Research-Problem Validity in Primary Research: Precision and Transparency in Characterizing Past Knowledge.

Four validity types evaluate the approximate truth of inferences communicated by primary research. However, current validity frameworks ignore the truthfulness of empirical inferences that are central to research-problem statements. Problem statements contrast a review of past research with other knowledge that extends, contradicts, or calls into question specific features of past research. Authors communicate empirical inferences, or quantitative judgments, about the frequency (e.g., "few," "most") and variability (e.g., "on the one hand," "on the other hand") in their reviews of existing theories, measures, samples, or results. We code a random sample of primary research articles and show that 83% of quantitative judgments in our sample are vague and do not have a transparent origin, making it difficult to assess their validity. We review validity threats of current practices. We propose that documenting the literature search, reporting how the search was coded, and quantifying the search results facilitates more precise judgments and makes their origin transparent. This practice enables research questions that are more closely tied to the existing body of knowledge and allows for more informed evaluations of the contribution of primary research articles, their design choices, and how they advance knowledge. We discuss potential limitations of our proposed framework.

Professions, honesty, and income.

Professional choices influence valued outcomes such as income, life satisfaction, and social status. However, public opinion polls consistently illustrate that an individual's profession also influences how honest one is perceived to be, and people are motivated to see themselves as honest for many reasons. Why would people choose professions that do not confer them with the benefits of honesty? Survey data reveals honesty perceptions to positively correlate with a profession's conferred prestige (i.e., perceived value to society) and negatively correlate with a profession's annual income. The tradeoff between income and honesty perceptions suggests a wage differential mechanism-employees may maintain a positive self-concept through increased income which compensates for costs incurred by working in a profession characterized by low honesty.

Datasets from a research project examining the role of politics in social psychological research.

We present four datasets from a project examining the role of politics in social psychological research. These include thousands of independent raters who coded scientific abstracts for political relevance and for whether conservatives or liberals were treated as targets of explanation and characterized in a negative light. Further included are predictions about the empirical results by scientists participating in a forecasting survey, and coded publication outcomes for unpublished research projects varying in political overtones. Future researchers can leverage this corpus to test further hypotheses regarding political values and scientific research, perceptions of political bias, publication histories, and forecasting accuracy.

Resource scarcity, effort, and performance in physically demanding jobs: An evolutionary explanation.

Based on evolutionary theory, we predicted that cues of resource scarcity in the environment (e.g., news of droughts or food shortages) lead people to reduce their effort and performance in physically demanding work. We tested this prediction in a 2-wave field survey among employees and replicated it experimentally in the lab. In Study 1, employees who perceived resources in the environment to be scarce reported exerting less effort when their jobs involved much (but not little) physical work. In Study 2, participants who read that resources in the environment were scarce performed worse on a task demanding more (carrying books) but not less (transcribing book titles) physical work. This result was found even though better performance increased participants' chances of additional remuneration, and even though scarcity cues did not affect individuals' actual ability to meet their energy needs. We discuss implications for managing effort and performance, and the potential of evolutionary psychology to explain core organizational phenomena. (PsycINFO Database Record

Perceived entitlement causes discrimination against attractive job candidates in the domain of relatively less desirable jobs.

People generally hold positive stereotypes of physically attractive people and because of those stereotypes often treat them more favorably. However, we propose that some beliefs about attractive people, specifically, the perception that attractive individuals have a greater sense of entitlement than less attractive individuals, can result in negative treatment of attractive people. We examine this in the context of job selection and propose that for relatively less desirable jobs, attractive candidates will be discriminated against. We argue that the ascribed sense of entitlement to good outcomes leads to perceptions that attractive individuals are more likely to be dissatisfied working in relatively less desirable jobs. When selecting candidates for relatively less desirable jobs, decision makers try to ascertain whether a candidate would be satisfied in those jobs, and the stereotype of attractive individuals feeling entitled to good outcomes makes decision makers judge attractive candidates as more likely to be dissatisfied in relatively less (but not more) desirable jobs. Consequently, attractive candidates are discriminated against in the selection for relatively less desirable jobs. Four experiments found support for this theory. Our results suggest that different discriminatory processes operate when decision makers select among candidates for relatively less desirable jobs and that attractive people might be systematically discriminated against in a segment of the workforce. (PsycINFO Database Record

Unethical for the sake of the group: risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior.

This research tested the idea that the risk of exclusion from one's group motivates group members to engage in unethical behaviors that secure better outcomes for the group (pro-group unethical behaviors). We theorized that this effect occurs because those at risk of exclusion seek to improve their inclusionary status by engaging in unethical behaviors that benefit the group; we tested this assumption by examining how the effect of exclusion risk on pro-group unethical behavior varies as a function of group members' need for inclusion. A 2-wave field study conducted among a diverse sample of employees working in groups (Study 1) and a constructive replication using a laboratory experiment (Study 2) provided converging evidence for the theory. Study 1 found that perceived risk of exclusion from one's workgroup predicted employees' engagement in pro-group unethical behaviors, but only when employees have a high (not low) need for inclusion. In Study 2, compared to low risk of exclusion from a group, high risk of exclusion led to more pro-group (but not pro-self) unethical behaviors, but only for participants with a high (not low) need for inclusion. We discuss implications for theory and the management of unethical behaviors in organizations.

A lack of material resources causes harsher moral judgments.

In the research presented here, we tested the idea that a lack of material resources (e.g., low income) causes people to make harsher moral judgments because a lack of material resources is associated with a lower ability to cope with the effects of others' harmful behavior. Consistent with this idea, results from a large cross-cultural survey (Study 1) showed that both a chronic (due to low income) and a situational (due to inflation) lack of material resources were associated with harsher moral judgments. The effect of inflation was stronger for low-income individuals, whom inflation renders relatively more vulnerable. In a follow-up experiment (Study 2), we manipulated whether participants perceived themselves as lacking material resources by employing different anchors on the scale they used to report their income. The manipulation led participants in the material-resources-lacking condition to make harsher judgments of harmful, but not of nonharmful, transgressions, and this effect was explained by a sense of vulnerability. Alternative explanations were excluded. These results demonstrate a functional and contextually situated nature of moral psychology.

Masters of the universe: how power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard.

This article provides an answer to the question of why agents make self-serving decisions under moral hazard and how their self-serving decisions can be kept in check through institutional arrangements. Our theoretical model predicts that the agents' power and the manner in which they are held accountable jointly determine their propensity to make self-serving decisions. We test our theory in the context of financial investment decisions made under moral hazard using others' funds. Across 3 studies, using different decision-making tasks, different manipulations of power and accountability, and different samples, we show that agents' power makes them more likely to behave in a self-serving manner under moral hazard, but only when the appropriate accountability mechanisms are not in place. Specifically, we distinguish between outcome and procedural accountability and show that holding agents accountable for their decision-making procedure reduces the level of self-serving decisions under moral hazard and also curbs the negative consequences of power. Implications for decisions under moral hazard, the psychology of power, and the accountability literature are discussed.

Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice.

Two competing explanations for deviant employee responses to supervisor abuse are tested. A self-gain view is compared with a self-regulation impairment view. The self-gain view suggests that distributive justice (DJ) will weaken the abusive supervision-employee deviance relationship, as perceptions of fair rewards offset costs of abuse. Conversely, the self-regulation impairment view suggests that DJ will strengthen the relationship, as experiencing abuse drains self-resources needed to maintain appropriate behavior, and this effect intensifies when employees receive inconsistent information about their organizational membership (fair outcomes). Three field studies using different samples, measures, and designs support the self-regulation impairment view. Two studies found that the Abusive Supervision × DJ interaction was mediated by self-regulation impairment variables (ego depletion and intrusive thoughts). Implications for theory and research are discussed.

Workplace victimization: aggression from the target's perspective.

This article reviews research on workplace victimization, which we define as acts of aggression perpetrated by one or more members of an organization that cause psychological, emotional, or physical harm to their intended target. We compare several types of victimizing behaviors that have been introduced into the organizational psychology literature to illustrate differences and similarities among them. We then review studies looking at who is likely to become a victim of aggression. Predictors include personality, demographic, behavioral, structural, and organizational variables. We also review research on coping strategies for victimization, which include problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. We conclude with a summary of challenges for victimization research. These include addressing the proliferation of constructs and terms into the literature, attempting to clarify inconclusive findings, and using theory to guide the selection of study variables.

Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: the relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors.

This multisource field study applied belongingness theory to examine whether thwarted belonging, defined as the perceived discrepancy between one's desired and actual levels of belonging with respect to one's coworkers, predicts interpersonal work behaviors that are self-defeating. Controlling for demographic variables, job type, justice constructs, and trust in organization in a multilevel regression analysis using data from 130 employees of a clinical chemical laboratory and their supervisors, the authors found that employees who perceive greater levels of desired coworker belonging than actual levels of coworker belonging were more likely to engage in interpersonally harmful and less likely to engage in interpersonally helpful behaviors. Implications for the application of belongingness theory to explain self-defeating behaviors in organizations are discussed.

An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: the relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors.

A multisource field study of 103 employees and their supervisors tested an extension of uncertainty management theory (E. A. Lind & K. Van den Bos, 2002; K. Van den Bos & E. A. Lind, 2002). According to this theory, persons high in social comparison orientation (F. X. Gibbons & B. P. Buunk, 1999) experience chronic uncertainty about the self. It was hypothesized that this should strengthen the effects of interactional and procedural justice perceptions on antisocial work behaviors. As predicted, the negative relationship between employee perceptions of interactional justice and supervisory ratings of antisocial work behaviors was stronger for people who are high as compared with low in social comparison orientation. Results provide evidence for an extension of uncertainty management theory to the self-domain.