Relationships between Personality and Organization Switching: Implications for utility estimates

This study examined individuals' tendencies to migrate from one organization to another (i.e., the propensity to switch employers). Previous researchers have suggested that switching organizations throughout the career span may be partially heritable and therefore related to individual differences in personality traits. If personality traits are indeed related to a tendency to turnover from organizations, this suggests that current procedures for calculating utility may be inaccurate. Using a database of 1081 individuals who have been in the workforce for several years, results indicated that personality traits measured by the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (non‐ipsative; OPQn) were modestly related to organization switching (i.e., repeated moves from organization to organization). We found that higher scores on extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness‐related traits were modestly correlated with more frequent organization switching. However, we demonstrate that these modest relationships can produce large inaccuracies in utility estimates.     

Controversies over integrity testing: Two viewpoints

In the August 1993 issue ofJournal of Applied Psychology, Deniz Ones, Vish Viswesvaran, and Frank Schmidt published a monograph on the validity of integrity tests as revealed by meta-analysis. They concluded that integrity tests have substantial and generalizable predictive validity for criteria of both overall job performance and counterproductive behaviors on the job (e.g., disciplinary problems, absenteeism, rule breaking, violence on the job, theft, etc.). During the Fall of 1992, the authors sent a preprint of this study to David Lykken of the University of Minnesota, stimulating the exchange of letters that is reproduced here. The doubts, concerns, and feelings about integrity tests expressed by Professor Lykken are likely to be shared by others. The responses by Professors Schmidt, Ones, and Viswesvaran attempt to show that these worries are unfounded.     

Personality and happiness: a national-level analysis

The possibility that national personality traits could explain national subjective well-being (SWB) is controversial, with many researchers arguing that traits are irrelevant to any national-level analysis. The weaknesses of this standpoint are reviewed, followed by a series of empirical investigations. Using Eysenck's 3-factor model (H. J. Eysenck & S. B. G. Eysenck, 1975) and P. T. Costa and R. M. McCrae's (1992b) 5-factor model, the authors found that Neuroticism and Extraversion correlated significantly with national SWB. Lie scale scores were also related strongly to national SWB. Neuroticism and Extraversion incrementally predicted SWB above gross national product per capita. The strength of these results indicates that personality can have stronger relationships at national levels of analysis than at the individual level. National personality traits appear to be unwisely neglected, having considerable but largely unconsidered explanatory power.     

Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences

A database integrating 90 years of empirical studies reporting intercorrelations among rated job performance dimensions was used to test the hypothesis of a general factor in job performance. After controlling for halo error and 3 other sources of measurement error, there remained a general factor in job performance ratings at the construct level accounting for 60% of total variance. Construct-level correlations among rated dimensions of job performance were substantially inflated by halo for both supervisory (33%) and peer (63%) intrarater correlations. These findings have important implications for the measurement of job performance and for theories of job performance.     

Opening Up Openness: A Theoretical Sort Following Critical Incidents Methodology and a Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Trait Family Measures

Existing taxonomies of Openness's facet structure have produced widely divergent results, and there is limited comprehensive empirical evidence about how Openness-related scales on existing personality inventories align within the 5-factor framework. In Study 1, we used a critical incidents sorting methodology to identify 11 categories of Openness measures; in Study 2, we meta-analyzed the relationships of these categories with global markers of the Big Five traits (utilizing data from 106 samples with a total sample size of N = 35,886). Our results identified 4 true facets of Openness: aestheticism, openness to sensations, nontraditionalism, and introspection. Measures of these facets were unadulterated by variance from other Big Five traits. Many traits frequently conceptualized as facets of Openness (e.g., innovation/creativity, variety-seeking, and tolerance) emerged as trait compounds that, although related to Openness, are also dependent on other Big Five traits. We discuss how Openness should be conceptualized, measured, and studied in light of the empirically based, refined taxonomy emerging from this research.     

The Importance of Exercise and Dimension Factors in Assessment Centers: Simultaneous Examinations of Construct-Related and Criterion-Related Validity

This study presents a simultaneous examination of multiple evidential bases of the validity of assessment center (AC) ratings. In particular, we combine both construct-related and criterion-related validation strategies in the same sample to determine the relative importance of exercises and dimensions. We examine the underlying structure of ACs in terms of exercise and dimension factors while directly linking these factors to a work-related criterion (salary). Results from an AC (N = 753) showed that exercise factors not only explained more variance in AC ratings than dimension factors but also were more important in predicting salary. Dimension factors explained a smaller albeit significant portion of the variance in AC ratings and had lower validity for predicting salary. The implications of these findings for AC theory, practice, and research are discussed.     

Samples in applied psychology: over a decade of research in review

This study examines sample characteristics of articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) from 1995 to 2008. At the individual level, the overall median sample size over the period examined was approximately 173, which is generally adequate for detecting the average magnitude of effects of primary interest to researchers who publish in JAP. Samples using higher units of analyses (e.g., teams, departments/work units, and organizations) had lower median sample sizes (Mdn ≈ 65), yet were arguably robust given typical multilevel design choices of JAP authors despite the practical constraints of collecting data at higher units of analysis. A substantial proportion of studies used student samples (~40%); surprisingly, median sample sizes for student samples were smaller than working adult samples. Samples were more commonly occupationally homogeneous (~70%) than occupationally heterogeneous. U.S. and English-speaking participants made up the vast majority of samples, whereas Middle Eastern, African, and Latin American samples were largely unrepresented. On the basis of study results, recommendations are provided for authors, editors, and readers, which converge on 3 themes: (a) appropriateness and match between sample characteristics and research questions, (b) careful consideration of statistical power, and (c) the increased popularity of quantitative synthesis. Implications are discussed in terms of theory building, generalizability of research findings, and statistical power to detect effects.     

Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis

Interpersonal deviance (ID) and organizational deviance (OD) are highly correlated (R. S. Dalal, 2005). This, together with other empirical and theoretical evidence, calls into question the separability of ID and OD. As a further investigation into their separability, relationships among ID, OD, and their common correlates were meta-analyzed. ID and OD were highly correlated (rho = .62) but had differential relationships with key Big Five variables and organizational citizenship behaviors, which lends support to the separability of ID and OD. Whether the R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson (2000) instrument was used moderated some relationships. ID and OD exhibited their strongest (negative) relationships with organizational citizenship, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. Correlations with organizational justice were small to moderate, and correlations with demographic variables were generally negligible.