Machiavellian flexibility in negative mate retention

Among the Dark Triad traits (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism), Machiavellianism is uniquely associated with flexibility. This flexibility should result in the use of aggressive short‐term tactics only when they do not interfere with long‐term goals. Study 1 found that individuals high in Machiavellianism differed from those high in psychopathy with respect to retrospective accounts of negative mate retention tactics. Study 2 found an interaction between Machiavellianism and relationship type such that individuals high in Machiavellianism tempered the use of negative tactics for long‐term (but not short‐term) relationships. The findings highlight the flexibility of the Machiavellianism construct and its relevance to mating strategies among the Dark Triad.     

From novice to expert: Issues of concern in the training of psychologists

This article raises a specific concern that is highlighted by the recent decision to raise the minimum standard for registration as a psychologist in Australia to postgraduate masters degree level. It is suggested that such an objective is limited because it does not address other, more important variables required to ensure that minimum standards for registration as a psychologist are achieved. Specifically, it is proposed that unless the existing methodology and content of both undergraduate and fourth year graduate university training for psychologists is improved to incorporate vital areas of practice, standards will continue to remain low regardless of the introduction of compulsory fifth and sixth years of postgraduate education. This article provides an overview of the issue while suggesting an alternative approach for developing professional expertise in those wishing to embark on a career in psychology.     

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.