Fulfilling moral duty or prioritizing moral image? The moral self-regulatory consequences of ethical voice.

Previous research on the consequences of ethical voice has largely focused on the performance or social relational consequences of ethical voice on multiple organizational stakeholders. The present research provides an important extension to the ethical voice literature by investigating the distinct intrapersonal and interpersonal moral self-regulatory processes that shape ethical voicers' own psychological experiences and their subsequent purposeful efforts to maintain a positive sense of moral self. On one hand, we argue that ethical voice heightens voicers' sense of responsibility over ethical matters at work (i.e., moral ownership), which motivates them to refrain from violating moral norms (i.e., disengaging from unethical behaviors). On the contrary, we argue that ethical voice generates psychological pressure for voicers as they become anxious about preserving their moral social image (i.e., moral reputation maintenance concerns), which motivates them to signal their moral character to others through symbolic acts (i.e., engaging in moral symbolization behaviors). Further, we expect gender differences in the moral consequences of ethical voice. Across two studies that varied in temporal focus (a multisource, time-lagged field study and a within-person weekly experience sampling study), we found support for most of our predictions. The results suggest that while potentially psychologically uplifting (for both men and women), ethical voice also generates psychological pressure for the voicer to preserve their favorable moral social image and thus motivates them (more so in the case of women voicers at the between-person level) to explicitly symbolize their moral character in the workplace. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The Relationship Between Follower Affect for President Trump and the Adoption of COVID-19 Personal Protective Behaviors.

In the current series of studies, we draw upon implicit leadership theories, social learning theory, and research on decision making to investigate whether affect toward President Trump explains U.S. residents' evaluations of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis, as well as the likelihood that that residents engage in personal protective behaviors. A meta-analysis using 17 nationally representative datasets with a total of 26,876 participants indicated that participants who approve of President Trump tend to approve of his leadership regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and were less likely to engage in personal protective behavior (PPBs; i.e., hand washing, wearing a mask or other face covering in public, and social distancing). On the other hand, those disapproving of President Trump also tended to disapprove of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and were more likely to engage in PPBs. In a second study, using an established measure of leader affect (leader affect questionnaire) and controlling for political party, we replicated and extended these results by demonstrating that expending cognitive effort toward understanding the COVID-19 crisis attenuated the relationship between affect toward President Trump and (1) approval of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and (2) engagement in some, but not all, PPBs.

Assessing and interpreting interaction effects: A reply to Vancouver, Carlson, Dhanani, and Colton (2021).

Van Iddekinge et al. (2018)'s meta-analysis revealed that ability and motivation have mostly an additive rather than an interactive effect on performance. One of the methods they used to assess the ability × motivation interaction was moderated multiple regression (MMR). Vancouver et al. (2021) presented conceptual arguments that ability and motivation should interact to predict performance, as well as analytical and empirical arguments against the use of MMR to assess interaction effects. We describe problems with these arguments and show conceptually and empirically that MMR (and the ΔR and ΔR2 it yields) is an appropriate and effective method for assessing both the statistical significance and magnitude of interaction effects. Nevertheless, we also applied the alternative approach Vancouver et al. recommended to test for interactions to primary data sets (k = 69) from Van Iddekinge et al. These new results showed that the ability × motivation interaction was not significant in 90% of the analyses, which corroborated Van Iddekinge et al.'s original conclusion that the interaction rarely increments the prediction of performance beyond the additive effects of ability and motivation. In short, Van Iddekinge et al.'s conclusions remain unchanged and, given the conceptual and empirical problems we identified, we cannot endorse Vancouver et al.'s recommendation to change how researchers test interactions. We conclude by offering suggestions for how to assess and interpret interactions in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Portrait of a workplace deviant: A clearer picture of the Big Five and Dark Triad as predictors of workplace deviance.

Despite the large and growing number of studies on workplace deviance, the field currently lacks a complete understanding of who perpetrates this behavior. In one stream of research, scholars have examined the relationship between more "traditional" personality traits (i.e., the Big Five, which consists of conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, openness to experience, and extraversion) and workplace deviance. In an alternate stream, scholars have examined the relationship between workplace deviance and more malevolent personality traits (i.e., the Dark Triad, which consists of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). We synthesize these two perspectives using a meta-analytic approach to examine the incremental importance and relative importance of the Dark Triad beyond the Big Five for predicting workplace deviance. Our results supported our incremental importance hypothesis, as the Dark Triad predicted variance in both forms of workplace deviance beyond the Big Five. However, the results of the relative importance analyses were more nuanced, as agreeableness, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy were the most important predictors of interpersonal deviance, and conscientiousness, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy were the most important predictors of organizational deviance. Overall, our results make a contribution by explicating the relative effects of employee personality domains to paint a clearer picture of a workplace deviant. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

An exploration of the role of subordinate affect in leader evaluations.

Leadership research has been encumbered by a proliferation of constructs and measures, despite little evidence that each is sufficiently conceptually and operationally distinct from the others. We draw from research on subordinates' implicit theories of leader behavior, behaviorally anchored rating scales, and decision making to argue that leader affect (i.e., the degree to which subordinates have positive and negative feelings about their supervisors) underlies the common variance shared by many leadership measures. To explore this possibility, we developed and validated measures of positive and negative leader affect (i.e., the Leader Affect Questionnaires; LAQs). We conducted 10 studies to develop the five-item positive and negative LAQs and to examine their convergent, discriminant, predictive, and criterion-related validity. We conclude that a) the LAQs provide highly reliable and valid tools for assessing subordinates' evaluations of their leaders; b) there is significant overlap between existing leadership measures, and a large proportion of this overlap is a function of the affect captured by the LAQs; c) when the LAQs are used as control variables, in most cases, they reduce the strength of relationships between leadership measures and other variables; d) the LAQs account for significant variance in outcomes beyond that explained by other leadership measures; and e) there is a considerable amount of unexplained variance between leadership measures that the LAQs do not capture. Research suggestions are provided and the implications of our results are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record