information across these many preference dimensions into summaries of the overall mate value of their potential mates. Here we explore the computational design of this mate preference integration process using a large sample of n = 14,487 people from 45 countries around the world. We combine this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets. Across cultures, people higher in mate value appear to experience greater power of choice on the mating market in that they set higher ideal standards, better fulfill their preferences in choice, and pair with higher mate value partners. Furthermore, we find that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.

1,827 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Agnieszka Sorokowska1, Piotr Sorokowski1, Peter Hilpert2, Katarzyna Cantarero3, Tomasz Frackowiak1, Khodabakhsh Ahmadi4, Ahmad M. Alghraibeh5, Richmond Aryeetey6, Anna Marta Maria Bertoni7, Karim Bettache8, Sheyla Blumen9, Marta Błażejewska1, Tiago Bortolini10, Marina Butovskaya11, Marina Butovskaya12, Felipe Nalon Castro13, Hakan Cetinkaya14, Diana Cunha15, Daniel David16, Oana A. David16, Fahd A. Dileym5, Alejandra del Carmen Domínguez Espinosa17, Silvio Donato7, Daria Dronova, Seda Dural18, Jitka Fialová19, Maryanne L. Fisher20, Evrim Gülbetekin21, Aslıhan Hamamcıoğlu Akkaya22, Ivana Hromatko23, Raffaella Iafrate7, Mariana Iesyp24, Bawo O. James25, Jelena Jaranovic26, Feng Jiang27, Charles O. Kimamo28, Grete Kjelvik29, Fırat Koç22, Amos Laar6, Fívia de Araújo Lopes13, Guillermo Macbeth30, Nicole M. Marcano31, Rocio Martinez32, Norbert Meskó33, Natalya Molodovskaya1, Khadijeh Moradi34, Zahrasadat Motahari35, Alexandra Mühlhauser36, Jean Carlos Natividade37, Joseph Mpeera Ntayi38, Elisabeth Oberzaucher36, Oluyinka Ojedokun39, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee40, Ike E. Onyishi41, Anna Paluszak1, Alda Portugal15, Eugenia Razumiejczyk30, Anu Realo42, Anu Realo43, Ana Paula Relvas15, Maria Rivas44, Muhammad Rizwan45, Svjetlana Salkičević23, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller46, Susanne Schmehl36, Oksana Senyk24, Charlotte Sinding47, Eftychia Stamkou48, Stanislava Stoyanova49, Denisa Šukolová50, Nina Sutresna51, Meri Tadinac23, Andero Teras, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano52, Ritu Tripathi53, Nachiketa Tripathi54, Mamta Tripathi54, Olja Uhryn, Maria Emília Yamamoto13, Gyesook Yoo55, John D. Pierce31 
University of Wrocław1, University of Washington2, University of Social Sciences and Humanities3, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences4, King Saud University5, University of Ghana6, University of Milan7, The Chinese University of Hong Kong8, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru9, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro10, Russian State University for the Humanities11, Moscow State University12, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte13, Ankara University14, University of Coimbra15, Babeș-Bolyai University16, Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México17, İzmir University of Economics18, Charles University in Prague19, Saint Mary's University20, Akdeniz University21, Cumhuriyet University22, University of Zagreb23, Lviv University24, Federal Neuro Psychiatric Hospital25, University of Belgrade26, Central University of Finance and Economics27, University of Nairobi28, Norwegian University of Science and Technology29, National University of Entre Ríos30, Philadelphia University31, University of Granada32, University of Pécs33, Razi University34, University of Science and Culture35, University of Vienna36, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro37, Makerere University Business School38, Adekunle Ajasin University39, Universiti Utara Malaysia40, University of Nigeria, Nsukka41, University of Warwick42, University of Tartu43, University of Magdalena44, University of Karachi45, University of Constantine the Philosopher46, Dresden University of Technology47, University of Amsterdam48, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"49, Matej Bel University50, Indonesia University of Education51, Rio de Janeiro State University52, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore53, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati54, Kyung Hee University55
TL;DR: In this paper, an extensive analysis of interpersonal distances over a large data set (N = 8,943 participants from 42 countries) was presented, which attempted to relate the preferred social, personal, and intimate distances observed in each country to a set of individual characteristics of the participants, and some attributes of their cultures.
Abstract: Human spatial behavior has been the focus of hundreds of previous research studies. However, the conclusions and generalizability of previous studies on interpersonal distance preferences were limited by some important methodological and sampling issues. The objective of the present study was to compare preferred interpersonal distances across the world and to overcome the problems observed in previous studies. We present an extensive analysis of interpersonal distances over a large data set (N = 8,943 participants from 42 countries). We attempted to relate the preferred social, personal, and intimate distances observed in each country to a set of individual characteristics of the participants, and some attributes of their cultures. Our study indicates that individual characteristics (age and gender) influence interpersonal space preferences and that some variation in results can be explained by temperature in a given region. We also present objective values of preferred interpersonal distances in different regions, which might be used as a reference data point in future studies.

260 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Kathryn V. Walter1, Daniel Conroy-Beam1, David M. Buss2, Kelly Asao2, Agnieszka Sorokowska3, Agnieszka Sorokowska4, Piotr Sorokowski5, Toivo Aavik6, Grace Akello7, Mohammad Madallh Alhabahba8, Charlotte Alm9, Naumana Amjad10, Afifa Anjum10, Chiemezie S. Atama11, Derya Atamtürk Duyar12, Richard Ayebare, Carlota Batres13, Mons Bendixen14, Aicha Bensafia15, Boris Bizumic16, Mahmoud Boussena15, Marina Butovskaya17, Marina Butovskaya18, Seda Can19, Katarzyna Cantarero20, Antonin Carrier21, Hakan Cetinkaya22, Ilona Croy4, Rosa María Cueto23, Marcin Czub3, Daria Dronova17, Seda Dural19, İzzet Duyar12, Berna Ertuğrul24, Agustín Espinosa23, Ignacio Estevan25, Carla Sofia Esteves26, Luxi Fang27, Tomasz Frackowiak3, Jorge Contreras Garduño28, Karina Ugalde González, Farida Guemaz, Petra Gyuris29, Mária Halamová, Iskra Herak21, Marina Horvat30, Ivana Hromatko31, Chin Ming Hui27, Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar32, Feng Jiang33, Konstantinos Kafetsios34, Tina Kavčič35, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair14, Nicolas Kervyn21, Truong Thi Khanh Ha20, Imran Ahmed Khilji, Nils C. Köbis36, Hoang Moc Lan20, András Láng29, Georgina R. Lennard16, Ernesto León23, Torun Lindholm9, Trinh Thi Linh20, Giulia Lopez37, Nguyen Van Luot20, Alvaro Mailhos25, Zoi Manesi38, Rocio Martinez39, Sarah L. McKerchar16, Norbert Meskó29, Girishwar Misra40, Conal Monaghan16, Emanuel C. Mora41, Alba Moya-Garófano39, Bojan Musil30, Jean Carlos Natividade42, Agnieszka Niemczyk3, George Nizharadze, Elisabeth Oberzaucher43, Anna Oleszkiewicz4, Anna Oleszkiewicz3, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee44, Ike E. Onyishi11, Barış Özener12, Ariela Francesca Pagani37, Vilmante Pakalniskiene45, Miriam Parise37, Farid Pazhoohi46, Annette Pisanski41, Katarzyna Pisanski3, Katarzyna Pisanski47, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano, Camelia Popa48, Pavol Prokop49, Pavol Prokop50, Muhammad Rizwan, Mario Sainz51, Svjetlana Salkičević31, Ruta Sargautyte45, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller50, Susanne Schmehl43, Shivantika Sharad40, Razi Sultan Siddiqui52, Franco Simonetti53, Stanislava Stoyanova54, Meri Tadinac31, Marco Antonio Correa Varella55, Christin-Melanie Vauclair26, Luis Diego Vega, Dwi Ajeng Widarini, Gyesook Yoo56, Marta Zat’ková, Maja Zupančič57 
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, University of Wrocław3, Dresden University of Technology4, Opole University5, University of Tartu6, Gulu University7, Middle East University8, Stockholm University9, University of the Punjab10, University of Nigeria, Nsukka11, Istanbul University12, Franklin & Marshall College13, Norwegian University of Science and Technology14, University of Algiers15, Australian National University16, Russian Academy of Sciences17, Russian State University for the Humanities18, İzmir University of Economics19, University of Social Sciences and Humanities20, Université catholique de Louvain21, Ankara University22, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru23, Cumhuriyet University24, University of the Republic25, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon26, The Chinese University of Hong Kong27, National Autonomous University of Mexico28, University of Pécs29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, University of Amsterdam36, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart37, VU University Amsterdam38, University of Granada39, University of Delhi40, University of Havana41, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro42, University of Vienna43, Universiti Utara Malaysia44, Vilnius University45, University of British Columbia46, Centre national de la recherche scientifique47, Romanian Academy48, Comenius University in Bratislava49, Slovak Academy of Sciences50, University of Monterrey51, DHA Suffa University52, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile53, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"54, University of São Paulo55, Kyung Hee University56, University of Ljubljana57
TL;DR: Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), this work attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives, finding neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.
Abstract: Considerable research has examined human mate preferences across cultures, finding universal sex differences in preferences for attractiveness and resources as well as sources of systematic cultural variation. Two competing perspectives-an evolutionary psychological perspective and a biosocial role perspective-offer alternative explanations for these findings. However, the original data on which each perspective relies are decades old, and the literature is fraught with conflicting methods, analyses, results, and conclusions. Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), we attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives. Support for universal sex differences in preferences remains robust: Men, more than women, prefer attractive, young mates, and women, more than men, prefer older mates with financial prospects. Cross-culturally, both sexes have mates closer to their own ages as gender equality increases. Beyond age of partner, neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.

129 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Li et al. as mentioned in this paper proposed and tested a moderated mediation model positing leader-member exchange (LMX) as a mediator, and employee power distance orientation as a moderator of this relationship.
Abstract: Previous research has shown that virtuous leader behavior in the form of benevolent leadership has considerable impact on employee creativity. However, little is known as to how and under what conditions these constructs are linked. In the current research, we proposed and tested a moderated mediation model positing leader–member exchange (LMX) as a mediator, and employee power-distance orientation as a moderator of this relationship. Two studies were conducted to test our hypothesized model. In Study 1, repeated measured data collected from 284 Chinese employees in an information technology company demonstrated that benevolent leadership had a lagged effect on LMX. In Study 2, analyses of multisource and lagged data from 391 Chinese employees in 42 research and development teams, and their direct supervisors indicated that benevolent leadership was positively related to supervisor-rated employee creativity via LMX. In addition, the relationship between benevolent leadership and LMX was stronger for employees high in power-distance orientation. Theoretical implications of benevolent leadership’s research and practical contributions concerning promoting creativity in organizations where benevolent leaders prevail are also discussed.

94 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Piotr Sorokowski1, Ashley K. Randall2, Agata Groyecka1, Tomasz Frackowiak1, Katarzyna Cantarero3, Peter Hilpert4, Khodabakhsh Ahmadi5, Ahmad M. Alghraibeh6, Richmond Aryeetey7, Anna Marta Maria Bertoni8, Karim Bettache9, Marta Błażejewska1, Guy Bodenmann10, Tiago Bortolini11, Carla Bosc1, Marina Butovskaya12, Marina Butovskaya13, Felipe Nalon Castro14, Hakan Cetinkaya15, Diana Cunha16, Daniel David17, Oana A. David17, Alejandra del Carmen Domínguez Espinosa18, Silvio Donato8, Daria Dronova13, Seda Dural19, Maryanne L. Fisher20, Aslıhan Hamamcıoğlu Akkaya21, Takeshi Hamamura9, Karolina Hansen22, Wallisen Tadashi Hattori, Ivana Hromatko23, Evrim Gülbetekin24, Raffaella Iafrate8, Bawo O. James25, Feng Jiang26, Charles O. Kimamo27, Fırat Koç21, Anna Krasnodębska28, Amos Laar7, Fívia de Araújo Lopes15, Rocio Martinez29, Norbert Meskó30, Natalya Molodovskaya1, Khadijeh Moradi Qezeli31, Zahrasadat Motahari32, Jean Carlos Natividade33, Joseph Mpeera Ntayi34, Oluyinka Ojedokun35, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee36, Ike E. Onyishi37, Barış Özener38, Anna Paluszak1, Alda Portugal16, Anu Realo39, Anu Realo40, Ana Paula Relvas16, Muhammad Rizwan41, Agnieszka Sabiniewicz1, Svjetlana Salkičević23, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller42, Eftychia Stamkou43, Stanislava Stoyanova44, Denisa Šukolová45, Nina Sutresna46, Meri Tadinac23, Andero Teras, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano, Ritu Tripathi47, Nachiketa Tripathi48, Mamta Tripathi48, Maria Emília Yamamoto14, Gyesook Yoo49, Agnieszka Sorokowska1, Agnieszka Sorokowska50 
University of Wrocław1, Arizona State University2, University of Social Sciences and Humanities3, University of Washington4, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences5, King Saud University6, University of Ghana7, University of Milan8, The Chinese University of Hong Kong9, University of Zurich10, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro11, Russian State University for the Humanities12, Russian Academy of Sciences13, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte14, Ankara University15, University of Coimbra16, Babeș-Bolyai University17, Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México18, İzmir University of Economics19, Saint Mary's University20, Cumhuriyet University21, University of Warsaw22, University of Zagreb23, Akdeniz University24, Federal Neuro Psychiatric Hospital25, Central University of Finance and Economics26, University of Nairobi27, Opole University28, University of Granada29, University of Pécs30, Razi University31, University of Science and Culture32, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro33, Makerere University Business School34, Adekunle Ajasin University35, Universiti Utara Malaysia36, University of Nigeria, Nsukka37, Istanbul University38, University of Tartu39, University of Warwick40, University of Karachi41, SAS Institute42, University of Amsterdam43, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"44, Matej Bel University45, Indonesia University of Education46, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore47, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati48, Kyung Hee University49, Dresden University of Technology50
TL;DR: This paper measured marital satisfaction and several factors that might potentially correlate with it based on self-report data from individuals across 33 countries and introduced the raw data available for anybody interested in further examining any relations between them and other country-level scores obtained elsewhere.
Abstract: Forms of committed relationships, including formal marriage arrangements between men and women, exist in almost every culture (Bell, 1997). Yet, similarly to many other psychological constructs (Henrich et al., 2010), marital satisfaction and its correlates have been investigated almost exclusively in Western countries (e.g., Bradbury et al., 2000). Meanwhile, marital relationships are heavily guided by culturally determined norms, customs, and expectations (for review see Berscheid, 1995; Fiske et al., 1998). While we acknowledge the differences existing both between- and within-cultures, we measured marital satisfaction and several factors that might potentially correlate with it based on self-report data from individuals across 33 countries. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the raw data available for anybody interested in further examining any relations between them and other country-level scores obtained elsewhere. Below, we review the central variables that are likely to be related to marital satisfaction

69 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal Article

5,680 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The Social Psychology of Groups as discussed by the authors is a seminal work in the field of family studies, where the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship.
Abstract: The Social Psychology of Groups. J. W Thibaut & H. H. Kelley. New York: alley, 1959. The team of Thibaut and Kelley goes back to 1946 when, after serving in different units of the armed services psychology program, the authors joined the Research Center for Group Dynamics, first at M.LT and then at the University of Michigan. Their continued association eventuated in appointments as fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 19561957. It is during these years that their collaboration resulted in the publication of The Social Psychology of Groups. The book was designed to "bring order and coherence to present-day research in interpersonal relations and group functioning." To accomplish this aim, the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship. These basic principles and concepts were then employed to illuminate larger problems and more complex social relationships and to examine the significance of such concepts as roles, norm, power, group cohesiveness, and status. The lasting legacy of this book is derived from the fact that the concepts and principles discussed therein serve as a foundation for one of the dominant conceptual frameworks in the field of family studies today-the social exchange framework. Specifically, much of our contemporary thinking about the process of interpersonal attraction and about how individuals evaluate their close relationships has been influenced by the theory and concepts introduced in The Social Psychology of Groups. Today, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley, we think of interpersonal attraction as resulting from the unique valence of driving and restraining forces, rewards and costs, subjectively thought to be available from a specific relationship and its competing alternatives. We understand, as well, that relationships are evaluated through complex and subjectively based comparative processes. As a result, when we think about assessing the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their relationships, we take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the importance they attribute to different aspects of a relationship (e.g., financial security, sexual fulfillment, companionship). We also take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the levels of rewards and costs that they believe are realistically obtainable and deserved from a relationship. In addition, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley's theoretical focus on the concept of dependence and the interrelationship between attraction and dependence, there has evolved within the field of family studies a deeper appreciation for the complexities and variability found within relationships. Individuals are dependent on their relationships, according to Thibaut and Kelley, when the outcomes derived from the existing relationship exceed those perceived to be available in competing alternatives. Individuals who are highly dependent on their relationships are less likely to act to end their relationships. This dependence and the stability it engenders may or may not be voluntary, depending on the degree to which individuals are attracted to and satisfied with their relationships. When individuals are both attracted to and dependent on their relationships, they can be thought of as voluntarily participating in their relationship. That is, they are likely to commit themselves to the partner and relationship and actively work for its continuance. Thibaut and Kelley termed those relationships characterized by low levels of satisfaction and high levels of dependence "nonvoluntary relationships. …

1,894 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The findings suggest that the previously asserted direct effect of structural differentiation on ambidexterity operates through informal senior team and formal organizational integration mechanisms, and contributes to a greater clarity and better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously to achieve ambideXterity.
Abstract: textPrior studies have emphasized that structural attributes are crucial to simultaneously pursuing exploration and exploitation, yet our understanding of antecedents of ambidexterity is still limited. Structural differentiation can help ambidextrous organizations to maintain multiple inconsistent and conflicting demands; however, differentiated exploratory and exploitative activities need to mobilized, coordinated, integrated, and applied. Based on this idea, we delineate formal and informal senior team integration mechanisms (i.e. contingency rewards and social integration) and formal and informal organizational integration mechanisms (i.e. cross-functional interfaces and connectedness) and examine how they mediate the relationship between structural differentiation and ambidexterity. Overall, our findings suggest that the previously asserted direct effect of structural differentiation on ambidexterity operates through informal senior team (i.e. senior team social integration) and formal organizational (i.e. cross-functional interfaces) integration mechanisms. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously to achieve ambidexterity.

732 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This compendium is for established researchers, newcomers, and students alike, highlighting interesting and rewarding problems for the coming years in single-cell data science.
Abstract: The recent boom in microfluidics and combinatorial indexing strategies, combined with low sequencing costs, has empowered single-cell sequencing technology. Thousands-or even millions-of cells analyzed in a single experiment amount to a data revolution in single-cell biology and pose unique data science problems. Here, we outline eleven challenges that will be central to bringing this emerging field of single-cell data science forward. For each challenge, we highlight motivating research questions, review prior work, and formulate open problems. This compendium is for established researchers, newcomers, and students alike, highlighting interesting and rewarding problems for the coming years.

677 citations