Transparency of Assessment Centers: Lower Criterion‐related Validity but Greater Opportunity to Perform?

Assessment centers (ACs) are popular selection devices in which assessees are assessed on several dimensions during different exercises. Surveys indicate that ACs vary with regard to the transparency of the targeted dimensions and that the number of transparent ACs has increased during recent years. Furthermore, research on this design feature has put conceptual arguments forward regarding the effects of transparency on criterion‐related validity, impression management, and fairness perceptions. This study is the first to examine these effects using supervisor‐rated job performance data as the criterion. We conducted simulated ACs with transparency as a between‐subjects factor. The sample consisted of part‐time employed participants who would soon be applying for a new job. In line with our hypothesis, results showed that ratings from an AC with nontransparent dimensions were more criterion valid than ratings from an AC with transparent dimensions. Concerning impression management, our results supported the hypothesis that transparency moderates the relationship between self‐promotion and job performance, such that self‐promotion in the nontransparent AC was more positively related to job performance than self‐promotion in the transparent AC. The data lent no support for the hypothesis that participants’ perceptions of their opportunity to perform are higher in the transparent AC.     

The Moderating Effect of Raters’ Opportunities to Observe Ratees' Job Performance on the Validity of an Assessment Centre

Previous research has suggested that the quality of judgmental validation criteria may improve depending on the increase of opportunity for the rater to observe ratees’ job performances. This study investigated whether the validity of an assessment centre increases with opportunity to observe. Subjects were engineers and applied scientists from the Research and Development (R&D) units of seven German high-technology companies. A total of 6 personality scales, 10 cognitive ability tests and 9 work samples was administered to 155 subjects. Performance appraisals were collected from their supervisors. Assessors were trained organizational psychologists who were not members of the participating organizations. A total score (‘assessment centre score’) was computed by averaging the 25 predictors after standardization of each predictor. The (uncorrected) validity of this assessment centre was r = 0.37. In addition, opportunity to observe (i.e. amount of time the performance rater was the ratee’s supervisor) emerged as a moderator: for example validities were r = 0.09 (opportunity to observe ≤ 2 years) and r = 0.50 (opportunity to observe> 2 years).     

Cue utilization in emotion attribution from auditory stimuli

Electronically synthesized tone sequences with systematic manipulation of amplitude and pitch variation, pitch level and contour, tempo, envelope, and filtration were rated on emotional expressiveness. The results show that two-thirds to three-quarters of the variance in the emotion attributions can be explained by the manipulation of the acoustic cues, and that a linear model of the judges' cue utilization seems to be a good approximation to their response system. Implications for phylogenetic and ontogenetic aspects of the vocal expression of emotion and for the psychology of music are discussed.This paper is based on research supported by NIMH grant MH 19-569-01 to the first author while at the University of Pennsylvania. The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions by Paul Ekman, Ursula Scherer, and two anonymous reviewers.     

Monocularity of color-contingent tilt aftereffects

The interaction between monocular channels involved in the color-contingent tilt aftereffect (AE) was investigated by inducing opposite AEs in subjects’ eyes and comparing their magnitudes with those recorded after inducing identical AEs in the two eyes. Measurements obtained under the above two conditions did not differ significantly. No evidence was found for interaction between monocular channels.     

Statements

The churches today are called to confess anew their faith, and to repent for the times when Christians have remained silent in the face of injustice or threats to peace. The biblical vision of peace with justice for all, of wholeness, of unity for all God's people is not one of several options for the followers of Christ. It is an imperative in our time. (Peace and Justice Statement, WCC Sixth Assembly, Vancouver 1983)     

The confusion about epistemology and "epistemology"--and what to do about it

The epistemology debates within the field of family therapy have become relatively infrequent in the last year or so, perhaps as a consequence of the confusion they have generated for many family therapists. This article maintains that the primary reason for the confusion is a failure to distinguish clearly between the conventional meaning of the term epistemology, which concerns the nature of knowledge, and the unconventional meaning given the term in family therapy, which concerns the nature of what we know. It is proposed that the confusion can be diminished by understanding the relationship between the two meanings, which are here distinguished as epistemology (meaning 1) and epistemology (meaning 2) respectively. Particular attention is given to the logical consequences of adopting a position on epistemology (meaning 1)—e.g, is the knower capable of knowing an independent reality, or does the act of knowing make its own reality?—or on epistemology (meaning 2)—e.g., is causality linear or nonlinear?. The relevance and implications of these problems for the theory and practice of family therapy are discussed.     

What people think about an unjust event: Toward a better understanding of the phenomenology of experiences of injustice

This article reports on an initial attempt to improve our knowledge of the cognitive processes which are elicited by the perception of an unjust event. High school students were given a story describing an unfair treatment of a student by his teacher and were asked to place themselves either in the role of the unfairly treated student or in that of a non-affected fellow-student. They were then asked to write down all questions and thoughts coming to their minds in the described situation. The reported questions and thoughts were classified into three categories: attributions, action-oriented thoughts, and assessments and evaluations. Statistical analyses of the frequencies and the temporal sequence of occurrence of these categories of responses revealed that victims of an unjust event reported attributions and action-related thoughts more frequently and in an earlier position than non-affected observers. Assessments and evaluations, on the other hand, were more frequently reported by observers than by victims.