Journal of Applied Psychology

Wilmot, Michael P.; Wanberg, Connie R.; Kammeyer-Mueller, John D.; Ones, Deniz S.

doi: 10.1037/apl0000415pmid: 31120263

How and to what extent does extraversion relate to work relevant variables across the lifespan? In the most extensive quantitative review to date, we summarize results from 97 published meta-analyses reporting relations of extraversion to 165 distinct work relevant variables, as well as relations of extraversion’s lower order traits to 58 variables. We first update all effects using a common set of statistical corrections and, when possible, combine independent estimates using second-order meta-analysis (Schmidt & Oh, 2013). We then organize effects within a framework of four career domains—education, job application, on the job, and career/lifespan—and five conceptual categories: motivations, values, and interests; attitudes and well-being; interpersonal; performance; and counterproductivity. Overall, extraversion shows effects in a desirable direction for 90% of variables (grand mean ρ̄ = .14), indicative of a small, persistent advantage at work. Findings also show areas with more substantial effects (ρ̄ ≥ .20), which we synthesize into four extraversion advantages. These motivational, emotional, interpersonal, and performance advantages offer a concise account of extraversion’s relations and a new lens for understanding its effects at work. Our review of the lower order trait evidence reveals diverse relations (e.g., the positive emotions facet has consistently advantageous effects, the sociability facet confers few benefits, the sensation-seeking facet is largely disadvantageous), and extends knowledge about the functioning of extraversion and its advantages. We conclude by discussing potential boundary conditions of findings, contributions and limitations of our review, and new research directions for extraversion at work.

Li, Wen-Dong; Li, Shuping; Fay, Doris; Frese, Michael

doi: 10.1037/apl0000417pmid: 31094541

Previous research on dispositional optimism has predominantly concentrated on the selection effect of dispositional optimism on predicting work outcomes. Recent research, however, has started to examine the socialization effect of life experiences on fostering dispositional optimism development. Extrapolating primarily from the TESSERA framework of personality development (Wrzus & Roberts, 2017) and the literature on dispositional optimism, the current study represents a first attempt to reconcile the 2 seemingly contrasting perspectives. We proposed and examined change-related reciprocal relationships between dispositional optimism and work experience variables including income, job insecurity, coworker support, and supervisor support. Latent change score modeling of data from a five-wave longitudinal study demonstrated that dispositional optimism resulted in decreases in job insecurity, and the decreased job insecurity in turn promoted further increases in dispositional optimism later on. Furthermore, income gave rise to increases in dispositional optimism at a later point in time, but not vice versa. No significant relationships were observed between dispositional optimism and coworker and supervisor support. The findings provide a cautionary note to the majority of previous research based on cross-sectional and lagged designs that assumes causal effects of dispositional optimism on work outcomes. They also showcase the importance of examining personality change in organizational research and enrich our understanding of a more nuanced dynamic interplay between the optimistic employee and the work environment.

Keeler, Kathleen R.; Kong, Wenmo; Dalal, Reeshad S.; Cortina, Jose M.

doi: 10.1037/apl0000416pmid: 31120262

Mischel’s (1973, 1977) theory of situational strength has been used widely within the organizational sciences to help explain why contextual factors moderate predictor–criterion relationships. Situational strength interactions represent a particular type known as a restricted variance (RV) interaction (Cortina, Köhler, & Nielsen, 2015). The theory proposes that the strength of a given situation constrains or compresses the variance of the dependent variable, weakening its prediction from other variables. Other theories and models, such as self-determination theory and the job characteristics model, also make implicit references to variance compression based on the level of autonomy in a given situation and to the interactions that this compression creates. It is unclear, however, whether differences in strength (or degree of constraint) actually yield variance differences that are consistent with the theoretical framework. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed 132 articles that imply RV effects, 100 of which allowed for variance comparisons. We found that only a handful of authors explicitly connect their theoretical arguments and interaction hypotheses to changes in variance in the Introduction section of their articles. Moreover, our findings also reveal that, for the most part, variance differences between weak and strong situations are minimal. Where differences exist, they are often in the opposite of the expected direction (i.e., larger variance in “strong” situations). We discuss our findings and their theoretical and practical implications. We also provide recommendations for designing studies and testing for such interactions.

Shewach, Oren R.; Sackett, Paul R.; Quint, Sander

doi: 10.1037/apl0000420pmid: 31094540

The stereotype threat literature primarily comprises lab studies, many of which involve features that would not be present in high-stakes testing settings. We meta-analyze the effect of stereotype threat on cognitive ability tests, focusing on both laboratory and operational studies with features likely to be present in high stakes settings. First, we examine the features of cognitive ability test metric, stereotype threat cue activation strength, and type of nonthreat control group, and conduct a focal analysis removing conditions that would not be present in high stakes settings. We also take into account a previously unrecognized methodological error in how data are analyzed in studies that control for scores on a prior cognitive ability test, which resulted in a biased estimate of stereotype threat. The focal sample, restricting the database to samples utilizing operational testing-relevant conditions, displayed a threat effect of d = −.14 (k = 45, N = 3,532, SDδ = .31). Second, we present a comprehensive meta-analysis of stereotype threat. Third, we examine a small subset of studies in operational test settings and studies utilizing motivational incentives, which yielded d-values ranging from .00 to −.14. Fourth, the meta-analytic database is subjected to tests of publication bias, finding nontrivial evidence for publication bias. Overall, results indicate that the size of the stereotype threat effect that can be experienced on tests of cognitive ability in operational scenarios such as college admissions tests and employment testing may range from negligible to small.

Lee, Youngduk; Berry, Christopher M.; Gonzalez-Mulé, Erik

doi: 10.1037/apl0000421pmid: 31192647

The HEXACO model presents a conceptualization of personality that includes the trait honesty-humility (H-H) in addition to 5 other personality traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotionality, extraversion, openness) that closely approximate the ubiquitous five-factor model (FFM) of personality. A substantial literature has accumulated supporting the structure of the HEXACO model and the construct validity of the H-H trait in particular. A newer development is the appearance of H-H in the applied psychology literature. This begs the question of whether H-H exhibits significant criterion-related validity with respect to job performance and whether H-H accounts for incremental validity over other established individual differences predictors of job performance. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis of the relationship between H-H and 3 major dimensions of job performance (counterproductive work behavior [CWB], organizational citizenship behavior [OCB], and task performance) and compare the incremental validity of H-H with other established individual differences predictors (general mental ability, the FFM, and integrity tests). Our results indicate that H-H correlates −.44 with CWB, .13 with OCB, and .15 with task performance (each correlation corrected for unreliability in both the independent and dependent variables). Further, H-H demonstrated incremental validity over the other individual differences predictors in the case of CWB but not OCB and task performance.

Staw, Barry M.; DeCelles, Katherine A.; de Goey, Peter

doi: 10.1037/apl0000418pmid: 31192648

Research has documented conflicting evidence about the relationship between a leader’s unpleasant affective displays and team performance. Drawing on the dual threshold model of anger, we propose a novel explanation for this paradox such that the positive relationship between leaders’ unpleasant affect and team performance turns negative at high levels of intensity. We examined our hypothesis in a multilevel field study of 304 halftime locker room speeches involving 23 high school and college basketball teams and a follow-up experiment. Our results show support for the prediction and suggest that the curvilinear effect of leaders’ unpleasant affective displays may be explained by team members’ redirection of attention and approach, which is positively associated with team members’ effort at moderate levels of leader unpleasantness but leads to lower effort at high and low levels of leader unpleasantness. We discuss the theoretical contributions for scholarship on leadership, emotions as social information theory, and practical implications of the results.