A WITHIN SETTING EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION

The situational specificity hypothesis of selection procedure validity makes two predictions. The first is that variation in observed validities across settings is caused by real differences in what constitutes job performance. Validity generalization studies to date have provided disconfirming evidence for this prediction by showing that the observed variation is due to statistical and measurement artifacts. The second prediction is that if the situation (i.e., the organization, the setting, the job, the test and the criterion) is held constant, then validity findings will not vary from study to study. This article tests this prediction empirically using data from a unique series of studies reported by Bender and Loveless (1958). The results are contrary to the situational specificity hypothesis and consistent with the hypothesis that variation in observed validities is due to statistical and measurement artifacts that are unrelated to situations and settings. It is concluded that both major predictions of the situational specificity hypothesis have now been empirically disconfirmed.     

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY1

As a result of rejection by personnel psychologists of the erroneous law of small numbers and of the adoption of correct inferential procedures, the future of criterion-related validity promises to be bright. Probable future developments include: (a) widespread appreciation of the low statistical power characteristic of small samples; (b) rejection of the traditional belief that validities are situationally specific; (c) widespread validity generalization based on new methods; (d) research demonstrations that rational estimates of validity are often superior in accuracy to empirical estimates; (e) widespread acceptance of research findings showing that single-group and differential validity by race are artifactual rather than substantive in origin and that test unfairness by race is a nonproblem; (f) increased application of decision-theoretic dollar utility analyses to selection programs; and (g) progress in the establishment of general principles and theories about trait-performance relations in the world of work.     

Withdrawal From Coparenting Interactions During Early Infancy

This study examines early withdrawal in the coparenting system, and the utility of a brief problem‐solving discussion about coparenting responsibilities as a means for evaluating such withdrawal. One hundred and fifteen couples were evaluated both prenatally and at 3 months postpartum. During prenatal assessments, parents rated their personalities and completed marital assessments. After the baby arrived, they completed a negotiation task in which they discussed disputes about parenting roles and responsibilities, and interacted together with the baby in a triadic play assessment. Fathers' but not mothers' withdrawal during coparenting negotiations was associated with greater disengagement and less warmth during triadic play and with fathers' feelings that mothers did not respect their parenting. Fathers' but not mothers' withdrawal during coparenting negotiations was also forecast by low ego resilience and by an increase in depressive symptomatology during the postpartum. As the negotiation task appeared to be an effective provocateur of withdrawal when confronting coparenting disagreement, it may prove useful for eliciting this aspect of coparental process in work with couples.     

TOWARD A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF SELF-DISCLOSURE

In an effort to develop a multidimensional theory of self-disclosure, the present research considered two dimensions of disclosure content—degree of personalness (intimacy) and valence (positiveness or negativeness)—as well as gender of the discloser, timing of disclosure in relationship development, and the recipient of disclosure. In Study I, the variables of personalness and valence were manipulated through the use of prototypical disclosure statements with subjects blocked by sex. Subjects were asked to use a scale indicating phases of relationship development to rate when they would likely disclose statements. The analysis revealed significant main effects for all three factors: personal-ness, valence, and gender, as well as a significant interaction between personalness and valence. In Study II, personalness and valence were again manipulated, along with blocking for sex. The variable of disclosure recipient (target) was manipulated by asking subjects to separately indicate whether or not they would disclose each statement to five targets: stranger, acquaintance, parent, friend, and spouse. The analysis revealed significant main effects for three factors: personalness, valence, and target. All possible interactions of these variables were also significant. Due to the many consistencies between the findings of these two studies and the many highly significant interactions, it was concluded that a multidimensional approach to the study of self-disclosure is both justified and required.