Journal of Applied Psychology最新文献

Decades of negotiations research has emphasized the importance of having alternatives. Negotiators with high-value outside offers tend to have greater power and claim higher values in the focal negotiation. We extend this line of work by proposing that the source of alternatives-that is, who negotiators receive an alternative offer from-can significantly shape their negotiation behavior and outcomes. Specifically, we examine how negotiators' behavior changes when they face a counterpart who has an offer from their rival. Four studies demonstrate that this situation enhances negotiators' motivation to outperform their counterpart's alternative by reaching an agreement with the counterpart. This in turn leads the focal negotiator to make less aspirational first offers and eventually claim less value in final agreements. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the existing relationships among actors directly and indirectly involved in a negotiation, reveal a novel motive that can guide negotiators' behavior and outcomes, and uncover a previously unexplored negotiation strategy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The purpose of this research is to demonstrate how using natural language processing (NLP) on narrative application data can improve prediction and reduce racial subgroup differences in scores used for selection decisions compared to mental ability test scores and numeric application data. We posit there is uncaptured and job-related constructs that can be gleaned from applicant text data using NLP. We test our hypotheses in an operational context across four samples (total N = 1,828) to predict selection into Officer Training School in the U.S. Air Force. Boards of three senior officers make selection decisions using a highly structured rating process based on mental ability tests, numeric application information (e.g., number of past jobs, college grades), and narrative application information (e.g., past job duties, achievements, interests, statements of objectives). Results showed that NLP scores of the narrative application generally (a) predict Board scores when combined with test scores and numeric application information at a level of correlation equivalent to the correlation between human raters (.60), (b) add incremental prediction of Board scores beyond mental ability tests and numeric application information, and (c) reduce subgroup differences between racial minorities and nonracial minorities in Board scores compared to mental ability tests and numeric application information. Moreover, NLP scores predict (a) job (training) performance, (b) job (training) performance beyond mental ability tests and numeric application information, and (c) even job (training) performance beyond Board scores. Scoring of narrative application data using NLP shows promise in addressing the validity-adverse impact dilemma in selection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Decades of research in industrial-organizational psychology have established that measures of general cognitive ability (g) consistently and positively predict job-specific performance to a statistically and practically significant degree across jobs. But is the validity of g stable across different levels of job experience? The present study addresses this question using historical large-scale data across 31 diverse military occupations from the Joint-Service Job Performance Measurement/Enlistment Standards Project (N = 10,088). Across all jobs, results of our meta-analysis find near-zero interactions between Armed Forces Qualification Test score (a composite of math and verbal scores) and time in service when predicting job-specific performance. This finding supports the validity of g for predicting job-specific performance even with increasing job experience and provides no evidence for diminishing validity of g. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, along with directions for personnel selection research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Negative work behavior (NWB) occurs with concerning frequency in virtual work environments. Despite their prevalence and a substantial, multidisciplinary research literature on virtual negative behaviors in general, we lack clear answers regarding if, how, and why conditions differentiating virtual (i.e., computer-mediated) from face-to-face (F2F) work impact perpetrators', victims', and bystanders' involvement in NWB. These questions remain because of an assumed isomorphism (i.e., identical form) within the literature on NWB in F2F and virtual work. We explain why we cannot assume that what is known about perpetrator engagement, victim experience, and bystander intervention from studying F2F NWB applies uniformly to virtual negative work behavior (VNWB). Specifically, we identify how eight conditions of the virtual workplace facilitate three psychological enablers (i.e., ambiguity, anonymity, and (un)accountability) of perpetrators', victims', and bystanders' involvement in VNWB. In doing so, this integrative conceptual review advances a coherent understanding of what is (un)known about VNWB, integrates fragmented theoretical literature, and guides practical intervention. Importantly, we identify limitations of existing research practices that threaten the validity and generalizability of empirical findings. If not addressed, these issues will continue to undermine theoretical development and empirical investigations of F2F NWB and VNWB. Finally, this review points to new areas of inquiry that will meaningfully advance the understanding of NWB in the modern, increasingly virtual workplace. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Despite decades of research, there is little empirical or theoretical consensus around how job insecurity shapes job performance. This article introduces an ecumenical, dynamic, and computational model of the job insecurity-job performance relationship. That is, rather than representing a single theoretical perspective on job insecurity effects, the model includes three key mechanisms through which job insecurity is theorized to impact performance-stress, social exchange, and job preservation motivation-and grounds these in a self-regulatory computational architecture. The model incorporates multiple, dynamic feedback loops that include job performance and job insecurity, as well as individual difference and contextual constructs to project the immediate, short-term, and long-term effects of changes to job security and other important variables. Simulations of the model demonstrate that a self-regulating representation of human information processing can produce effects consistent with the major propositions in the job insecurity literature. Moreover, interrupted time-series simulations of a new job insecurity threat reveal how, when, and why performance can stabilize above, near, or below baseline performance levels, sometimes for counterintuitive reasons. Additionally, the model shows how the frequently reported, cross-sectional, negative relationship between job insecurity and job performance can be explained by job performance's influence on job insecurity. The results imply important considerations and directions for future job insecurity research and demonstrate the value of a formal, dynamic systems approach to theorizing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Previous research on the psychological effect of job change has revealed a honeymoon-hangover pattern during the turnover process. However, there is a dearth of evidence on how individuals react and adapt to multiple job changes over their working lives. This study distinguishes adaptation to a single job change in the short term from adaptation to the process of job change in the long term. Drawing on two large-scale, long-running panel data sets from Britain and Australia, it examined how job satisfaction trajectory evolved as individuals made a series of consecutive job changes since they first entered the labor market. Our fixed effect analyses show that in both countries, individuals experienced a stronger honeymoon effect with each successive job change, before gradually reverting to their baseline job satisfaction. In short, the amplitude of the honeymoon-hangover effect increased across multiple job changes. By distinguishing "adaptation to change" from "change in adaptation," this study generates original insights into the role of job mobility in facilitating career development and extends set point theory from understanding the impact of single life events to recurring life events. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Although most studies have shown that newcomers benefit from proactive behaviors, these behaviors are not always viewed positively by colleagues, resulting in negative consequences for newcomers. Drawing on uncertainty reduction and social cognitive theories, we contend that newcomer proactive behaviors are viewed positively by competent leaders and peers but negatively by those with low competence. Further, we argue that newcomer proactive behaviors impact leader and peer threat perceptions, affecting subsequent workplace relationships, which in turn influence newcomer voluntary turnover. We empirically test our hypotheses in a three-time multisource study, utilizing a sample of 377 newcomers, 132 leaders, and 721 peers. Supporting our hypotheses, when leaders and peers are less competent, newcomer proactive behaviors, through impacting leader and peer threat perceptions, result in lower quality relationships with leaders and peers. These cascading effects positively correlate with newcomer voluntary turnover. Conversely, opposite effects arise for more competent leaders and peers. Implications of how newcomer proactive behaviors impact workplace relationships and turnover are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Air pollution has become a global public health hazard leading to debilitating effects on physical, mental, and emotional health. Management research has just begun to explore the effects of air pollution on employees' work life. Drawing from the transactional theory of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and crossover theory (Westman, 2001), we argue that appraisal of air pollution is an important factor that influences leaders and their behavior with subordinates. Specifically, we propose that when leaders appraise severe air pollution, they are more likely to behave abusively toward their subordinates and engage in laissez-faire leadership. We also propose that this relationship is mediated by leaders' experience of somatic complaints and negative affect. We test our model using an experience sampling study in India of leaders and followers who were located in different cities from each other. Overall, our results highlight how air pollution appraisals can harm not only the leader experiencing the pollution but also subordinates of those leaders. In other words, our counterintuitive finding is that subordinates may be harmed by air pollution to which they are not even directly exposed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Organizations commonly face the task of allocating workers to mutually exclusive teams from finite worker pools-a process called seeding. The approach an organization takes to seeding affects within-team and between-team distributions of performance or other outcomes. Substantial prior research explains the effects of combinations on team performance, but little is known about between-team combinations. I extend prior theory to a higher level of analysis, elaborating on the nature and function of between-team combinations on organization-level performance. I use a simulation method to identify seeding approaches that can maximize organizational outcomes in various contexts. Results uncover conditions under which the seeding approach is irrelevant to outcomes, instances where random assignment outperforms intentional seeding, and instances where particular approaches produce the most favorable outcomes. I discuss the implications of multilevel combinations for theory and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Scholars have long recognized that employees often ebb and flow in how engaged they are in their jobs-what we term "engagement variability." Yet, to date, we have little insight into how an employee's engagement variability-that is, the degree of inconsistency in their engagement-affects job performance. Drawing on and extending habit theory, we hypothesize that, controlling for average engagement, engagement variability is negatively related to job performance. We further hypothesize that emotional stability moderates this relationship: Although engagement variability hinders performance when an employee is higher in emotional stability, this effect weakens when an employee is lower in emotional stability. Finally, we hypothesize that flow mediates the interactive effect of engagement variability and emotional stability on performance. We test our hypotheses across three studies: a multisource, ten-wave field study of 160 cadets across three Army and Air Force divisions of the Reserve Officer Training Corps, an experiment with 600 full-time employees, and a multisource, two-week experience sampling study with 152 full-time employees and their supervisors. We find consistent support for engagement variability's negative relationship with performance and the moderating role of emotional stability, but mixed support for the mediating role of flow. We conclude by discussing the implications of our work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).