Showing papers in "Journal of Applied Psychology in 1988"

Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior.

Abstract: Drawing from recent developments in social cognition, cognitive psychology, and behavioral decision theory, we analyzed when and how the act of measuring beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors affects observed correlations among them. Belief, attitude, or intention can be created by measurement if the measured constructs do not already exist in long-term memory. The responses thus created can have directive effects on answers to other questions that follow in the survey. But even when counterparts to the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions measured already exist in memory, the structure of the survey researcher's questionnaire can affect observed correlations among them. The respondent may use retrieved answers to earlier survey questions as inputs to response generation to later questions. We present a simple theory predicting that an earlier response will be used as a basis for another, subsequent response if the former is accessible and if it is perceived to be more diagnostic than other accessible inputs. We outline the factors that determine both the perceived diagnosticity of a potential input, the likelihood that it will be retrieved, and the likelihood that some alternative (and potentially more diagnostic) inputs will be retrieved. This article examines the effects of measurement operations on revealed correlations among survey measures of belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. The potential reactivity of measurement has long been of concern in psychology. Methodologists (e.g., Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Runkel & McGrath, 1972) warn of measurement-induced distortions relating to social desirability, evaluation apprehension, and sensitization to experimental treatments. Although it is true that the problem of reactivity of measurement affects work in both the social and physical sciences, in the physical sciences, measurement effects are expressed in terms of substantive theory. For instance, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle links basic

Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.

Abstract: Etude comparant les evaluations des superieurs hierarchiques et des subordonnes (efficacite, satisfaction) concernant deux types de leader ayant une influence differente sur le rendement

Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment.

Abstract: Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment was empirically evaluated using data collected from a sample of 577 full-time employees of a 327-bed Veterans Administration Medical Center, The LISREL vi computer program was used to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis of items from measures of these three concepts and to evaluate relations between other job-related variables and the three attitudinal measures. Results of these analyses indicated that the measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment assess empirically distinct concepts.

Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: a comparison of multiple data sources.

Abstract: Dans le cadre des recherches sur l'effet des stress de la vie professionnelle, les auteurs evaluent les relations avec les rapports d'un superviseur et avec les estimations du stress par l'employe lui-meme. Dans le cas du superviseur, les correlations stress/facteurs professionnels stressants sont plus faibles

Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and mechanisms.

Abstract: Three types of supervisor-subordinate similarity were identified: (a) perceived similarity, perceptions of how similar the supervisor and subordinate are; (b) perceptual congruence, similarity of perceptions about behaviors important in receiving a high merit pay raise; and (c) actual similarity of individual characteristics. The relation(s) among the types of similarity and of each type with various employee outcomes were examined. Results supported the distinctions among types. Each type was related to subordinate performance. Results were less consistent for job satisfaction and pay ratings. Perceived similarity yielded the strongest relation with the dependent variables. The findings also suggest that similarity affects evaluations not only through bias, but also partly because of differences in supervisor-subordinate interactions. Numerous studies have identified factors that affect performance ratings. One such factor is supervisor-subordinate similarity (Landy & Farr, 1980). The present study explores possible effects of three types of similarity: (a) perceived similarity between the evaluator and another person, (b) similarity of supervisor and subordinate perceptions about aspects of the work environment, and (c) actual or demographic similarity. In research on perceived similarity it has generally been assumed that a person who is perceived as similar to the evaluator is more attractive, so that decisions and evaluations regarding that person are biased positively (Byrne, 196 l; Byrne, Young, & Griffitt, 1966). Experimental manipulations of similarity have generally supported this assumption. Persons seen as similar in attitudes and background were treated and evaluated more favorably than were those seen as dissimilar (Baskett, 1973; Golightly, Huffman, & Byrne, 1972; Griffitt & Jackson, 1970; Peters & Terborg, 1975; Rand & Wexley, 1975; Wexley & Nemeroff, 1974). However, studies conducted in the field suggested that the biasing effects of similarity might be less robust and more subject to individual differences than the aforementioned results indicate. Pulakos and Wexley (1983) found that perceived similarity between managers and their subordinates led both to give higher performance ratings to the other, but studies involving college and job-applicant interviews found sizable individual differences in the effects of perceived similarity (Frank & Hackman, 1975; Sydiaha, 1962). Finally, Dalessio and Imada (1984) found that the decision made by most interviewers re

A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis.

Abstract: The advantages of applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data are widely recognized. However, because CFA, as traditionally applied to MTMM data, incorporates single indicators of each scale (i.e., each trait-method combination), important weaknesses are the failure to (a) correct appropriately for measurement error in scale scores, (b) separate error due to low internal consistency from uniqueness due to weak trait or method effects, (c) test whether items or subscales accurately reflect the intended factor structure, and (d) test for correlated uniquenesses. However, when the analysis begins with multiple indicatois of each scale (i.e., items or subscales), second-order factor analysis can be used to address each of these problems. In this approach, first-order factors defined by multiple items or subscales are posited for each scale, and the method and trait factors are posited as second-order factors.

Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance.

Abstract: In Study 1, 83 undergraduates received either constructive criticism (feedback that was specific, considerate, and did not attribute poor performance to internal causes) or destructive criticism (feedback that violated these basic principles) of their work. Those who received destructive criticism reported greater anger and tension and indicated that they would be more likely to handle future disagreements with the source through resistance or avoidance and less likely to handle disagreements through collaboration or compromise. In Study 2, 106 undergraduates who received destructive criticism of their work on an initial task set lower goals and reported lower self-efficacy on two additional tasks than did subjects who received constructive criticism or no feedback. In Study 3, 108 employees of a large food-processing company rated the importance of 14 potential causes of conflict in their organization. Poor use of criticism was perceived as a more important cause of conflict and received higher ratings than did competition over resources or disputes overjurisdiction.

Job experience correlates of job performance.

Abstract: Although measures of job experience are frequently-used screening devices in the selection of employees, personnel psychologists have devoted little attention to their usefulness. This article quantitatively summarizes data on the relation between job experience and job performance from a total sample of 16,058. The correlation between job experience and job performance was found to be moderated by two variables: length of experience and job complexity. The highest correlations were obtained in populations with low mean levels of job experience and for jobs that place low levels of cognitive demands on employees. Results appear to be consistent with the causal model of job performance proposed by Schmidt, Hunter, and Outerbridge (1986).

Eliminating the hindsight bias.

Abstract: Those who consider the likelihood of an event after it has occurred exaggerate their likelihood of having been able to predict that event in advance. We attempted to eliminate this hindsight bias among 194 neuropsychologists. Foresight subjects read a case history and were asked to estimate the probability of three different diagnoses. Subjects in each of the three hindsight groups were told that one of the three diagnoses was correct and were asked to state what probability they would have assigned to each diagnosis if they were making the original diagnosis. Foresight-reasons and hindsight-reasons subjects performed the same task as their foresight and hindsight counterparts, except they had to list one reason why each of the possible diagnoses might be correct. The frequency of subjects succumbing to the hindsight bias was lower in the hindsight-reasons groups than in the hindsight groups not asked to list reasons, x!( 1, N = 140) = 4.12, p < .05.

Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting.

Abstract: In this monograph we describe a unique method for resolving scientific disputes: the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists themselves with the help of a mediator. This method was applied to the issue of the effect of participation on goal commitment and performance. In research on this topic, Latham and his colleagues had obtained markedly different results from those obtained by Erez and her colleagues. With Locke serving as a third party mediator, Latham and Erez designed four experiments to resolve the discrepancies. The experiments were conducted at the University of Washington and the University of Maryland. The results revealed that the major reason for the difference was that Erez gave very brief tell instructions to her assigned goal subjects, whereas Latham used a tell and sell approach. Four additional factors also contributed to the earlier difference in findings: goal difficulty, setting personal goals before goal treatments were introduced, self-efficacyinducing instructions, and instructions to reject disliked goals. It was concluded that (a) the differences between Latham and Erez can be explained on the basis of differences in specific procedures, and (b) the method used to resolve this dispute should be used by other investigators. In this monograph we present a method of resolving scientific disputes that may be unique in the history of psychology, and we demonstrate its application to a current scientific dispute. The method involved the joint design of "crucial experiments" by the antagonists, using a third party as a mediator. Typically, when there are disagreements regarding a certain finding or relationship in science, the disputants attack one another in the literature. Each may claim that the other used a flawed procedure, an invalid design, inappropriate analyses, or that the findings were valid but misinterpreted. The rest of the scientific community then lines up on either side (or in the middle).

Equity and Workplace Status: A Field Experiment

Abstract: There can be little doubt about the existence of certain trappings of success in organizations—physical symbols (cf . Good sell, 1977 ) reflecting the organizational status of job incumbents (Steele, 1973). Indeed, previous research has confirmed that certain indicators of status demarcation (cf. Konar & Sundstrom, 1985) , such as large offices (Langdon, 1966), carpeting (Joiner, 1976) , and proximity to windows (Halloran, 1978), are recognized as rewards symbolizing one's high standing in an organizational status hierarchy. Although these environmental rewards typically are associated with relatively highstatus individuals, thereby reinforcing the social order of organizations (Edelman, 1978), there are some occasions in which the status of th e jo b incumbent and th e physical symbols associated with that status are not matched (Wineman, 1982). Such instances may be recognized as cases of status inconsistency, (cf. Stryke r & Macke, 1978) and, as such, reactions to them may be explained by equity theory (e.g., Adams, 1965; Walster , Walster, & Berscheid, 1978).

Joint relation of experience and ability with job performance: Test of three hypotheses.

Abstract: Data from four different jobs (TV = 1,474) were used to evaluate three hypotheses of the joint relation of job experience and general mental ability to job performance as measured by (a) work sample measures, (b) job knowledge measures, and (c) supervisory ratings of job performance. The divergence hypothesis predicts an increasing difference and the convergence hypothesis predicts a decreasing difference in the job performance of highand low-mental-ability employees as employees gain increasing experience on the job. The noninteractive hypothesis, by contrast, predicts that the performance difference will be constant over time. For all three measures of job performance, results supported the noninteractive hypothesis. Also, consistent with the noninteractive hypothesis, correlational analyses showed essentially constant validities for general mental ability (measured earlier) out to 5 years of experience on the job. In addition to their theoretical implications, these findings have an important practical implication: They indicate that the concerns that employment test validities may decrease over time, complicating estimates of selection utility, are probably unwarranted.

Coping with competing demands: Interruption and the Type A pattern.

Abstract: Police dispatchers play a critical role in police effectiveness in screening complaints from citizens, deciding whether to send a patrol officer, and choosing which officer to send on calls. Numerous studies have indicated that policing is a high-stress occupation, and surveys of police officers have identified a variety of potential job stressors, including poor equipment, long hours and shift work, and role overload (Davidson & Veno, 1980; Kroes, 1976). Beyond general survey research with police officers, however, there has been little systematic study of the dispatch role per se. Moreover, researchers have not yet examined the objective demands of police dispatching or how objective demands interact with personal disposition in determining job stress. The present investigation was conducted toward these ends. Specifically, this study examined the effects of externally imposed interruption and the Type A pattern on role overload stress. Role overload, defined as having too much to do in the time available (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Shock, & Rosenthal, 1964), has important implications for employee health and quality of work. Previous research in organizational settings has demonstrated a significant relation between load and heavy smoking, elevated serum cholesterol, hypertension, and increased heart rate (Caplan & Jones, 1975; Cobb & Rose, 1973; French & Caplan, 1972). Because each of these factors is associ

Measurement of job characteristics: Comparison of the original and the revised Job Diagnostic Survey

Abstract: Animal Health Services, Wyeth LaboratoriesPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaThis study contrasted the original version of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham,1975) with the revised version recently proposed by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). A total of 224dairy workers completed both versions of the JDS. Results of a confirmatory factor analysis showedthat the revised JDS job characteristics items conformed more closely to the hypothesized five-factorstructure than did the original JDS items. However, results of LISREL analyses indicated that therevised items did not improve the usefulness of the JDS in predicting several outcomes (e.g., satisfac-tion, internal motivation, and productivity).In its most general form, job characteristics theory (Hack-man & Oldham, 1980) posits that five job characteristics (au-tonomy, task identity, task significance, skill variety, and taskfeedback) prompt a number of personal and organizational out-comes. Nearly all of the research that has tested the theory hasused the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham,1975), an instrument designed to measure incumbents' percep-tions of the job characteristics, their satisfaction, and internalmotivation.Much of the research regarding the JDS has focused on thedimensionality of the job characteristics measures (cf. Dun-ham, 1976; Dunham, Aldag, & Brief, 1977). Although a fewstudies have confirmed the five hypothesized job dimensions(e.g., Katz, 1978; Lee & Klein, 1982), most have reported solu-tions inconsistent with the a priori five-factor structure (e.g.,Dunham, 1976; Pierce & Dunham, 1978).Recent research has examined the possibility that the JDSitself might be responsible for these factor structure inconsis-tencies. Idaszak and Drasgow (1987) conducted factor analysesof two samples of employees. Results revealed six-factor solu-tions for both samples—five factors corresponding to the hy-pothesized factor structure and the sixth representing the nega-tively worded, reverse-scored JDS items. Harvey, Billings, andNilan (1985) used confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate thefactor structures suggested in past research. Their results sug-gested that the best fitting solution included the five a prioriThe authors thank Fritz Drasgow, Doug May, and Motohiro Mori-shima for their help with the data analyses. Robert Billings, JeanneBrett, Fritz Drasgow, and Motohiro Morishima provided helpful com-ments on earlier drafts of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to CarolT. Kulik, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mel-lon University, Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213.dimensions plus one or two method factors (factors for the re-verse-scored items and the three-anchor scale items).In response to these criticisms, Idaszak and Drasgow (1987)revised the JDS by rewriting the reverse-scored job characteris-tics items. The factor structure of the revised JDS was theninvestigated for a sample of printing plant employees. The re-sulting factor structure conformed very closely to the a priorifive-dimension structure. As a result, Idaszak and Drasgow con-cluded that the new scales should be used in future researchconcerned with job characteristics.Two limitations of the research on the revised instrumentlead us to believe that this recommendation may be premature.First, the Idaszak and Drasgow (1987) study did not involve acomparison of the original JDS with its revised counterpartwithin the same sample. As demonstrated by Dunham et al.(1977), some samples display a five-factor structure when theoriginal JDS is used. Thus, it is possible that the five-factorstructure observed by Idaszak and Drasgow is a function of thecharacteristics of the sample they used to assess the instrument.Second, it is unknown what impact the JDS revisions mighthave on the criterion-related validity of the JDS. If the JDS revi-sions result in "purer" measures of the job characteristics, thereshould be stronger associations between the revised measuresand the personal and organizational outcomes than between theoriginal measures and the outcomes.The present research uses confirmatory factor analysis to ex-amine whether the revised JDS items conform more closely tothe a priori factor structure than do the original JDS itemswithin the same sample. We also use LISREL analyses to assessthe relative effectiveness of the two instruments in predictingseveral outcomes. LISREL is useful in examining the psychomet-ric properties of the original and revised JDS because it allowsus to separate the measurement model from the structuralmodel. Specifically, we expect that the structural model wouldnot differ across the two versions of the JDS, but there shouldbe improvements in the measurement model.462