The Relative Importance and Interaction of Contextual and Methodological Predictors of Mean rWG for Work Climate

A variety of collective phenomena are understood to exist to the extent that workers agree on their perceptions of the phenomena, such as perceptions of their organization’s climate or perceptions of their team’s mental model. Researchers conducting group-level studies of such phenomena measure individuals’ perceptions via surveys and then aggregate data to the group level if the mean within-group agreement for a sample of groups is sufficiently high. Despite this widespread practice, we know little about the factors potentially affecting mean within-group agreement. Here, focusing on work climate, we report an investigation of a number of expected contextual (social interaction) and methodological predictors of mean r_WG, a common statistic for judging within-group agreement in applied psychology and management research. We used the novel approach of meta-CART, which allowed us to assess the relative importance and possible interactions of the predictor variables. Notably, mean r_WG values are driven by both contextual (average number of individuals per group and cultural individualism-collectivism) and methodological factors (the number of items in a scale and scale reliability). Our findings are largely consistent with expectations concerning how social interaction affects within-group agreement and psychometric arguments regarding why adding more items to a scale will not necessarily increase the magnitude of an index based on a Spearman-Brown “stepped-up correction.” We discuss the key insights from our results, which are relevant to the study of multilevel phenomena relying on the aggregation of individual-level data and informative for how meta-analytic researchers can simultaneously examine multiple moderator variables.

     

When birds of a feather flock together and when they do not: status composition, social dominance orientation, and organizational attractiveness

Although similarity-attraction notions suggest that similarity--for example, in terms of values, personality, and demography--attracts, the authors found that sometimes demographic similarity attracts and sometimes it repels. Consistent with social dominance theory (J. Sidanius & F. Pratto, 1999), they demonstrated in 3 studies that when prospective employees supported group-based social hierarchies (i.e., were high in social dominance orientation), those in high-status groups were attracted to demographic similarity within an organization, whereas those in low-status groups were repelled by it. An important theoretical implication of the findings is that social dominance theory and traditional similarity-attraction notions together help explain a more complex relationship between demographic similarity and attraction than was previously acknowledged in the organizational literature.     

The dread factor: how hazards and safety training influence learning and performance

On the basis of hypotheses derived from social and experiential learning theories, we meta-analytically investigated how safety training and workplace hazards impact the development of safety knowledge and safety performance. The results were consistent with an expected interaction between the level of engagement of safety training and hazardous event/exposure severity in the promotion of safety knowledge and performance. For safety knowledge and safety performance, highly engaging training was considerably more effective than less engaging training when hazardous event/exposure severity was high, whereas highly and less engaging training had comparable levels of effectiveness when hazardous event/exposure severity was low. Implications of these findings for theory testing and incorporating information on objective risk into workplace safety research and practice are discussed.     

Seeing green: Mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes

Can mere exposure to money corrupt? In four studies, we examined the likelihood of unethical outcomes when the construct of money was activated through the use of priming techniques. The results of Study 1 demonstrated that individuals primed with money were more likely to demonstrate unethical intentions than those in the control group. In Study 2, we showed that participants primed with money were more likely to adopt a business decision frame. In Studies 3 and 4, we found that money cues triggered a business decision frame, which led to a greater likelihood of unethical intentions and behavior. Together, the results of these studies demonstrate that mere exposure to money can trigger unethical intentions and behavior and that decision frame mediates this effect.     

Accurate tests of statistical significance for r(WG) and average deviation interrater agreement indexes

The authors demonstrated that the most common statistical significance test used with r(WG)-type interrater agreement indexes in applied psychology, based on the chi-square distribution, is flawed and inaccurate. The chi-square test is shown to be extremely conservative even for modest, standard significance levels (e.g., .05). The authors present an alternative statistical significance test, based on Monte Carlo procedures, that produces the equivalent of an approximate randomization test for the null hypothesis that the actual distribution of responding is rectangular and demonstrate its superiority to the chi-square test. Finally, the authors provide tables of critical values and offer downloadable software to implement the approximate randomization test for r(WG)-type and for average deviation (AD)-type interrater agreement indexes. The implications of these results for studying a broad range of interrater agreement problems in applied psychology are discussed.