Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance

Conventional wisdom in the diversity literature holds that job-related dimensions of diversity are the domain of positive performance, whereas demographic dimensions of diversity are the domain of negative performance effects. In a meta-analysis (N = 146 studies, 612 effect sizes), we show that this conclusion may be based on rater biases; it does not apply to studies involving more objective assessments of performance, assessments that cannot be influenced by knowledge of a team’s composition. We also show that the influence of job-related diversity is moderated by task complexity and that job-related diversity is more positively related to innovative performance than to in-role performance. We discuss how these results invite a reconsideration of the role of the job-related/demographic diversity distinction and provide suggestions on how to further advance our understanding of diversity’s effects.     

A calibration explanation of serial position effects in evaluative judgments

Judges often evaluate stimulus series on dimensions for which no physical scale exists; for example, when judging academic ability in oral examinations. We propose that judges deal with this problem by calibrating an internal judgment scale that maps stimulus input onto available judgment categories. This calibration process implies serial position effects: Judges should initially avoid extreme categories, because using extreme categories reduces judgmental degrees of freedom, thereby increasing the possibility of internal consistency violations. In four experiments, we show that judgments become indeed more extreme later in a series of judgments. Judges evaluated the same good (poor) performances more positive (negative) at the end of a sequence compared to the beginning. Judges’ expertise did not prevent the effect, but allowing end-of-sequence judgments reduced serial position effects. We discuss the implications and possible remedies of these calibration effects on judgment extremity.     

Driver performance, rewards and motivation: A simulator study

It has been suggested that effort invested in a task may be moderated by the perception of the nature of reward offered, e.g., whether social or financial in nature. If levels of payment for empirical work meaningfully influence the effort invested in tasks by participants, the implications may be serious and wide-ranging for the reliability and validity of published data. The study reported in this paper, examines this thesis in a driving context. Thirty-six participants were allocated to either a No payment, Low payment or Medium payment condition in a driving simulator. They undertook both easy and difficult driving scenarios in which performance was measured. Subjective workload and performance results indicated that task difficulty was successfully manipulated with the study. However, in contrast to the previous research in non-driving contexts, participants not receiving rewards were found to perform more poorly and experience increased time pressure.     

Performing well - Feeling bad? Effects of perfectionism under experimentally induced stress on tension and performance

The present study explored the influence of dispositional perfectionism (i.e. perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic strivings) on tension and performance under low or high experimentally induced stress. Results support the moderating role of perfectionism concerning tension and indicate that stress-related processes underlie the vulnerability of perfectionistic concerns. In addition, buffering effects of perfectionistic strivings were found, supporting the 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism by Gaudreau and Thompson (2010). No evidence was found for the moderating role of perfectionistic strivings concerning performance, but results provide evidence for positive effects of perfectionistic concerns on performance.     

We're all in this together now: group performance feedback to increase classroom team data collection

This study's primary goal was to evaluate the use of performance feedback procedures delivered to a classroom team to increase daily data collection. Performance feedback (PFB) was delivered to four classroom teams responsible for the daily collection of data representing student performance during prescribed instructional activities. Using a multiple-baseline design, the effects of the team performance-feedback were evaluated for the target student, and for generalization to data collection for all classroom students. A secondary question evaluated if student on-task behavior correlated with increased data collection. Finally, social validity was investigated to evaluate team satisfaction with the PFB intervention. The results demonstrate improved data collection across all four classroom teams for the target student in each classroom and generalization within classrooms to all remaining students. Slight increases in student on-task behavior were observed in three of the four classrooms, and teacher satisfaction ratings were high.     

Predictors of children's prosocial lie-telling: Motivation, socialization variables, and moral understanding

Children tell prosocial lies for self- and other-oriented reasons. However, it is unclear how motivational and socialization factors affect their lying. Furthermore, it is unclear whether children’s moral understanding and evaluations of prosocial lie scenarios (including perceptions of vignette characters’ feelings) predict their actual prosocial behaviors. These were explored in two studies. In Study 1, 72 children (36 second graders and 36 fourth graders) participated in a disappointing gift paradigm in either a high-cost condition (lost a good gift for a disappointing one) or a low-cost condition (received a disappointing gift). More children lied in the low-cost condition (94%) than in the high-cost condition (72%), with no age difference. In Study 2, 117 children (42 preschoolers, 41 early elementary school age, and 34 late elementary school age) participated in either a high- or low-cost disappointing gift paradigm and responded to prosocial vignette scenarios. Parents reported on their parenting practices and family emotional expressivity. Again, more children lied in the low-cost condition (68%) than in the high-cost condition (40%); however, there was an age effect among children in the high-cost condition. Preschoolers were less likely than older children to lie when there was a high personal cost. In addition, compared with truth-tellers, prosocial liars had parents who were more authoritative but expressed less positive emotion within the family. Finally, there was an interaction between children’s prosocial lie-telling behavior and their evaluations of the protagonist’s and recipient’s feelings. Findings contribute to understanding the trajectory of children’s prosocial lie-telling, their reasons for telling such lies, and their knowledge about interpersonal communication.     

Are lies more wrong than errors? Accuracy judgments of inaccurate statements

People are often mistaken when estimating and predicting quantities, and sometimes they report values that they know are false: they lie. There exists, however, little research devoted to how such deviations are being perceived. In four vignette studies, participants were asked to rate the accuracy of inaccurate statements about quantities (prices, numbers and amounts). The results indicate that overstatements are generally judged to be more inaccurate than understatements of the same magnitude; self-favorable (optimistic) statements are considered more inaccurate than unfavorable (pessimistic) statements, and false reports (lies) are perceived to be more inaccurate than equally mistaken estimates. Lies about the future did not differ from lies about the past, but own lies were perceived as larger than the same lies attributed to another person. It is suggested that estimates are judged according to how close they come to the true values (close estimates are more correct than estimates that are less close), whereas lies are judged as deviant from truth, with less importance attached to the magnitude of the deviation.     

Does degree of asymmetry relate to performance? A reply to Boles and Barth

In a recent critique Boles and Barth (2011) argue that their prior study investigating asymmetry/performance relationships (Boles, Barth, & Merrill, 2008) uncovered the “true” association (i.e., negative correlation) between lateralization of visual lexical processes and word recognition performance. They contend that our study reporting positive correlations of lexical asymmetry and reading performance (Chiarello et al., 2009) was flawed and hence inconclusive. In this response we address the two major objections raised by Boles and Barth (2011) regarding our selection of tasks and asymmetry measures. We conclude that the Boles and Barth principle of task purity is not relevant to the stated aims of our investigation, and that our linear regression method of measuring asymmetry is valid given the high level of accuracy for the tasks we reported. Because the aims of each investigation differed, we argue that it is unwise to attempt to fit each study into the framework favored by Boles and Barth (2011).     

“Does degree of asymmetry relate to performance?” A critical review

In a recent paper, Chiarello, Welcome, Halderman, and Leonard (2009) reported positive correlations between word-related visual field asymmetries and reading performance. They argued that strong word processing lateralization represents a more optimal brain organization for reading acquisition. Their empirical results contrasted sharply with those of another such large-scale study, by Boles, Barth, and Merrill (2008). We reported negative correlations between asymmetry and performance when both were measured using the same visual lexical tasks. Most recently, within-task negative correlations were also reported by Hirnstein, Leask, Rose, and Hausmann (2010). Here two major differences between studies are explored. Task purity refers to the influence of the same mental processes on both the asymmetry and performance measures, and is arguably maximal in studies measuring both within the same task. The other difference concerns the measurement of asymmetry. Linear corrections for ceiling and floor effects were used by Chiarello et al. and Hirnstein et al., while we used a more appropriate nonlinear one. Their results are difficult to interpret for those reasons. The operation of a third variable to which both asymmetry and performance are positively correlated could also be a factor in the Chiarello et al. findings. The Boles et al. findings reflect a negative correlation between an asymmetric visual lexical process and performance measured within the same task.