Journal of Business and Psychology 

About: Journal of Business and Psychology is an academic journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Industrial and organizational psychology & Job performance. It has an ISSN identifier of 0889-3268. Over the lifetime, 1519 publications have been published receiving 75624 citations. The journal is also known as: Journal of Business & Psychology.

Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How

Abstract: Many theories in management, psychology, and other disciplines rely on moderating variables: those which affect the strength or nature of the relationship between two other variables. Despite the near-ubiquitous nature of such effects, the methods for testing and interpreting them are not always well understood. This article introduces the concept of moderation and describes how moderator effects are tested and interpreted for a series of model types, beginning with straightforward two-way interactions with Normal outcomes, moving to three-way and curvilinear interactions, and then to models with non-Normal outcomes including binary logistic regression and Poisson regression. In particular, methods of interpreting and probing these latter model types, such as simple slope analysis and slope difference tests, are described. It then gives answers to twelve frequently asked questions about testing and interpreting moderator effects.

What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research

Abstract: We believe that journal reviewers (as well as editors and dissertation or thesis committee members) have to some extent perpetuated misconceptions about common method bias in self-report measures, including (a) that relationships between self-reported variables are necessarily and routinely upwardly biased, (b) other-reports (or other methods) are superior to self-reports, and (c) rating sources (e.g., self, other) constitute measurement methods. We argue against these misconceptions and make recommendations for what reviewers (and others) should reasonably expect from authors regarding common method bias. We believe it is reasonable to expect (a) an argument for why self-reports are appropriate, (b) construct validity evidence, (c) lack of overlap in items for different constructs, and (d) evidence that authors took proactive design steps to mitigate threats of method effects. We specifically do not recommend post hoc statistical control strategies; while some statistical strategies are promising, all have significant drawbacks and some have shown poor empirical results.

Understanding Self-Report Bias in Organizational Behavior Research

Abstract: Self-report and mono-method bias often threaten the validity of research conducted in business settings and thus hinder the development of theories of organizational behavior. This paper outlines a conceptual framework for understanding factors that influence the motivation of an employee to bias his or her responses to questions posed by organizational researchers. Using a longitudinal, multitrait-multimethod dataset, we illustrate various aspects of the problem and argue that traditional approaches for controlling self-report bias do not adequately prevent the problem. The results suggest the need for developing a theory of method effects and companion analytic techniques to improve the accuracy of psychological research in business settings.

New Generation, Great Expectations: A Field Study of the Millennial Generation

Abstract: This study investigated the career expectations and priorities of members of the “millennial” generation (born in or after 1980) and explored differences among this cohort related to demographic factors (i.e., gender, race, and year of study) and academic performance. Data were obtained from a national survey of millennial undergraduate university students from across Canada (N = 23,413). Data were analyzed using various multivariate techniques to assess the impacts of demographic variables and academic achievement on career expectations and priorities. Millennials placed the greatest importance on individualistic aspects of a job. They had realistic expectations of their first job and salary but were seeking rapid advancement and the development of new skills, while also ensuring a meaningful and satisfying life outside of work. Our results suggest that Millennials’ expectations and values vary by gender, visible minority status, GPA, and year of study, but these variables explain only a small proportion of variance. Changing North American demographics have created a crisis in organizations as they strive to recruit and retain the millennial generation, who purportedly hold values, attitudes, and expectations that are significantly different from those of the generations of workers that preceded them. A better understanding of the Millennials’ career expectations and priorities helps employers to create job offerings and work environments that are more likely to engage and retain millennial workers. This is a large-sample study that provides benchmark results for the millennial generation, which can be compared to results from other generational cohorts, and to millennial cohorts in the future as they progress through their life-cycle. This is one of the few studies that examines demographic heterogeneity within the millennial cohort.

A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational Differences in Work Attitudes

Abstract: Purpose This article reviews the evidence for generational differences in work values from time-lag studies (which can separate generation from age/career stage) and cross-sectional studies (which cannot). Understanding generational shifts is especially important given the coming retirement of Baby Boomer workers and their replacement by those born after 1982 (GenMe/GenY/Millennials).