Journal of Applied Psychology最新文献

As organizations continue to supplement and replace human management with artificial intelligence (AI), it is essential that we understand the factors that influence employees' trust in AI management. Across one preregistered field study, where we survey 400 delivery riders in Mainland China, and three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,350), we find that AI management is perceived as less benevolent than human management. Given that benevolence is an important antecedent of trust in leaders, this perception has a negative effect on trust in AI management, even when controlling for perceived ability and integrity. Employees prefer human management to AI management in high empathy demand contexts, where individuals seek management that can empathize and experience the emotions that they are feeling, as opposed to low empathy demand contexts. These findings deepen our understanding of trust and provide important theoretical and practical insights on the implementation and adoption of AI management. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

To investigate research questions surrounding workplace deviance, scholars have primarily applied variable-centered approaches, such as overall deviance measures or those that separate interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance. These approaches, however, ignore that individuals might employ more complex combinations of deviance behaviors that do not fit neatly within the existing variable frameworks. The present study explores whether person-centered deviance classes emerge in a comprehensive database of the prior studies. We then investigated whether these classes showed differences in antecedents and correlates in an independent sample of working adults from multiple industries. In Study 1, a multilevel latent class analysis of 20 independent samples and 6,218 individuals revealed five classes of workplace deviance, thus providing preliminary support for a person-centered approach. In Study 2, a time-lagged sample of 553 individuals showed the emergence of five classes that largely reflected the patterns found in Study 1. Study 2 points to meaningful differences between classes of deviance behaviors and antecedents, including abusive supervision, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and psychological entitlement; classes are also uniquely associated with correlates such as organizational citizenship behaviors, turnover intentions, job performance, and job satisfaction. Altogether, this work is an important first step toward understanding workplace deviance with a person-centered lens. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Social exchange- and social identity-based mechanisms have been commonly juxtaposed as two pivotal proxies of the relational approach for studying organizational justice. Despite their distinct theoretical roots, less is known about whether and how these two proximal mechanisms complement one another in accounting for justice effects on key outcomes. Tracing back to their disparate fundamental premises-"reciprocity" underpinning social exchanges and "oneness" underpinning identity construction-we attempt to disentangle the relative mediating effects of these two mechanisms. Our empirical testing hinges on one meta-analytic study with 105 independent samples (N = 29,868), coupled with one preregistered experience-sampling study with 1,941 cross-day observations over 3 weeks from 147 subordinate-supervisor pairs. Overall, we find that exchange-based mechanisms account for more of the indirect effect of justice on task performance, whereas identity-based mechanisms (particularly interdependent identity) account for more of the indirect effect of justice on counterproductive work behavior. Regarding the indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior, identity-based mechanisms (particularly positive self-evaluations) and exchange-based mechanisms respectively present great utility between the two studies. By providing nuanced insight into the complementary yet distinct nature of these two prominent mechanisms, our research encourages a more granular theoretical approach for studying organizational justice effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Lack of trust is a key barrier to collaboration in organizations and is exacerbated in contexts when employees subscribe to different ideological beliefs. Across five preregistered experiments, we find that people judge ideological opponents as more trustworthy when opposing opinions are expressed through a self-revealing personal narrative than through either data or stories about third parties-even when the content of the messages is carefully controlled to be consistent. Trust does not suffer when explanations grounded in self-revealing personal narratives are augmented with data, suggesting that our results are not driven by quantitative aversion. Perceptions of trustworthiness are mediated by the speaker's apparent vulnerability and are greater when the self-revelation is of a more sensitive nature. Consequently, people are more willing to collaborate with ideological opponents who support their views by embedding data in a self-revealing personal narrative, rather than relying on data-only explanations. We discuss the implications of these results for future research on trust as well as for organizational practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Coping is a dynamic response to stressors that employees encounter in their work and nonwork roles. Scholars have argued that it is not just whether employees cope with work-nonwork stressors-but how they cope-that matters. Indeed, prior research assumes that adaptive coping strategies-planning, prioritizing, positive reframing, seeking emotional and instrumental support-are universally beneficial, suggesting that sustaining high levels of these strategies is ideal. By returning to the roots of coping theory, we adopt a person-centered, dynamic approach using latent profile analysis and latent transition analysis across three multiwave studies (N = 1,370) to consider whether employees combine coping strategies and how remaining in or shifting between such combinations also matters. In a pilot study (N = 361), we explored profiles and their transitions during a time frame punctuated with macrolevel transitions that amplified employees' work-nonwork stressors (i.e., COVID-19), which revealed three profiles at Time 1 (comprehensive copers, emotion-focused copers, and individualistic copers) and a fourth profile at Time 2 (surviving copers). In Study 1 (N = 648), across all three time points, we replicated three profiles and found evidence for constrained copers instead of emotion-focused copers. In Study 2 (N = 361), across both time points, we replicated all four profiles from Study 1 and tested hypotheses regarding the profiles, their transition patterns, and implications of such patterns for work, well-being, and social functioning outcomes. Altogether, our work suggests that maintaining high-coping depth or increasing depth is generally beneficial, whereas maintaining or increasing coping breadth is generally harmful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The ambiguous credibility of online allegations can pose a significant threat to an organization's reputation, relationships with stakeholders, and future performance. As a result, addressing false or misleading allegations has emerged as an important priority among corporate executives. In this research, we examine how CEO gender influences the effectiveness of different types of denial responses in the wake of rumor crises. We find that, after reading damaging allegations about an organization, consumers react more favorably to denials issued by male versus female CEOs. We argue that this is attributable to the dominance that characterizes denial responses, which results in a greater (negative) expectancy violation for female (vs. male) CEOs issuing such statements. Such violations result in lower trust in, and less willingness to do business with, organizations led by women (vs. men) who issue a denial response. We show that these relationships are moderated by increased prescriptive agency (i.e., clarified denials) and the attribution of the response (i.e., to the CEO vs. organization). Taken together, our findings have implications for theory on agentic characteristics, crisis communication, and female leadership, as well as practical implications for how all organizations can adopt more effective crisis responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Organizations, researchers, and software increasingly use automatic speech recognition (ASR) to transcribe speech to text. However, ASR can be less accurate for (i.e., biased against) certain demographic subgroups. This is concerning, given that the machine-learning (ML) models used to automatically score video interviews use ASR transcriptions of interviewee responses as inputs. To address these concerns, we investigate the extent of ASR bias and its effects in automatically scored interviews. Specifically, we compare the accuracy of ASR transcription for English as a second language (ESL) versus non-ESL interviewees, people of color (and Black interviewees separately) versus White interviewees, and male versus female interviewees. Then, we test whether ASR bias causes bias in ML model scores-both in terms of differential convergent correlations (i.e., subgroup differences in correlations between observed and ML scores) and differential means (i.e., shifts in subgroup differences from observed to ML scores). To do so, we apply one human and four ASR transcription methods to two samples of mock video interviews (Ns = 1,014 and 414), and then we train and test models using these different transcripts to score multiple constructs. We observed significant bias in the commercial ASR services across nearly all comparisons, with the magnitude of bias differing across the ASR services. However, the transcription bias did not translate into meaningful measurement bias for the ML interview scores-whether in terms of differential convergent correlations or means. We discuss what these results mean for the nature of bias, fairness, and validity of ML models for scoring verbal open-ended responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

There is long-standing debate over whether pay-for-performance (PFP) enhances or undermines creative performance. Traditional motivation and revised creativity theories suggest that PFP and intrinsic task interest combine additively to enhance creative performance, whereas cognitive evaluation theory and self-determination theory posit that PFP undermines task interest and thus intrinsic motivation and creative performance. To help resolve these conflicting predictions and provide a more comprehensive understanding of how and when PFP influences creative performance, this study incorporates both the incentive and sorting mechanisms of PFP, varying strengths of PFP, and task autonomy as a key moderator. A novel laboratory experiment was designed to capture key elements of workplace contexts, including in the design of the creative tasks, PFP strengths based on benchmarking of U.S. companies' practices, and allowing subjects to sort into different pay conditions, consistent with the opportunity for mobility in the labor market. The results showed that, through both incentive and sorting mechanisms, high PFP intensity enhanced creative performance more so than low PFP intensity, and both were superior to fixed pay. Importantly, task autonomy positively moderated the PFP-creative performance relationship, such that creative performance under PFP increased much more under higher task autonomy. Finally, the difference in creative performance under PFP versus fixed pay was greater when subjects were allowed to sort into their preferred pay conditions than when they worked only under randomly assigned pay conditions. Theoretical and practical implications and future research directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Drawing on uncertainty management theory and the nascent work on justice variability, we examine employees' direct and vicarious experiences of abusive supervision and ethical leadership. Conceptualizing the simultaneous display of abusive and ethical leadership styles as a form of justice variability, we suggest that a direct supervisor's ethical leadership exacerbates, rather than ameliorates, the detrimental effects of his/her abusive supervision on employees' emotional exhaustion and job performance. We further contend that a similar effect exists when employees vicariously experience leadership interactions involving their direct supervisor and higher level manager, whereby higher level managers' ethical leadership exacerbates the negative effects of their abusive supervision toward supervisors on those supervisors' employees' emotional exhaustion and job performance. We draw the contrast between the direct and vicarious experiences by theorizing justice uncertainty and linking-pin effectiveness uncertainty, respectively, as two distinct theoretical mechanisms that explain the two proposed destructive effects. Using a multisource and multiphase lagged field study and two vignette-based experiments, we find general support for our model. Our research advances the theories of justice variability, vicarious leadership and (in)justice, and supervisors' linking-pin role effectiveness. We also offer practical insights for managing "Jekyll and Hyde" leadership across organizational hierarchies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The dramatic rise in political polarization and aggravation of race relations are prominent in the United States. While dissimilarity to others is thought to undermine trust, I challenge the assumption that dissimilarity does so uniformly in the workplace where cross-party and cross-race interactions are structurally induced. Leveraging construal-level theory, I theorize that deep- versus surface-level differences with a coworker interact with ideology to activate higher versus lower construals of trustworthiness, prompting liberals and conservatives to distrust their coworkers in different ways. For liberals, I argue that perceived political dissimilarity undermines perceived person trustworthiness (a higher level/abstract construal, capturing one's trustworthiness generally as a person in the world) and disclosure. For conservatives, I argue that perceived racial dissimilarity undermines perceived role trustworthiness (a lower level/concrete construal, capturing one's trustworthiness specifically in their job) and reliance. Study 1 (a proof of concept) and Study 2 (a longitudinal, dyadic field study) utilize inductive theory-building and exploratory analyses. Studies 3a, 3b(i), and 3b(ii) (three preregistered experiments) support my hypotheses: Liberals tend to view politically dissimilar coworkers as less trustworthy people in the world and refrain from disclosures, while conservatives tend to view racial outgroup coworkers as less trustworthy in their jobs and refrain from reliance. Given liberal and conservative employees' roles in the calcification of political and racial group cleavages, respectively, organizations must determine whether both forms of bias should be addressed-indeed, racial bias is socially unacceptable, whereas political bias is widely tolerated-and, if so, whether interventions should target employees based on ideology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).