Christopher M. Berry

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.

The Five-Factor Model of Personality Traits and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis

Using meta-analytic tests based on 87 statistically independent samples, we investigated the relationships between the five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors in both the aggregate and specific forms, including individual-directed, organization-directed, and change-oriented citizenship. We found that Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Openness/Intellect have incremental validity for citizenship over and above Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, 2 well-established FFM predictors of citizenship. In addition, FFM personality traits predict citizenship over and above job satisfaction. Finally, we compared the effect sizes obtained in the current meta-analysis with the comparable effect sizes predicting task performance from previous meta-analyses. As a result, we found that Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Extraversion have similar magnitudes of relationships with citizenship and task performance, whereas Openness and Agreeableness have stronger relationships with citizenship than with task performance. This lends some support to the idea that personality traits are (slightly) more important determinants of citizenship than of task performance. We conclude with proposed directions for future research on the relationships between FFM personality traits and specific forms of citizenship, based on the current findings.

Citizenship and Counterproductive Behavior: Clarifying Relations Between the Two Domains

Competing viewpoints exist as to whether organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are best viewed as behaviors located on a single continuum or as distinct constructs. Reliable and established measures of OCB, CWB, and the Big Five were administered to a large and diverse employee sample. Confirmatory factor analysis supports differentiating between facets of OCB and CWB. In addition, OCB and CWB were moderately negatively correlated and had a number of different personality correlates. This lends support to OCB and CWB representing two distinct constructs instead of a single continuum.

The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Managerial Performance: Validity Gains Through the Use of 360 Degree Performance Ratings

This study investigated the usefulness of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality in predicting two aspects of managerial performance (task vs. contextual) assessed by utilizing the 360 degree performance rating system. The authors speculated that one reason for the low validity of the FFM might be the failure of single-source (e.g., supervisor) ratings to comprehensively capture the construct of managerial performance. The operational validity of personality was found to increase substantially (50%-74%) across all of the FFM personality traits when both peer and subordinate ratings were added to supervisor ratings according to the multitrait-multimethod approach. Furthermore, the authors responded to the recent calls to validate tests via a multivariate (e.g., multitrait-multimethod) approach by decomposing overall managerial performance into task and contextual performance criteria and by using multiple rating perspectives (sources). Overall, this study contributes to the evidence that personality may be even more useful in predicting managerial performance if the performance criteria are less deficient.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Criterion-Related Validity of Cognitive Ability Tests: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.

The correlation between cognitive ability test scores and performance was separately meta-analyzed for Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White racial/ethnic subgroups. Compared to the average White observed correlation ( = .33, N = 903,779), average correlations were lower for Black samples ( = .24, N = 112,194) and Hispanic samples ( = .30, N = 51,205) and approximately equal for Asian samples ( = .33, N = 80,705). Despite some moderating effects (e.g., type of performance criterion, decade of data collection, job complexity), validity favored White over Black and Hispanic test takers in almost all conditions that included a sizable number of studies. Black-White validity comparisons were possible both across and within the 3 broad domains that use cognitive ability tests for high-stakes selection and placement: civilian employment, educational admissions, and the military. The trend of lower Black validity was repeated in each domain; however, average Black-White validity differences were largest in military studies and smallest in educational and employment studies. Further investigation of the reasons for these validity differences is warranted.

A cautionary note on the effects of range restriction on predictor intercorrelations

The purpose of this research report is to highlight a unique set of issues that arise when considering the effects of range restriction in the context of estimating predictor intercorrelations. Three approaches are used to illustrate the issue: simulation, a concrete applied example, and a reanalysis of a meta-analysis of ability-interview correlations. The general conclusion is that a predictor intercorrelation can differ dramatically from the population value when both predictors are used in a composite that is used operationally for selection. The compensatory nature of a composite means that low scorers on one predictor can only obtain high scores on the composite if they obtain very high scores on the other predictor; this phenomenon distorts the correlation between the predictors.

Educational Attainment as a Proxy for Cognitive Ability in Selection: Effects on Levels of Cognitive Ability and Adverse Impact.

The authors examined the differences in mean level of cognitive ability and adverse impact that can be expected when selecting employees solely on educational attainment as a proxy for cognitive ability versus selecting employees directly on cognitive ability. Selection using cognitive ability worked as a more efficient cognitive screen. Imposing an educational attainment standard of at least 1 year of college, though, did result in noticeably higher levels of cognitive ability in potential applicant pools than did random selection, meaning that educational attainment does work as a cognitive screen. These results held not only in a nationally representative sample but also within and across 6 different occupational groups. Finally, adverse impact is examined for selection using educational attainment, compared with selection on the basis of cognitive ability.

A profile of profiles: A meta-analysis of the nomological net of commitment profiles.

Although the majority of empirical commitment research has adopted a variable-centered approach, the person-centered or profiles approach is gaining traction. One challenge in the commitment profiles literature is that names are attached to profiles based on the within-study comparison among profiles and their relative levels and shapes. Thus, it is possible that different studies name the same profiles differently or different profiles similarly because of the context of the other profiles in the study. A meta-analytic approach, combined with multilevel latent profile analysis (LPA) that accounts for both within- and between-sample variability, is used in this study to examine the antecedents and outcomes of commitment profiles. This helps solve the naming problem by examining multiple data sets (K = 40) with a large sample (N = 16,052), obtained by contacting commitment researchers who voluntarily supplied primary data to bring further consensus about the phenomenology of profiles. LPA results revealed 5 profiles (Low, Moderate, AC-dominant, AC/NC-dominant, and High). Meta-analytic results revealed that high levels of bases of commitment were associated with value-based profiles whereas low levels were associated with weak commitment profiles. Additionally, value-based profiles were associated with older, married, and less educated participants than the weak commitment profiles. Regarding outcomes of commitment, profiles were found to significantly relate to focal behaviors (e.g., performance, tenure, and turnover) and discretionary behaviors (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviors). Value-based profiles were found to have higher levels of both focal and discretionary behaviors for all analyses. Implications for the commitment and profile literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Addressing criticisms of existing predictive bias research: cognitive ability test scores still overpredict African Americans' job performance.

Predictive bias studies have generally suggested that cognitive ability test scores overpredict job performance of African Americans, meaning these tests are not predictively biased against African Americans. However, at least 2 issues call into question existing over-/underprediction evidence: (a) a bias identified by Aguinis, Culpepper, and Pierce (2010) in the intercept test typically used to assess over-/underprediction and (b) a focus on the level of observed validity instead of operational validity. The present study developed and utilized a method of assessing over-/underprediction that draws on the math of subgroup regression intercept differences, does not rely on the biased intercept test, allows for analysis at the level of operational validity, and can use meta-analytic estimates as input values. Therefore, existing meta-analytic estimates of key parameters, corrected for relevant statistical artifacts, were used to determine whether African American job performance remains overpredicted at the level of operational validity. African American job performance was typically overpredicted by cognitive ability tests across levels of job complexity and across conditions wherein African American and White regression slopes did and did not differ. Because the present study does not rely on the biased intercept test and because appropriate statistical artifact corrections were carried out, the present studys results are not affected by the 2 issues mentioned above. The present study represents strong evidence that cognitive ability tests generally overpredict job performance of African Americans.

Individual differences in social dominance orientation predict support for the use of cognitive ability tests.

This study investigates the personality processes involved in the debate surrounding the use of cognitive ability tests in college admissions. In Study 1, 108 undergraduates (Mage  = 18.88 years, 60 women, 80 Whites) completed measures of social dominance orientation (SDO), testing self-efficacy, and attitudes regarding the use of cognitive ability tests in college admissions; SAT/ACT scores were collected from the registrar. Sixty-seven undergraduates (Mage  = 19.06 years, 39 women, 49 Whites) completed the same measures in Study 2, along with measures of endorsement of commonly presented arguments about test use. In Study 3, 321 American adults (Mage  = 35.58 years, 180 women, 251 Whites) completed the same measures used in Study 2; half were provided with facts about race and validity issues surrounding cognitive ability tests. Individual differences in SDO significantly predicted support for the use of cognitive ability tests in all samples, after controlling for SAT/ACT scores and test self-efficacy and also among participants who read facts about cognitive ability tests. Moreover, arguments for and against test use mediated this effect. The present study sheds new light on an old debate by demonstrating that individual differences in beliefs about hierarchy play a key role in attitudes toward cognitive ability test use.