Search

The relationship between intelligence and personality has been of scientific interest for over 100 years. However, most contemporary estimates of these relationships are limited because they do not separate the variance due to general and narrow cognitive abilities. This study demonstrates that this methodological oversight can distort estimates of intelligence-personality associations by masking true effects and falsely showing others. To test this proposition, we examine correlations between several personality and ability scales, and then repeat the analyses using latent modeling techniques where variance due to general intelligence (g) and narrow mental abilities is appropriately separated. Our results show that estimates of specific intelligence-personality associations based on observed test scores can be both erroneously inflated or deflated.

Twenty years ago, conditional reasoning (CR) was presented as a technology for assessing the implicit aspects of personality. Although this assessment method has been lauded as an advance for organizational scholarship, relatively few CR tests have been developed and validated. We argue that a major impediment to the broader implementation of this technique has been the disproportional emphasis by researchers on measurement-related issues at the expense of better describing the core theoretical processes that underlie CR—namely, justification mechanisms (JMs). In an effort to rectify this problem we (a) explain the differences between implicit and explicit individual differences, (b) introduce the key psychological mechanism associated with these implicit individual differences as conceptualized through CR (JMs), (c) describe how researchers can identify JMs, and (d) discuss how JMs may be measured with CR items. Our work is intended to serve as a catalyst for future CR initiatives by refocusing the attention of researchers on the theoretical underpinnings of CR, thus enabling researchers to build more theoretically sound tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substantial research has been dedicated to examining and combating respondent misrepresentation (i.e., "faking") on personality assessments. Two approaches to combat faking that have garnered particular attention include: (a) designing systems to identify likely fakers and (b) developing difficult-to-fake measures. Consistent with suggestions to combine these strategies, the present article examines a new faking detection system specifically designed for a difficult-to-fake measure (i.e., the Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression; CRT-A). Four studies (a) help elucidate the conditions under which the CRT-A is fakeable, (b) provide initial construct validity evidence for the faking detection system developed here, (c) examine the effects of faking and faking detection on the CRT-A's criterion-oriented validity, and (d) show that participants identify CRT-based faking detection items at worse-than-chance levels even when they are fully informed about how these items work. Taken together, these studies reinforce the importance of maintaining the indirect nature of CRTs but also show that the faking detection system developed here represents a promising method of identifying those who may have used inside information to manipulate their scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding a recent flurry of organizational research on the construct of “situational strength,” research on the other side of the coin—“personality strength”—has rarely been conducted in organizational settings, has been scattered across multiple disciplines, has been called different things by different researchers, and has not yet been used to test theoretical propositions paralleling those in recent organizational research on situational strength. In the present review, drawing from several disparate research literatures (e.g., situational strength, personality states, traitedness, cross-situational consistency, scalability, appropriateness, self-monitoring, interpersonal dependency, hardiness, attitude strength, and self-concept clarity), we (a) define personality strength and contrast it with personality trait, personality strengths (plural), and layperson conceptualizations of the terms “strong personality” and “weak personality,” (b) briefly discuss the history of research related to personality strength, (c) identify a common prediction, emanating largely independently from several literatures, regarding the interactive effect of personality traits and personality strength on behavior, (d) articulate three novel predictions regarding the impact of personality strength on within-person situational and behavioral variability, (e) develop three broad categories of personality strength operationalizations (i.e., statistical, content-general, and content-independent) and discuss potential interrelationships among them, (f) suggest “best practices” for operationalization, thereby providing an agenda for future research, and, finally, (g) discuss the practical implications of this work for human resource management. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

rwg is a common metric used to quantify interrater agreement in the organizational sciences. Finn developed rwg but based it on the assumption that raters’ deviations from their true perceptions are influenced by random chance only. James, Demaree, and Wolf extended Finn’s work by describing procedures to account for the additional influence of response biases. We demonstrate that organizational scientists have relied largely on Finn’s procedures, at least in part because of a lack of specific guidance regarding the conditions under which various response biases might be present. In an effort to address this gap in the literature, we introduce the concept of target-irrelevant, nonrandom forces (those aspects of the research context that are likely to lead to response biases), then describe how the familiar ‘‘5Ws and an H’’ framework (i.e., who, what, when, where, why, and how) can be used to identify these biases a priori. It is our hope that this system will permit those who calculate rwg to account for the effects of response biases in a manner that is simultaneously rigorous, consistent, and transparent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Situational strength has long been viewed as a useful way of conceptualizing and predicting person–situation interactions. Some have recently argued, however, that more rigorous empirical tests of its behavioral influence are sorely needed. The current article begins addressing this literature gap by (a) developing the Situational Strength at Work (SSW) scale, (b) examining the ways in which individual differences influence perceptions of situational strength, and (c) testing situational strength’s moderating effects on two types of voluntary work behavior (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior). Results indicate strong psychometric properties for the SSW (thereby facilitating future organizational research on situational strength), support for theoretically based predictions regarding the role of individual differences in perceptions of situational strength, support for theoretically based moderator effects on organizational citizenship behavior, and the presence of countertheoretical (yet strong and consistent) moderator effects on counterproductive work behavior. Thus, this study makes several contributions to the situational strength literature but also reveals important areas for future theoretical development and empirical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]