Cumulative Advantage: Conductors and Insulators of Heavy‐Tailed Productivity Distributions and Productivity Stars

We use the metatheoretical principle of cumulative advantage as a framework to understand the presence of heavy‐tailed productivity distributions and productivity stars. We relied on 229 datasets including 633,876 productivity observations collected from approximately 625,000 individuals in occupations including research, entertainment, politics, sports, sales, and manufacturing, among others. We implemented a novel methodological approach developed in the field of physics to assess the precise shape of the productivity distribution rather than relying on a normal versus nonnormal artificial dichotomy. Results indicate that higher levels of multiplicity of productivity, monopolistic productivity, job autonomy, and job complexity (i.e., conductors of cumulative advantage) are associated with a higher probability of an underlying power law distribution, whereas lower productivity ceilings (i.e., insulator of cumulative advantage) are associated with a lower probability. In addition, higher levels of multiplicity of productivity, monopolistic productivity, and job autonomy were associated with a greater proportion of productivity stars (i.e., productivity distributions with heavier tails), whereas lower productivity ceilings were associated with a smaller proportion of productivity stars (i.e., productivity distributions with lighter tails). Results serve as a building block for future theory development and testing efforts aimed at understanding why, when, and how the distribution of individual productivity may follow a nonnormal curve—and to what extent. We also discuss implications for organizations and management in terms of the design and implementation of human resource systems (e.g., selection, training, compensation), as well as for individuals interested in becoming productivity stars themselves.     

Comparison of the Effects of Telephone Suicide Prevention Help by Volunteers and Professional Paid Staff: Results from Studies in the USA and Quebec,Canada

Research since the 1960s has consistently found that lay volunteers are better at helping suicidal callers than professionals. Yet, professional degrees are increasingly becoming requirements for helpline workers. In our first study, we conducted post hoc comparisons of U.S. helplines with all professional paid staff, all lay volunteers, and a mix of both, using silent monitoring and standardized assessments of 1,431 calls. The volunteer centers more often conducted risk assessments, had more empathy, were more respectful of callers, and had significantly better call outcome ratings. A second study of five Quebec suicide prevention centers used silent monitoring to compare telephone help in 1,206 calls answered by 90 volunteers and 39 paid staff. Results indicate no significant differences between the volunteers and paid employees on outcome variables. However, volunteers and paid staff with over 140 hours of call experience had significantly better outcomes. Unlike the United States, Quebec paid employees were not required to have advanced professional degrees. We conclude from these results and previous research that there is no justification for requiring that suicide prevention helpline workers be mental health professionals. In fact, the evidence to date indicates that professionals may be less effective in providing telephone help to suicidal individuals when compared to trained lay volunteers.     

Development and Validation of the Workplace Age Discrimination Scale

Purpose

Workplace age discrimination research is proliferating, but researchers lack a valid measure with which to capture targets’ discriminatory experiences. We developed a measure of perceived workplace age discrimination that assesses overt and covert forms of discrimination and then compared older, middle-aged, and younger workers’ experiences.

Design/Methodology

In Study 1, we developed the Workplace Age Discrimination Scale (WADS) based on older workers’ experiences using a deductive approach, a qualitative study, and two quantitative surveys. In Study 2, we validated the measure among young employees using a qualitative and two quantitative surveys. In Study 3, we tested the WADS among middle-aged workers and tested models of invariance between age groups.

Findings

Participants frequently endorsed covert discriminatory experiences, which the WADS reflects. The WADS contains convergent and discriminant validity, high reliability, and a unidimensional structure across age groups. It demonstrates criterion-related validity among older and younger workers but not middle-aged workers, given their low experiences of age discrimination. Age discrimination frequency follows a U-shaped pattern across age groups.

Implications

Researchers can use the WADS to identify long-term outcomes of age discrimination and to further compare workers’ discriminatory experiences. Practitioners and policymakers can use the measure to develop interventions to ameliorate workplace age discrimination and inform policymaking.

Originality/Value

The WADS is the first validated measure of targets’ perspectives of workplace age discrimination. Our results challenge assumptions that only older workers experience age discrimination (younger workers’ means were highest) and that age discrimination is usually overt in nature (it is often covert).

     

Safer Sex in Social Context: Individualistic and Relational Determinants of AIDS‐Preventive Behavior Among Gay Men1

This longitudinal study of gay men examined safer sex within steady relationships and assessed whether relationship quality influenced safer sex with casual partners. The theoretical frameworks of Rusbult's (1980) investment model of romantic relationships and of Ajzen's (1988, 1991) model of planned behavior were used. Unprotected intercourse with a steady partner was practiced significantly more often when both partners in a steady relationship were seronegative and had an explicit agreement to keep it safe with casual partners. However, there was no indication that explicit agreements reduced the occurrence of unsafe extrarelational sex. Both the investment model of romantic relationships and the model of planned behavior were successful in accounting for sexual risk behavior outside the relationship.     

Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta-Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge

Research conclusions in the social sciences are increasingly based on meta-analysis, making questions of the accuracy of meta-analysis critical to the integrity of the base of cumulative knowledge. Both fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) meta-analysis models have been used widely in published meta-analyses. This article shows that FE models typically manifest a substantial Type I bias in significance tests for mean effect sizes and for moderator variables (interactions), while RE models do not. Likewise, FE models, but not RE models, yield confidence intervals for mean effect sizes that are narrower than their nominal width, thereby overstating the degree of precision in meta-analysis findings. This article demonstrates analytically that these biases in FE procedures are large enough to create serious distortions in conclusions about cumulative knowledge in the research literature. We therefore recommend that RE methods routinely be employed in meta-analysis in preference to FE methods.