Social comparison processes in the experience of personal relative deprivation

Drawing on social comparison and equity theories, we investigated the role that perceived similarity of a comparison target plays in how resentful people feel about their relative financial status. In Study 1, participants tended to choose a comparison target who was better off, and they selected a target they perceived to be more similar than dissimilar along dimensions that surrounded their financial outcomes. In Study 1, perceived relative disadvantage was positively associated with resentment regardless of the perceived similarity of the comparison target. The results of Studies 2 to 5b clarified these findings by showing that being both similar and dissimilar to a target can cause resentment depending on the context. Using hypothetical and real social comparisons, we found that people are more dissatisfied with their financial outcomes when their comparative targets have the same background qualifications (i.e., are similar) but are financially better off (Studies 2, 3b, 4, and 5b). However, we also found that when the comparative financial contexts were similar (i.e., equal affluence), participants were more dissatisfied when their target for comparison had lower qualifications (i.e., was dissimilar; Studies 2, 3a, 4, and 5a). In all cases, perceptions of unfairness mediated the effects of social comparison on financial dissatisfaction. Taken together, these studies address some of the ambiguities around what it means to be similar to a target in the context of social comparisons of affluence, and they underscore the importance of perceived unfairness in the link between social comparison and resentment with one's financial status.     

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS TO HIGH WORKLOADS: IMPLICATIONS FOR WELL-BEING

We report a field study examining within-individual effects of workload on distress at work and daily well-being. The study was conducted using experience-sampling methodology to measure daily workload, affective distress, and blood pressure throughout and at the end of each of 10 workdays, and emotional burnout and daily strain (two indicators of low well-being) during the evening in a sample of 64 full-time employees who provided a total of 354 person-day data points. We also measured employees’ job control and perceived organizational support with a separate survey. Results showed that workload was positively associated with affective distress and blood pressure, and with the indicators of low daily well-being. Furthermore, affective distress mediated the relationship between workload and daily well-being. More importantly, job control and organizational support had cross-level moderating influences on the relationships of workload with affective distress and blood pressure such that these relationships were weaker for participants who reported having more control on their job, as well as for participants who reported receiving more organizational support.     

The role of psychological climate in facilitating employee adjustment during organizational change

The current research tested a theoretical model of employee adjustment during organizational change based on Lazarus and Folkman's () cognitive-phenomenological framework. The model hypothesized that psychological climate variables would act as coping resources and predict improved adjustment during change. Two variations of this model were tested using survey data from two different organizational samples: 779 public hospital employees and 877 public sector employees. Confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation analyses were conducted in order to evaluate the models. Results showed that employees whose perceptions of the organization and environment in which they were working (that is, psychological climate) were more positive, were more likely to appraise change favourably and report better adjustment in terms of higher job satisfaction, psychological well-being, and organizational commitment, and lower absenteeism and turnover intentions.     

Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories

We hypothesised that belief in conspiracy theories would be predicted by the general tendency to attribute agency and intentionality where it is unlikely to exist. We further hypothesised that this tendency would explain the relationship between education level and belief in conspiracy theories, where lower levels of education have been found to be associated with higher conspiracy belief. In Study 1 (N = 202) participants were more likely to agree with a range of conspiracy theories if they also tended to attribute intentionality and agency to inanimate objects. As predicted, this relationship accounted for the link between education level and belief in conspiracy theories. We replicated this finding in Study 2 (N = 330), whilst taking into account beliefs in paranormal phenomena. These results suggest that education may undermine the reasoning processes and assumptions that are reflected in conspiracy belief.     

PROGRESS IN PSYCHOMETRICS: CAN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CATCH UP?

Murphy and DeShon (2000) show that interrater correlations do not provide reasonable estimates of the reliability of job performance ratings, and suggest that better estimates can be obtained by applying the methods of generalizability theory. Schmidt, Viswesvaran, and Ones (2000) criticize our suggestions as radical, and argue that: (a) the reliability of ratings should be evaluated using the parallel test model rather than the more general and more realistic generalizability model, (b) reliability and validity are distinct concepts that should not be confused, and (c) measurement models have little to do with substantive models of the processes that generate scores on a test or measure. All three of these ideas were once part of the psychometric mainstream, but progress in psychometrics over the last 3 decades has moved the field well beyond these assumptions and approaches. Modern psychometric theory calls for close linkages between measurement models and substantive models of the phenomena being measured.