Different strokes for different folks: Examining additive and complimentary effects of the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion on trainees' research outcomes.

Abstract

A primary task of scientific and scientist-practitioner training programs is to assist graduate students in acquiring research skills and, ultimately, developing research and scientific acumen. Informed by Gelso's (1979) model of effective research training environments (RTEs), we assessed the effect of the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion on trainees' research self-efficacy and research activity. With a sample of 76 counseling psychology doctoral trainees nested within 34 advisors, we examined the association between the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion and trainees' research self-efficacy and research activity. Next, we used polynomial regression and response surface analysis to test the additive and complementary effects between the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion on trainees' research self-efficacy and research activity. Univariate analyses indicated that the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion were positively associated with trainees' research self-efficacy and research activity. Moreover, polynomial regression models and response surface analyses indicated an additive effect between the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion on trainees' research self-efficacy and research activity, such that trainees' research self-efficacy and research activity were highest when the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion were consistent and high. Lastly, we found a complementary effect between the advisory working alliance and research team cohesion for trainees' research self-efficacy, meaning research self-efficacy was highest when students perceived either (a) high advisory working alliance and low research team cohesion or (b) low advisory working alliance and high research team cohesion. Training implications and future directions are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).