IMAGINATION'S GRIP ON SCIENCE

Abstract: In part because “imagination” is a slippery notion, its exact role in the production of scientific knowledge remains unclear. There is, however, one often explicit and deliberate use of imagination by scientists that can be (and has been) studied intensively by epistemologists and historians of science: thought experiments. The main goal of this article is to document the varieties of thought experimentation, not so much in terms of the different sciences in which they occur but rather in terms of the different functions they fulfil. I argue that thought experimentation (and hence imagination) plays a role not only in theory choice but in singular causal analysis and scientific discovery as well. I pinpoint, moreover, some of the rules governing the use of thought experiments in theory choice and in singular causal analysis, that is, some of the criteria they should meet in order to fulfil those functions successfully.     

REVISITING INTERVIEW–COGNITIVE ABILITY RELATIONSHIPS: ATTENDING TO SPECIFIC RANGE RESTRICTION MECHANISMS IN META-ANALYSIS

This study revisits the relationship between interviews and cognitive ability tests, finding lower magnitudes of correlation than have previous meta-analyses; a finding that has implications for both the construct and incremental validity of the interview. Our lower estimates of this relationship than previous meta-analyses were mainly due to (a) an updated set of studies, (b) exclusion of samples in which interviewers potentially had access to applicants' cognitive test scores, and (c) attention to specific range restriction mechanisms that allowed us to identify a sizable subset of studies for which range restriction could be accurately accounted. Moderator analysis results were similar to previous meta-analyses, but magnitudes of correlation were generally lower than in previous meta-analyses. Findings have implications for the construct and incremental validity of interviews, and meta-analytic methodology in general.     

EMPLOYEES' CHALLENGING JOB EXPERIENCES AND SUPERVISORS' EVALUATIONS OF PROMOTABILITY

Promotability evaluations are important for individuals' career development and organizations' human resource management practices. Nevertheless, little empirical research has addressed predictors of promotability evaluations, and the studies that have, have often focused on current job performance and fixed, nonbehavioral predictors. This study takes a more behavioral approach, and investigates whether besides how one performs (i.e., job performance) what one performs also serves as an indicator of promotability. Specifically, we examine the relationship between employees' challenging job experiences and supervisors' evaluations of employees' promotability over and above employees' current job performance. Results from 3 field studies, sampling different types of employees via different measures, consistently showed that challenging job experiences explained incremental variance in supervisory and organizational evaluations of promotability over and above current job performance and job tenure.