Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
communion striving |
actionsdirected toward obtaining acceptance in personal relationships andgetting along with others |
|
|
status striving |
actions directed toward obtaining power and dominancewithin a status hierarchy |
|
|
accomplishment striving |
reflects an individual’s intention to accomplish tasks andis characterized by a high task orientation. Task-oriented employees have a strong desire to accomplish task-related goals as ameans of expressing their individual attributes and preferences |
|
|
Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness definitions |
- agreeable peopleare altruistic, sympathetic, and eager to help others - extraverts are described as social, assertive, active, bold,energetic, and adventurous - Conscientious people are described as organized, reliable,hardworking, determined, self-disciplined, and achievement oriented (Costa & McCrae, 1992) |
|
|
Barrick et al. (2002) purpose |
develop and test a model of job performance that examines the mediating effects of cognitive–motivational work orientations on the relationships between personality traits and performance in a salesjob |
|
|
Barrick et al. (2002) results |
- status striving and accomplishmentstriving (indirectly through status striving) mediate relationshipsbetween two FFM personality traits (Conscientiousness and Extraversion) and supervisory ratings of sales performance - Extraverted employees were more likely to be motivated by statusstriving, which, in turn, enabled them to perform better as salesrepresentatives. Conscientious sales representatives were morelikely to strive for accomplishments, which linked to performancethrough status striving |
|
|
Hogan (2005) main points |
Issues with personality psychology: - no consensus about an intellectual agenda for thefield - general lack of concern for measurement validity - research issues: scales that shouldn't be combined are combined, researchers fail to align predictors with criteria, fail to account for bidirectionality in predicting different aspects of performance Issues with definition of personality - reductionism: still haven't found underlying neuropsychic structures; - Personality is two things: (a) generalizations about human nature, and (b) explorations of individual differences [people want acceptance status and meaning] - personality from view of actor (identity) and observer (reputation) - good data supporting validity of personality measures - we use trait words to define reputations (FFM) - measurement model that we use involves taking the statements that peoplemake about themselves and then determining, in an empirical way, the links between their self-descriptions and their reputations - trick is to take what people sayabout themselves and translate it into what other people say about them - |
|
|
self concept definition |
refers to people’s self-definitions in relation to others - |
|
|
Johnson and Saboe (2011) results |
- hypothesizedthat an indirect measure of self-concept would be an effective predictor of work criteria because it operates at implicit (below conscious) levels - indirect measure—a word fragmentcompletion task—contributed more to the prediction of criteria than the direct measure—self-report survey items with summated rating scales - criteria: task performance, citizenship and counterproductive behavior, and the quality of supervisor–subordinate relations - indirect measure accounted for incremental variance in supervisor-rated criteria and contributed more to their prediction than the direct measure |
|
|
Core self-evaluations |
Like self-esteem, CSE isan appraisal of one's self-worth. However, CSE is broader thanself-esteem in that it also reflects beliefs in one's capabilities (to control one's life) and one's competence (to perform, cope, persevere, and succeed) and a general sense that life will turnout well for oneself. CSE is viewed as a broad latent concept,indicated by at least four traits: self-esteem, generalized selfefficacy, locus of control, and (low) neuroticism (or high emotional stability). (Judge, 2009) |
|
|
Judge (2009) key points in favor of CSE |
- average correlationamong the four core traits is .59 - CFA shows the traits load onto a common factor - high CSE: related to abroad array of work and non-work criteria, including increasedlevels of job and life satisfaction, better job performance, higherwork motivation, and higher income, less burnout - broad CSE factor predicts better than individual core traits |
|
|
Judge (2009) unresolved issues with CSE |
- some say locus of control or other dimensions should be excluded - can CSE be too high? - variability of CSE? |
|
|
Chang issues with CSE |
- lacks a theoretical rationale explaining whyCSE influences outcomes - definition of CSE as a fundamentalappraisal of one’s own self-worth, competence, and capabilities is sufficiently fuzzy thatseveral traits appear to fit the bill. - What is lacking, and greatly needed, areempirically testable inclusion criteria coupled with these conceptual criteria - important to specify the nature of the relationship of CSE with lower level traits - contemporaryview is that CSE is a superordinate construct (Judge et al., 2003), meaning that CSE causespeople’s standing on each trait. This view, however, has received some criticism and has not been tested - ruling out alternate explanations for the emergence of higherorder factors; shared variance may be due to something other than the traits |
|
|
Spector (2000) key points |
- NA may play a substantive role (explain why 2 variables are related without it being bias) - (ex: individuals high in NA tend to perform poorly, resulting in punitive supervisor response which in turn leads to job strains) - need to be clear what a variable is doing before removing the effects of a variable - if NA plays a substantive role then removing it can distort the relationship between variables and lead to erroneous conclusions about stressor-strain relationship - Establishing that a variable is a bias is not a simple procedure. One must show that it relates toone or more measured variables, but that it does not have substantive effects. - solve: use multiple measures, reduce affective tone of measures, objective stressor measures |
|
|
Substantive mechanisms to explain why NA relates to job stressors and strains |
- perception mechanism: NA relates to the person's tendency to see the world in a negativeway; reports of job stressors are valid indicators of perceptions, but perceptions are influenced by NA AND objective features; bias would have to affect accuracy of reporting personal experiences - hyperresponsivity mechanism: individuals high in NA are hyper-responsive to the environment so thatthey have an exaggerated strain response to stressors; not that they perceive stressors differently - selection mechanism: high NA people are in more stressful jobs than low NA people; high NA ppl could choose less complex jobs, or be less attractive candidates for complex jobs - stressor creation mechanism: high NA people create stressors for themselves, create adverse circumstances - causality mechanism: job stressors make people higher in NA
|
|
|
Judge (2000) key points |
- feel that NA can both be a bias and a substantive factor - investigate perception mechanism; Spector feels even if it impacts perceptions it's not necessarily bias - can't tell - they disagree and feel there are objective measures of stress, stressors, and health - ex) NA correlated with reports of health problems but not objective measures of health - high NA might actually block positive perceptions; examine role of positive bias - believe high NA people to be less prone to self-deception thus report higher levels of stress |
|
|
Judge (2000) results |
- to test the substantive role of NA and self-deception in the reporting of stress and healthcomplaints, we collected data from a large public university - individuals who tend to deceive themselves were found to report less stress and complained less about health problems. - low NA individuals deflated stressful events and health problems through self-deception - NA is distal biasing factor, self-deception is more proximal |
|
|
negative affect |
feelings of emotional distress |
|
|
job strain |
behavioral, physical, or psychological reactions to job stressors (Spector, 1998) |
|
|
job stressors |
aspects of the job that elicit negative emotional response (Spector, 1998) |
