EXPERT AND NAIVE RATERS USING THE PAQ: DOES IT MATTER?

A finding by Smith and Hakel (1979) is that job expert ratings on the PAQ correlate highly with ratings obtained from college students who are given no information about jobs other than their titles. One possible explanation for this finding is that the PAQ measures only trivial or common knowledge about work that both experts and naive observers possess. This particular view, of course, has serious implications for the use of the PAQ. In this paper we point out a problem in the way Smith and Hakel calculated the convergent validity between expert raters and naive raters. We also present the results from a replication study that indicate convergent validities are much lower than those reported by Smith and Hakel. Additional points are presented in order to caution against the interpretation that the PAQ measures only common knowledge about jobs.     

SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

A current controversy in the self-other rating and 360-degree feedback literature is the extent to which self-other agreement (and lack of agreement) has an impact on individual and organizational outcomes. Using a large sample and a multi-source data set, the current study addressed some methodological limitations of prior research. Results from polynomial regression analyses demonstrated that both self- and other ratings are related to performance outcomes. This procedure revealed the underlying three-dimensional relationship between self-ratings, other ratings, and effectiveness. Findings indicate that the relationship between self-ratings, other ratings and outcomes are somewhat more complex than previous conceptualizations in this area. Simultaneous consideration of both self- and other ratings in terms of the direction and magnitude of self- and other ratings is important for explaining effectiveness outcomes.     

MEASUREMENT ERROR IN RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES and FIRM PERFORMANCE: HOW MUCH ERROR IS THERE AND HOW DOES IT INFLUENCE EFFECT SIZE ESTIMATES?

Studies of the relationship between human resource (HR) practices and firm performance typically use a single respondent to assess firm level HR practices or HR effectiveness. However, previous research in other substantive areas suggests that rater differences are a potentially important source of measurement error. We demonstrate analytically the potential consequences of both random and systematic measurement error in research on HR and firm performance. However, our main focus is on random error and we show how generalizability theory can be applied to obtain better estimates of reliability by simultaneously recognizing multiple sources (e.g., items, raters) of random measurement error. These more inclusive reliability estimates, in turn, offer the possibility of more precisely quantifying substantive relationships in the HR and firm performance literature. In our sample, reliabilities (as estimated by generalizability coefficients) for single-rater assessments of HR variables were generally below .50. This degree of measurement error, if present in substantive studies on HR and firm performance, could lead to considerable bias, given that an unstandardized regression coefficient is corrected for measurement error in the independent variable by dividing by its reliability coefficient (not its square root). We also found only limited convergent validity between HR and line managers ratings of a second type of HR measure, HR effectiveness. In general, our findings suggest that future researchers need to devote greater attention to measurement error and construct validity issues. Our study provides an example of how generalizability theory can be useful in this pursuit.     

WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW,AND HOW DOES IT BEAR ON THE INTERPLAY OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION?

Abstract. What is a scientific worldview, and why should we care? One worldview can knit together various notions, and therefore understanding a worldview requires analysis of its component parts. Stripped to its minimum, a scientific worldview consists strictly of falsifiable components. Such a worldview, based solely on ideas that can be tested with empirical observation, conforms to the highest levels of objectivity but is severely limited in utility. The limits arise for two reasons: first, many falsifiable ideas cannot be tested adequately until their repercussions already have been felt; second, the reach of science is limited, and ethics, which compose an inevitable part of any useful worldview, are largely unfalsifiable. Thus, a worldview that acts only on scientific components is crippled by a lack of moral relevance. Organized religion traditionally has played a central role in defining moral values, but it lost much of its influence after the discovery that key principles (such as the personal Creator of Genesis) contradict empirical reality. The apparent conundrum is that strictly scientific worldviews are amoral, while many long‐held religious worldviews have proven unscientific. The way out of this conundrum is to recognize that nonscientific ideas, as distinct from unscientific ideas, are acceptable components of a scientific worldview, because they do not contradict science. Nonscientific components of a worldview should draw upon scientific findings to explore traditional religious themes, such as faith and taboo. In contrast, unscientific ideas have been falsified and survive only via ignorance, denial, wishful thinking, blind faith, and institutional inertia. A worldview composed of both scientific components and scientifically informed nonscientific components can be both objective and ethically persuasive.     

HOW FAR SHOULD WE GENERALIZE?

Abstract— A conceptual model based on staffing theory was applied to previously collected survey data from a representative sample of American workers The model links organizational size, workload, work experience variables (felt responsibility and involvement, assessments of work associates), and work outcomes (job satisfaction, work self-esteem, stress symptoms) Path analyses indicated that the model fit data from all waged and salaried workers relatively well When the model was applied to subsamples of new and established employees and of employees from two contrasting occupational groups (professional-technical workers and operative workers), somewhat different patterns emerged The study illustrates the benefits of applying psychological theories across subdisciplines, as well as the limitations of generalizing research findings across different categories of workers We suggest that localized theories and fine-grained analyses of workplace events could help to make research more applicable to work settings     

GUILT AND THE SCIENCE OF EMOTION: HOW DOES PRAYER FIT?

This article engages sources regarding evolutionary development of guilt (Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality, Jesse Prinz's Gut Reactions, and others) and how they can be used to dialogue with material on the alleviation of guilt in the Christian tradition using examples in the work of Anselm of Canterbury and John Chrysostom. This raises a few key questions. If guilt is an evolutionary trait created to build reputation and relationship, how does this mesh with some theological approaches to solutions for guilt? To be more precise, guilt possibly evolved to create a motivation for beneficial communal actions, and necessitates belief in the authority of the rules that one breaks to induce it. That said, does religion play a role in awareness of one's guilt, while also providing a solution to that guilt? The possibilities are explored in this article as they relate to issues of repentance, atonement, and prayer.     

HOW SHOULD WE BEHAVE? A REVIEW OF REASONS AND PERSONS BY DEREK PARFIT

In this book Parfit attempts to develop a rational, non-religious ethics. Instead of asking, “What does God tell us to do?” he asks, “What does reason tell us to do?” Given a set of simple assumptions, he considers whether it is possible to be consistently selfish or consistently good. Analyses of personal dilemmas (problems of self-control) and moral dilemmas (problems of social cooperation) show that neither consistent selfishness nor consistent goodness is logically possible. Instead, a fine balance must be maintained between, on the one hand, our immediate versus long-term good and, on the other, our own good versus that of other people. Ultimately Parfit fails to develop a formula by which such a balance may be struck. Parfit''s analysis is consistent with behavioral analysis in its reductionistic view of the self and the parallel it draws between relations with other people and relations with oneself at other times. Parfit''s analysis is inconsistent with behaviorism in its view of the mind as internal, available to introspection, and able to cause behavior. His nonfunctional mentalism leads Parfit to inconsistencies and blocks the path to a consistent ethics. Teleological behaviorism''s view of the mind in terms of patterns of overt behavior is not hampered by these inconsistencies and may lead to a functional rather than purely rational ethics.     

WHAT'S GOD GOT TO DO WITH IT? ATHEISM AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

It is commonly thought that theism entails full religious observance and that atheism entails either the abandonment of religious practice or, at least, its reform. Focusing on Judaism, I argue against both of these entailment claims. Both theistic departure from religious observance and atheistic adherence to religious practice are coherent. I outline the features of those religions that make them more conducive to atheistic observance. Finally, I consider various objections to full observance by atheists.     

HOW SHALL WE EXPLAIN THE DELAYED-JUDGMENT-OFLEARNING EFFECT?

Abstract —Spellman and Bjork (this issue) have proposed an explanation of our earlier findings in which people's accuracy at predicting their subsequent recall proved greater when their judgments of learning (JOLs) were delayed until shortly after study than when made immediately after study (the delayed-JOL effect) The empirically testable portion of Spellman and Bjork's explanation does not account for three relevant kinds of data (some already published and some newly presented here), including one replicated finding that disconfirms their core assumption Nevertheless, Spellman and Bjork s commentary has helped us sharpen our ideas both about what wilt have to be explained and about what form of explanation wilt be needed At present, there is not yet an adequate scientific explanation for the delayed-JOL effect     

NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR, STATUS, AND GENDER: HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THEIR RELATIONS?

The causes of gender differences in nonverbal behavior are not well understood. The present article discusses status as a possible explanation and analyzes some of the methodological and conceptual challenges associated with testing that hypothesis. The study by Helweg-Larsen, Cunningham, Carrico, and Pergram (2004) , which investigated gender in relation to nodding toward peers versus professors in college classes, is highlighted to demonstrate some of the difficulties facing researchers when testing the status explanation.     

HOW BROADLY DOES EDUCATION CONTRIBUTE TO JOB PERFORMANCE?

This study looks at the effects of education level on job performance in 2 ways. First, it provides a meta-analysis on the relationships between education level and 9 dimensions of job behaviors representing task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance. Results here show that, in addition to positively influencing core task performance, education level is also positively related to creativity and citizenship behaviors and negatively related to on-the-job substance use and absenteeism. Second, we investigate the moderating effects of sample and research design characteristics on the relationships between education and job performance. Significant results were found for gender, race, job level, and job complexity. The article concludes with implications for future research and the management of an increasingly educated workforce.     

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? THE NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THEISTIC BELIEF

Theism is often supposed to be distinguished from atheism by the heavy weight of metaphysical belief that it carries. This paper argues that this is not as illuminating a way of distinguishing the theist's from the atheist's outlook as is often supposed. The key divergence consists not so much in matters of theoretical belief or philosophical argument as in practical differences in affective response and in the adoption of certain models for living. Two characteristically religious virtues, humility and hope, and two distinctively religious responses, awe and thanksgiving, are discussed in order to illustrate this. The paper's conclusion, while not denying a cognitive core to theism, argues that warranted assent to the metaphysical truth of God's existence cannot be a precondition for theistic hermeneusis and praxis. 1     

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE REINFORCEMENT: DOES THE SOURCE MATTER?1

In a chamber with a single response key, pigeon's key pecks were reinforced with food according to a variable-interval schedule. In addition, extra reinforcements occurred concurrently according to an independent schedule. In one condition, availability of the extra reinforcements was signalled by a change in key color from white to red. The extra reinforcements occurred after a peck on the red key. In a second condition, the extra reinforcements were unsignalled and occurred only after a 2-sec pause in pecking for one group of subjects and were unsignalled and occurred freely as scheduled for another group of subjects. In the first two conditions, duration of reinforcement was varied. A third condition duplicated the second but varied rate rather than duration of reinforcement. The rate of pecking varied inversely with the amount of extra reinforcement per unit time according to the same function, regardless of the condition regulating occurrence of the extra reinforcements, and regardless of whether or not a 2-sec pause was required for their occurrence. The shape of this function was predicted by Herrnstein's (1970) matching law.     

THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: WHERE ARE WE?

Abstract. Revolutionary developments in both science and theology are moving the relation between the two far beyond the nineteenth-century “warfare” model. Both scientists and theologians are engaged in a common search for shared understanding. Eight models of interaction are outlined: scientism, scientific imperialism, ecclesiastical authoritarianism, scientific creationism, the two-language theory, hypothetical consonance, ethical overlap, and New Age spirituality. Developments in hypothetical consonance are explored in the work of various scholars, including Ian Barbour, Philip Clayton, Paul Davies, Willem Drees, Langdon Gilkey, Philip Hefner, Nancey Murphy, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, Robert John Russell, Thomas Torrence and Wenzel van Huyssteen.     

HOW DOES THE TEILHARDIAN VISION OF EVOLUTION COMPARE WITH CONTEMPORARY THEORIES?

Abstract. Teilhard de Chardin's ideas about the mechanisms of biological evolution are revised and their connections with contemporary theories are reported. Teilhard de Chardin's main contribution is the proposal of a new scientific discipline, geobiology—the science of the biosphere evolving as a whole. The main fields of interest of geobiology are reported, and its relationships with contemporary hypotheses, such as Lovelock's Gaia, are discussed. The consequences of this kind of approach are the parallel evolution described as orthogenesis and the presence of canalization phenomena. These Teilhardian hypotheses are discussed in relation to those of the process structuralists and to the novelties of the molecular evolution of the genome. Conclusions are that the mechanisms discussed by Teilhard are presently taken into consideration by contemporary evolutionists in order to construct a new theory of biological evolution.     

“‘WE' AND ‘THEY'”: WHY MUST WE ENGAGE IN CROSS-CULTURAL CONVERSATION?

This article contains the principal ideas that I presented in four different sessions at the IRAS 2022 conference, on the theme “‘We' and ‘They’: Cross-Cultural Conversation on Identity.” Focusing on the central topic, the article begins with (i) the contents of my opening lecture; followed by (ii) a broad outline of the concerns discussed in my book, Cross-Cultural Conversation: A New Way of Learning, intertwined with glimpses of the intellectual journey that led me to CCC, delivered in the Book-discussion session; (iii) a summary of the main ideas about the importance of meeting of religions today, which formed the background for the CCC Panel discussion on religion, where I was in conversation with spokespersons of five world religions; and (iv) my comments on how science–religion dialogue can help promote a sense for human solidarity by combining knowledge with wisdom, in the concluding session.