Avoidant authority: The effect of organizational power on decision-making in high-uncertainty situations.

Individuals in positions of power are often required to make high-stakes decisions. The approach-inhibition theory of social power holds that elevated power activates approach-related tendencies, leading to decisiveness and action orientation. However, naturalistic decision-making research has often reported that increased power often has the opposite effect and causes more avoidant decision-making. To investigate the potential activation of avoidance-related tendencies in response to elevated power, this study employed an immersive scenario-based battery of least-worst decisions (the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responses; LUCIFER) with members of the United States Armed Forces. In line with previous naturalistic decision-making research on the effect of power, this research found that in conditions of higher power, individuals found decisions more difficult and were more likely to make an avoidant choice. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced in domain-specific decisions for which the individual had experience. These findings expand our understanding of when, and in what contexts, power leads to approach vs. avoidant tendencies, as well as demonstrate the benefits of bridging methodological divides that exist between "in the lab" and "in the field" when studying high-uncertainty decision-making.

The science of teams in the military: Contributions from over 60 years of research.

Teams are the foundational building blocks of the military, which uses a hierarchical structure built on and around teams to form larger units. Consequently, team effectiveness has been a substantial focus of research within the military for decades to ensure military teams have the human capabilities to complete their missions and address future challenges successfully. This research has contributed greatly to broader team theory and informed the development of evidence-based interventions. Team-focused research supported or executed by the military has yielded major insights into the nature of team performance, advanced the methods for measuring and improving team performance, and broken new ground in understanding the assembly of effective teams. Furthermore, military research has made major contributions to advancing methodological and statistical techniques for studying teams. We highlight the military contributions to the broader team literature and conclude with a discussion of critical areas of future research on teams and enduring challenges for both the military and team science as a whole. (PsycINFO Database Record

Assessing the Utility of Compound Trait Estimates of Narrow Personality Traits.

It has been argued that approximations of narrow traits can be made through linear combinations of broad traits such as the Big Five personality traits. Indeed, Hough and Ones ( 2001 ) used a qualitative analysis of scale content to arrive at a taxonomy of how Big Five traits might be combined to approximate various narrow traits. However, the utility of such compound trait approximations has yet to be established beyond specific cases such as integrity and customer service orientation. Using data from the Eugene-Springfield Community Sample (Goldberg, 2008 ), we explore the ability of linear composites of scores on Big Five traits to approximate scores on 127 narrow trait measures from 5 well-known non-Big-Five omnibus measures of personality. Our findings indicate that individuals' standing on more than 30 narrow traits can be well estimated from 3 different types of linear composites of scores on Big Five traits without a substantial sacrifice in criterion validity. We discuss theoretical accounts for why such relationships exist as well as the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for researchers and practitioners.