Perception alignment improves mainly in the early weeks and does not consistently decrease through the project¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Alignment improved significantly from t1 to t3 (Wilcoxon signed-rank W = 2292, p = .003, r = .35) but not from t2 to t3 (p = .156); 49% of teams became better aligned, 25% worse, 26% unchanged. → Laura Graf 2026

Evidence¶

Laura Graf 2026¶

Laura Graf, Ramona Beinstingel, Stephan Krusche, Oleksandra Poquet. (2026). Students' Perception Accuracy of Partners' AI Use and its Relation to Collaboration Performance. Preprint, Technical University of Munich. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23237 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23237

q2 · i2 · associational · r2

Wilcoxon signed-rank tests comparing absolute misalignment (|d|) between consecutive waves in the 103-pair longitudinal survey; the article prints "r= .35" for the t1–t3 change and a non-significant t2–t3 change (p = .156). At t1, 24% of teams showed substantial misalignment (|d| > 0.2), dropping to 14% by t3.

"Then, alignment improved significantly over the project (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests t1 to t3: W= 2292, p = .003, r= .35). The change from t2 to t3 was not significant (p = .156), indicating that the alignment took place in the earlier weeks."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Estimation errors for partner AI use are directionally biased for specific task types at t2 but not at t3 — related
• Teams whose perception of who uses more AI reversed between t1 and t3 achieved lower scores than teams with stable perceptions — related
• Greater early-project misalignment in partners' perceptions of each other's AI use is associated with lower final project scores — related
• Week 3 performance differs by perception-transition group, with Aligned teams increasing and Multifaceted teams decreasing in scores — related