The Journal of Applied Psychology's call for theoretical models and conceptual analyses brought a terrific response. The first set of articles accepted in response to the call appeared in the December 2004 issue. This installment contains the second set of articles.
Hindsight bias for economic developments was studied, with particular focus on the moderating effects of attitudes and causal attributions. Participants (N = 263) rated the likelihood of several economic developments 6 months before and 6 months after the euro introduction in 2002. Hindsight bias occurred selectively for attitude-consistent economic developments: Euro supporters showed stronger hindsight bias for positive developments than for negative ones; euro opponents showed the opposite pattern. Causal attribution further moderated the hindsight bias: participants who perceived a strong connection between the euro introduction and specific economic developments showed higher attitude-consistent hindsight bias than participants who perceived those developments as unrelated to the euro. It is argued that hindsight bias serves to stabilize subjective representations of the economy.
The authors discuss potential confusion in conducting primary studies and meta-analyses on the basis of differences between groups. First, the authors show that a formula for the sampling error of the standardized mean difference (d) that is based on equal group sample sizes can produce substantially biased results if applied with markedly unequal group sizes. Second, the authors show that the same concerns are present when primary analyses or meta-analyses are conducted with point-biserial correlations, as the point-biserial correlation (r) is a transformation of d. Third, the authors examine the practice of correcting a point-biserial r for unequal sample sizes and note that such correction would also increase the sampling error of the corrected r. Correcting rs for unequal sample sizes, but using the standard formula for sampling error in uncorrected r, can result in bias. The authors offer a set of recommendations for conducting meta-analyses of group differences.
In this article, the authors examine the moderating role of negative and positive affectivity on the relationship of bonus size with bonus satisfaction and distributive justice in a company that had installed an unpopular pay-at-risk (PAR) compensation system. Extending the met expectations hypothesis, the authors predict that those low in negative affectivity will show a more pronounced positive relationship between size of PAR bonus and bonus reactions than those high in negative affectivity. Conversely, the authors expect positive affectivity to be unrelated to pay reactions. The results support their hypotheses. Implications are discussed.
The authors developed a source-monitoring procedure to reduce the biasing effects of rater expectations on behavioral measurement. Study participants (N = 224) were given positive or negative information regarding the performance of a group and, after observing the group, were assigned to a source-monitoring or control condition. Raters in the source-monitoring condition were instructed to report only behaviors that evoked detailed memories (remember judgments) and to avoid reporting behaviors based on feelings of familiarity (know judgments). Results revealed that controlling raters' response strategy reduced (and often eliminated) the biasing effects of performance expectations. These findings advance our understanding of the performance-cue bias and offer a potentially useful technique for decreasing rater bias.
Research examining the structure of multisource performance ratings has demonstrated that ratings are a direct function of both who is doing the rating (rating source) as well as what is being rated (performance dimension). A separate line of research has focused on the extent to which performance ratings are equivalent across sources. To date no research has examined the measurement equivalence of multisource ratings within the context of both dimension and rating source direct effects on ratings. We examine the impact of both performance dimension and rating source as well as the degree of measurement equivalence across sources. Results indicate that (a) the impact of the underlying performance dimension is the same across rating sources, (b) the impact of rating source is substantial and only slightly smaller than the impact of the underlying performance dimension, and (c) the impact of rating source differs substantially depending on the source.
The authors modeled sources of error variance in job specification ratings collected from 3 levels of raters across 5 organizations (N=381). Variance components models were used to estimate the variance in ratings attributable to true score (variance between knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics [KSAOs]) and error (KSAO-by-rater and residual variance). Subsequent models partitioned error variance into components related to the organization, position level, and demographic characteristics of the raters. Analyses revealed that the differential ordering of KSAOs by raters was not a function of these characteristics but rather was due to unexplained rating differences among the raters. The implications of these results for job specification and validity transportability are discussed.
Facing a terminal illness is an unimaginably difficult experience, yet many individuals intend to work despite their prognosis. However, research has not systematically examined the potential antecedents underlying such intentions. Using behavioral intention theory as an underlying framework, this study hypothesized that reasons for working (intrinsic and extrinsic), the will to live, disability severity, accessibility of travel, and age would predict intentions to work during terminal illness. A representative sample of medically diagnosed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's disease) patients with a mean life expectancy of approximately 3 years participated (mean age=57.8 years). Controlling for length of diagnosis, employment status, and demographic variables, results indicated that intrinsic reasons were particularly strong predictors of intentions, followed by age, disability severity, and accessibility of travel. Exploratory findings also indicated that behavioral intentions were positively related to future employment status, consistent with past theory. ((c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved).
This article presents the results of 2 studies that examine the effect of presenting a warning of response verification by others on the relationship between measures of personality and cognitive ability. In both a field study and a laboratory study, stronger correlations were generally found between measures of personality and cognitive ability when a warning of verification was present. The results from the studies also showed that the warning of verification was associated with slower item response latencies for certain personality scales, suggesting that exposure to the warning increased the complexity of the response decision. Results are discussed in terms of the effects of altering test instructions on the construct validity of personality measures used in applied settings.
Although the negotiations literature identifies a variety of approaches for improving one's power position, the relative benefits of these approaches remain largely unexplored. The empirical study presented in this article begins to address this issue by examining how the size of the bargaining zone affects the relative benefit of an advantage in one's BATNA (i.e., having a better alternative than one's counterpart) versus contribution (i.e., contributing more to the relationship than one's counterpart) for negotiator performance. Results indicate that whereas BATNAs exerted a stronger effect on resource allocations than contributions when the bargaining zone was small, an advantage in contributions exerted a stronger effect on resource allocations than BATNAs when the bargaining zone was large. These findings provide needed insight and supporting evidence for how to alter one's power relationship in negotiation.