Journal of Applied Psychology最新文献

Fulfilling the promise of greater workplace inclusion increasingly hinges on advantaged group employees' oppositional courage (OC)-a nonnormative form of allyship involving significant risk to the actor. Research suggests OC may not only offer instrumental benefits to marginalized employees but also convey a powerful "message of value" from the actor. Yet these courageous acts do not occur in a vacuum, suggesting they may carry social consequences for marginalized employees. Drawing from theory on helping relations and research on social cognition, we argue these risky acts can inadvertently signal unique strength in the actor, triggering marginalized employees' diminished image belief-a concern others see them as weak and unable to stand up for themselves. We further propose that this perceived "image cost" depends on the actor's humility as it relates to OC-what we term OC-specific humility-and that these dynamics have implications for marginalized employees' avoidance reactions. Our investigation utilized data from 959 trans employees. In Study 1, a qualitative analysis identified three behavioral themes reflecting humility in relation to OC (i.e., OC-specific humility) and provided initial support for its role in shaping how OC is perceived. In Study 2, we tested our hypotheses experimentally. In Study 3, we sought to replicate the results with a time-lagged survey. Three supplemental studies included a scale development effort aimed at validating a measure of OC-specific humility and two additional experiments. Overall, results provided partial support for our model. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research, as well as avenues for future work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Food insecurity-insufficient access to safe and nutritious foods-is one of the most crucial societal grand challenges the world faces today. It affects 2.3 billion people globally, and addressing it is one of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals of 2030 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations et al., 2025). Despite its prevalence and importance, the field of applied psychology has ignored this problem with the implicit assumption that food insecurity is not an issue relevant to the workplace. Contrary to this view, we hypothesize and demonstrate that food insecurity is detrimental to the three core work outcomes: task performance, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. To test our hypotheses, we employed a multimethod design across three empirical studies: (a) an experimental recall study, (b) a within-person diary study, and (c) a field experiment. Our findings consistently demonstrate that food insecurity leads to higher anxiety, which subsequently has a negative effect on task performance, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior. In our field experiment, we further demonstrated that providing food to those experiencing food insecurity can improve work outcomes. This research highlights that food insecurity is a significant issue with important implications for the workplace that requires greater attention from both researchers and business leaders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Although personal self-disclosure has been increasingly encouraged in organizations and teams to enhance authenticity and workplace effectiveness, the nature of its impact in team contexts remains debated. Existing literature predominantly focuses on the relational effects of receiving personal self-disclosure but ignores its cognitive effects and key contextual contingencies that help elucidate when it has positive versus negative consequences. This study provides a more comprehensive theoretical account of the effects of self-disclosure in team contexts by combining social penetration and information processing perspectives into a multilevel theoretical framework. We tested our theoretical model in two team samples. Supporting our hypotheses, we found that personal self-disclosure had complex, countervailing impacts on team members receiving disclosure through relational and cognitive mechanisms. In addition, team self-disclosure norms were found to moderate the effects of receiving personal self-disclosure, buffering the relational and cognitive costs. Our research lays the foundation for future research on personal self-disclosure in teams and offers practical implications for teams and organizations seeking to maximize the utility of personal self-disclosure in the workplace. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Counterproductive behavior (e.g., aggression, theft, dishonesty) is a persistent societal problem with a substantial dispositional basis. Despite broad interest in the subject, little scholarship has studied relations of variables associated with counterproductive behavior and their dispositional antecedents across work and nonwork domains. Drawing on cybernetic theories of personality, we posit that personality malfunction (an imbalance between cybernetic processes responsible for maintaining homeostasis and facilitating change) contributes to general counterproductive behavior (GCB). To test this theory, we conduct a quantitative review and synthesis of meta-analyses that report Big Five personality trait relations to variables indicative of GCB. Overall, we locate 46 articles reporting associations with 62 variables, which represent k > 1,200 studies and N > 850,000 participants. First, we examine the extent to which GCB variables are predicted by Big Five traits. Then, we use meta-analytic criterion profile analysis (Wiernik et al., 2021) to determine how much of the prediction from personality is due to profile-level effects (elevation of traits) or profile-pattern effects (configuration of traits). Finding that configurations indicative of personality malfunction dominate prediction, finally, we cluster analyze similarity coefficients among personality profiles across GCB variables. We discover two metaclusters and four subordinate clusters. These clusters may represent archetypical forms of GCB, and their related profiles may reflect archetypical forms of personality malfunction. Clusters also strongly parallel the externalizing superspectrum of psychopathology, suggesting a potential general taxonomy of GCB. We conclude by discussing implications for theory and practice, as well as limitations and future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

The evolving workplace dynamics make it difficult for organizations to meet the customized learning needs of newcomers through standardized socialization programs. Consequently, attention has shifted toward leveraging newcomer proactivity as another pathway for facilitating newcomer learning. However, it remains unclear whether and when newcomer proactive personality can produce desired learning outcomes as organizational socialization tactics. We conducted a meta-analysis encompassing 85 independent samples (N = 24,293) to directly address this issue. Our findings indicate that proactive personality accounts for additional variance in newcomer learning outcomes beyond organizational socialization tactics. Importantly, the relative effectiveness of newcomer proactive personality compared to organizational socialization tactics is less salient among veteran (vs. neophyte) newcomers and in higher (vs. lower) individualistic cultures. Our findings also show that newcomer proactive behaviors serve as the crucial mechanism linking organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive personality to individual learning outcomes. Implications for how to facilitate newcomer learning are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Investigating early turnover among organizational newcomers, our study reveals how excessive communications with fellow newcomers during initial entry significantly increase departure risk. Through analyzing daily behavioral data of communications between 8,043 newcomers and nearly 20,000 existing employees in a high-tech firm, we demonstrate that when newcomers spend a disproportionate amount of their early communications with cohort newcomers rather than established employees, they face elevated turnover risk. By integrating first impression research with network theory, we show how these early communication patterns trigger self-reinforcing dynamics that shape newcomers' structural position within the organization. We introduce the concept of "core embeddedness" to explain how initial network choices affect turnover decisions, finding that the critical window for effective socialization is considerably shorter than previously understood-with the first 10 days being particularly decisive. Supplementary analyses reveal that interunit newcomer communications are especially problematic for core embeddedness and subsequent turnover. These insights challenge conventional assumptions about cohort-based socialization, demonstrating how seemingly supportive peer communications can paradoxically constrain organizational integration through homophily effects, with important implications for contemporary workforce retention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Employee referrals are commonly used by organizations due to their numerous benefits. However, it remains unclear how organizational incumbents, who are uninvolved in the hiring process, perceive and react to referral beneficiaries. Although traditional views suggest that the presence of a referral signals merit, incumbents' perceptions may differ. We theorize that incumbents are more likely to perceive referral beneficiaries as less merited than nonreferred employees due to perceived legitimacy concerns stemming from a simplified view that reliance on network contacts de facto compensates for lower qualifications. Drawing on equity theory, we then theorize that lower merit perceptions lead to less positive and more negative behaviors toward referral beneficiaries as an attempt to restore the equilibrium between beneficiaries' perceived inputs (e.g., driven by perceived lower merit) and outputs (e.g., being on payroll). Sampling employees from industries in which referrals are normative (Study 1a) and from a cultural context that is positively predisposed toward referrals (Study 1b) confirmed our theorizing. In a subsequent study, aiming to enhance the generalizability of our findings, we found supporting evidence for perceived equity violations, leading incumbents to engage in corrective behaviors toward referral beneficiaries (Study 2). Finally, testing our hypotheses more conservatively, we found that negative attributions toward referral beneficiaries persisted even when the referred employees had demonstrated high performance, thereby underscoring the robustness of our findings (Study 3). This article elucidates important unintended consequences of one of the most widely used recruitment methods-employee referrals-and draws implications for both theory and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Pay range transparency laws, which require employers to disclose salary ranges in job postings, have gained traction as a strategy for narrowing the gender pay gap by strengthening workers' access to pay information. However, these policies often give employers considerable latitude in setting how wide or narrow those ranges are, raising questions about whether certain implementations might inadvertently sustain-or even exacerbate-existing wage disparities. Our research addresses this issue by examining how the width of disclosed pay ranges influences women's and men's job application and negotiation behaviors and whether providing more clarity around typical salary outcomes can mitigate these unintended consequences. Across four studies-encompassing a large archival data set (Study 1), surveys and field experiments with prospective and actual job seekers (Studies 2 and 3), and an experimental intervention (Study 4)-we consistently find that women exhibit a stronger preference for jobs with narrower pay ranges than men, largely driven by women's higher risk aversion. Moreover, choosing narrower pay ranges is associated with less assertive negotiation behaviors, suggesting a path through which pay range disclosures may perpetuate gender gaps in compensation. By providing explicit information about the typical starting salary and the criteria used to determine final offers, we show that organizations can reduce these effects and support more equitable outcomes, offering practical insights for policymakers and employers aiming to ensure that pay transparency fulfills its aim of closing, rather than reinforcing, the gender wage gap. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Despite research on the workplace challenges of pregnancy, there has been notable inattention toward those struggling to become pregnant-women experiencing infertility (one of the most stressful and life-altering experiences women endure that affects around 13% of women of childbearing age). From the perspective of transactional stress theory, a coping response that addresses the cause of infertility (assisted reproductive technology treatment, ART) should reduce anxiety. However, for millions of working women coping with infertility via treatment, their anxiety persists, with consequences for occupational prestige and income. This divergence between scholarly consensus on coping and the lived experience reflects a puzzle with theoretical, practical, and societal implications. To reconcile this, we explain that the consensus is misaligned with the fundamental tenets of transactional stress theory. We posit that the cost of treatment creates a context whereby its efficacy for coping is hindered-a phenomenon called financial toxicity. We hypothesize that insurance may detoxify infertility treatment and reduce anxiety as predicted. Across two studies (an Australian longitudinal panel data set [N = 2,728] and a cross-sectional U.S. survey [N = 192]), we triangulate tests of our hypotheses and find support for our arguments. We discuss implications for transactional stress theory and illustrate how scholars can expand their conceptualization of coping to consider its potential toxicity. We further call attention to the critical societal and public policy implications of our findings, and we provide a roadmap with clear and actionable solutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Although research has identified the negative experiences and attitudes of individuals currently holding dirty jobs, it remains unclear whether holding these jobs relates to future career outcomes for individuals once they leave their dirty work roles. Drawing on the public and self-stigma model, we argue the outcomes of dirty work do not cease after employees exit dirty jobs but extend to predict future career success. We tested our hypotheses using a multidecade nationally representative longitudinal sample, a simulated hiring experiment, and a qualitative study of previous dirty workers. The results indicate individuals with career histories that included dirty work experience both public and self-stigma, which relates to lower income and prestige in future jobs as well as a higher likelihood and longer length of unemployment between jobs, compared to individuals with no previous dirty jobs. Moreover, the negative associations with individuals' future career outcomes were shown to be stronger with greater amounts of dirty work experience previously accumulated throughout their careers (i.e., the number of prior dirty jobs, total length of dirty work, dirtiness of jobs held). These findings suggest deleterious outcomes of holding dirty work remain even after employees leave those roles, shedding light on the enduring associations between stigmatized work experiences and individuals' future career success. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).