Daniel E. Martin

Traffic Crash Involvement: Experiential Driving Knowledge and Stressful Contextual Antecedents

Researchers have rarely examined stressful environments and psychological characteristics as predictors of driving behavior in the same study. The authors hypothesized that (a) safer drivers more accurately assess physical and emotional traffic hazards and (b) stress and emotional states elevate crash risk. The hypotheses were evaluated with procedural and declarative tacit driving knowledge tests requiring assessment of emotional and contextual hazards and with accident reports describing crash antecedents, including stressful events and environmental conditions. Analyses identified separate driving knowledge factors corresponding to emotional and contextual hazards that were significantly related to the crash criteria. Accident report analyses show that stress significantly elevates at-fault crash risk. The results demonstrate the importance of experiential knowledge acquired without instruction (procedural or tacit knowledge) and provide safety recommendations.

Validation of the moral competency inventory measurement instrument

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce practitioners to the appropriate use of measures of unethical behaviour, evaluate the use of integrity‐related assessments for use in personnel selection, and determine the validity of the moral competency index (MCI) instrument using standard validation procedures.Design/methodology/approach – Content, construct, convergent and discriminant approaches are applied to establish the relative validity of the assessment tool.Findings – The results of the MCI purport to align with ones moral values and behaviours. The paper establishes face validity of the MCI measure, but fails to establish an appropriate simple factor structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and support for the lack of impact of demographic factors on the purported measure of moral intelligence.Research limitations/implications – An acceptable but constrained (working students) sample was used in the validation.Practical implications – Researchers and practitioners should be ...

Culture and Unethical Conduct: Understanding the Impact of Individualism and Collectivism on Actual Plagiarism

This criterion study examined the impact of the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism on actual plagiarism in working business students. Given globalization of business and recent business scandals, furthering our understanding of international ethics remains critical. Business students are the potential employees, managers and leaders of organizations in the future. In this study we focus on one form of unethical conduct by business students, i.e. actual plagiarism, and seek to determine the link between this behavior and cultural values of individualism/collectivism and associated stereotypes of Asian/Caucasian students. Our findings suggest that individualists plagiarize more than collectivists, and that no significant differences in plagiarism exist between Asian and Caucasian students, contrary to popular beliefs. The implications of these findings for scholars and managers are discussed.

The unobtrusive knowledge test: validity and stereotype threats

– The purpose of this paper is to validate the unobtrusive knowledge test (UKT) in a minority population, and examine its potential for limiting stereotype threat., – Study One: (convergent validity): UKT and Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) scores were correlated for 131 students. Study Two: (stereotype threat) 202 minority students were placed into one of four groups based on whether or not they were given instructions to elicit stereotype threat, and whether they took the Excellence scale of the UKT or the WPT., – Correlations provided evidence of convergent validity between the Excellence subscale of the UKT and the WPT. The stereotype threat study was inconclusive, with no differences being seen in the threat/non‐threat conditions for the WPT, and higher scores in the threat condition than the non‐threat condition for the UKT., – Unreliability of some scales and low correlations of others with the WPT, lessened the overall UKTs convergent validity., – The need to develop measures of intelligence not subject to adverse impact is clear, and the results of the current research provide justification for further research establishing the properties of the UKT as a selection tool., – This paper offers new evidence of the usefulness of the UKT as a measure of cognitive ability for minority populations, and raises questions about the impact of stereotype threat on the UKT test.

Social dominance orientation and mentorship: Mitigating hierarchical preference through work roles or just low expectations?

Mentorship programs allow organizations to implement policies and programs to pass job-related knowledge from current employees to new incumbents to increase the competitive edge of their firm (Appelbaum, Ritchie & Shapiro, 1994; DeLong, Gabarro & Lees, 2008). Mentoring is defined as: a process for the informal transmission of knowledge, social capital, and psychosocial support perceived by the recipient as relevant to work, career, or professional development; mentoring entails informal communication, usually face to face and during a sustained period of time, between a person who is perceived to have greater relevant knowledge, wisdom, or experience (the mentor) and a person who is perceived to have less (the protege). (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007)

Social Dominance Orientation and Mentorship

Mentorship programs allow organizations to implement policies and programs to pass job-related knowledge from current employees to new incumbents to increase the competitive edge of their firm (Appelbaum, Ritchie & Shapiro, 1994; DeLong, Gabarro & Lees, 2008). Mentoring is defined as: a process for the informal transmission of knowledge, social capital, and psychosocial support perceived by the recipient as relevant to work, career, or professional development; mentoring entails informal communication, usually face to face and during a sustained period of time, between a person who is perceived to have greater relevant knowledge, wisdom, or experience (the mentor) and a person who is perceived to have less (the protege). (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007)