Christine L. Jackson

Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performance: The Integral Role of Individual Differences

The present study estimated the unique contribution of self-efficacy to work-related performance controlling for personality (the Big 5 traits), intelligence or general mental ability, and job or task experience. Results, based on a meta-analysis of the relevant literatures, revealed that overall, across all studies and moderator conditions, the contribution of self-efficacy relative to purportedly more distal variables is relatively small. Within moderator categories, there were several cases in which self-efficacy made unique contributions to work-related performance. For example, self-efficacy predicted performance in jobs or tasks of low complexity but not those of medium or high complexity, and self-efficacy predicted performance for task but not job performance. Overall, results suggest that the predictive validity of self-efficacy is attenuated in the presence of individual differences, though this attenuation does depend on the context.

Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance

In a study of 696 learners, the authors found that stress associated with challenges in the learning environment had a positive relationship with learning performance and that stress associated with hindrances in the learning environment had a negative relationship with learning performance. They also found evidence suggesting that these stress-learning performance relationships were partially mediated by exhaustion and motivation to lean. Both forms of stress were positively related to exhaustion, and exhaustion was negatively related to learning performance. Hindrance stress was negatively related to motivation to learn, challenge stress was positively related to motivation to learn, and motivation to learn was positively related to learning performance. Implications with respect to theory and practice are discussed.

Psychological Collectivism: A Measurement Validation and Linkage to Group Member Performance

The 3 studies presented here introduce a new measure of the individual-difference form of collectivism. Psychological collectivism is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct with the following 5 facets: preference for in-groups, reliance on in-groups, concern for in-groups, acceptance of in-group norms, and prioritization of in-group goals. Study 1 developed and tested the new measure in a sample of consultants. Study 2 cross-validated the measure using an alumni sample of a Southeastern university, assessing its convergent validity with other collectivism measures. Study 3 linked scores on the measure to 4 dimensions of group member performance (task performance, citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior, and withdrawal behavior) in a computer software firm and assessed discriminant validity using the Big Five. The results of the studies support the construct validity of the measure and illustrate the potential value of collectivism as a predictor of group member performance.

Service without a smile: comparing the consequences of neutral and positive display rules.

We used an experimental design to examine the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes through which neutral display rules, compared to positive display rules, influence objective task performance of poll workers and ratings provided by survey respondents of the poll workers. Student participants (N = 140) were trained to adhere to 1 of the 2 display rule conditions while delivering opinion surveys to potential patrons of an organization during a 40-min period. Results showed that, compared to positive display rules, neutral display rules resulted in less task persistence and greater avoidance behavior. These effects were mediated through a greater use of expression suppression. In addition, neutral display rules resulted in less positive respondent mood, which accounted for lower ratings of service quality and of overall favorability attitudes toward the sponsoring organization. The importance and ubiquity of neutral display rules are discussed, given the potential for positive and negative consequences at work.

When Do Groups Perform Better Than Individuals? A Company Takeover Experiment

It is still an open question when groups perform better than individuals in intellectual tasks. We report that in a company takeover experiment, groups placed better bids than individuals and substantially reduced the winner’s curse. This improvement was mostly due to peer pressure over the minority opinion and to learning. Learning took place from interacting and negotiating consensus with others, not simply from observing their bids. When there was disagreement, what prevailed was not the best proposal but the one of the majority. Groups underperformed with respect to a “truth wins” benchmark although they outperformed individuals deciding in isolation.