Hidden consequences of political discourse at work: How and why ambient political conversations impact employee outcomes.

Discussions of politics have become increasingly common in the workplace, likely due to increasing political polarization around the world. Because of this, political conversations have the potential to be emotionally charged and disruptive, creating tension in the workplace and negatively affecting employee productivity and well-being. In light of this possibility, the goal of the current investigation was to examine the costs of ambient political conversations in the workplace, assuming that simply overhearing such discussions-without being a participant in them-may have unintended consequences for employees. Across three studies, our findings indicated that employees experience negative affect after overhearing political conversations at work, with these effects being attenuated (amplified) in contexts where employees perceive that their coworkers are more (less) similar to them. In addition to unpacking the mechanisms through which ambient workplace political conversations might impact employee outcomes, our findings from Studies 3A-B provide evidence that under certain circumstances (i.e., when employees agree with the content of ambient workplace political conversations), employees may experience a boost in positive affect after overhearing such conversations at work. Altogether, our findings provide insight into the costs and potential benefits associated with overhearing coworkers discussing politics in the workplace, particularly for those employees who perceive themselves to be dissimilar from their coworkers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Doxing, political affiliation, and type of information: Effects on suspicion, perceived similarity, and hiring-related judgments.

Researchers have begun to focus on the influence of political affiliation in organizations. In this context, we investigated how doxing (i.e., using social media to post information online with malintent) influences hiring-related decisions. Based on the integration of a political affiliation and state suspicion model, we investigated how a dox containing different types of information (affirming a political party affiliation vs. providing derogatory/negative information about an opposing party) and political party affiliation similarity influenced hiring-related perceptions of job applicants. Given doxing's characteristics, we expanded the "decision space" to include effects about expected organizational image and expected retaliation. In Study 1, we found that the type of information and party similarity influenced suspicion of the applicant and perceived similarity with the applicant, whereas doxing only influenced suspicion. In turn, suspicion and perceived similarity predicted expected task performance and organizational image, and exploratory analyses suggested an interactive effect of these variables. Suspicion also predicted expected retaliation from individuals outside the organization. In Study 2, we confirmed that doxing was related to suspicion as well as the interactive effect of information type and party similarity. We explain that interaction using the notion of symbolic threat. In both studies, the effects of type of information and party similarity were pervasive. Our results support the similarity-attraction paradigm and a model of political affiliation. Expanding relevant theories to include suspicion helps better understand politically related judgments and the additional outcomes of expected organizational image and retaliation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Revisiting Sackett et al.'s (2022) rationale behind their recommendation against correcting for range restriction in concurrent validation studies.

Sackett et al. (2022) recommend against correcting for range restriction (RR) in concurrent validation studies. The main rationale behind their recommendation is that unless "rzx" (an unrestricted true-score correlation between the third variable Z where actual selection occurred in a top-down manner [a.k.a., suitability] and the predictor of interest, X) is as high as .90 and selection ratios are as low as .30-both unlikely events in their view, the degree of RR (ux) in concurrent validation studies is unlikely to be low enough (i.e., lower than .90) to warrant RR correction. That is, (a) the "rzx" ≥ .90 and (b) the selection ratio ≤ .30 are two critical conditions for the third condition, (c) ux ≤ .90, a need for RR correction. In this study, we revisit each of these conditions that constitute the rationale behind their recommendation: (a) whether "rzx" is unlikely to be as high as .90; (b) whether selection ratios of .30 or lower are "extreme"; and (c) whether the degree of RR is "little to no" (i.e., ux ≥ .90) in concurrent validation studies, thus no need for correcting for RR in concurrent validation studies. First, our reanalysis of their Table 1 indicates that it is not implausible that "rzx" is as high as .90. Second, several studies report that selection ratios of .30 or lower are not extreme. Finally, our reanalysis of their Table 5 indicates that Sackett et al. substantially underestimate the severity of RR and its biasing effect on operational validity in concurrent validation studies due to their use of a particular RR correction method (Case IV). We believe these findings suggest that there is not sufficient support for the rationale behind Sackett et al.'s recommendation and, thus, their recommendation itself should be reconsidered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Organizational political affiliation and job seekers: If I don't identify with your party, am I still attracted?

Political divisions appear to be relatively frequent in today's world. Indeed, individuals on opposing sides of these divisions often view each other very negatively. The present multi-study investigation contributes to the nascent literature on organizational political affiliation by examining how job seekers view organizations with political affiliations, a practice that is becoming more prevalent. Studies 1 and 2 indicated that many job seekers are aware of organizations' political affiliations or stances, and that they often considered these affiliations and stances during recent job searches. For example, nearly one-third of participants said they did not apply to an organization because of its political affiliation or stances. Study 3 showed that the extent to which job seekers identified with the organization's party affiliation positively influenced their reactions toward the organization (e.g., perceived similarity and liking), as well as their intention to pursue employment with the organization. In contrast, job seekers' disidentification with the organization's affiliation decreased their feelings of perceived similarity and liking. Study 4 demonstrated that organizational affiliation with a political issue (i.e., gun control/second amendment) also influenced perceptions of similarity and liking. Taken together, results suggest that organizations' affiliations with political parties or their stances on political issues can influence the amount and types of potential employees that organizations attract. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

What's on job seekers' social media sites? A content analysis and effects of structure on recruiter judgments and predictive validity.

Many organizational representatives review social media (SM) information (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) when recruiting and assessing job applicants. Despite this, very little empirical data exist concerning the SM information available to organizations or whether assessments of such information are a valid predictor of work outcomes. This multistudy investigation examines several critical issues in this emerging area. In Study 1, we conducted a content analysis of job seekers' Facebook sites (n = 266) and found that these sites often provide demographic variables that U.S. employment laws typically prohibit organizations from using when making personnel decisions (e.g., age, ethnicity, and religion), as well as other personal information that is not work-related (e.g., sexual orientation, marital status). In Study 2 (n = 140), we examined whether job seekers' SM information is related to recruiter evaluations. Results revealed that various types of SM information correlated with recruiter judgments of hireability, including demographic variables (e.g., gender, marital status), variables organizations routinely assess (e.g., education, training, and skills), and variables that may be a concern to organizations (e.g., profanity, sexual behavior). In Study 3 (n = 81), we examined whether structuring SM assessments (e.g., via rater training) affects criterion-related validity. Results showed that structuring SM assessments did not appear to improve the prediction of future job performance or withdrawal intentions. Overall, the present findings suggest that organizations should be cautious about assessing SM information during the staffing process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Political affiliation and employment screening decisions: The role of similarity and identification processes.

Recent research in political science, along with theory in applied psychology, has suggested that political affiliation may be associated with substantial levels of affect and, thus, might influence employment decision-makers. We designed 2 experiments using social media screening tasks to examine the effects of political affiliation similarity on ratings of hireability. Our findings in both studies suggest that the identification (capturing positive affect) and disidentification (capturing negative affect) of a decision-maker with a job applicant's political affiliation were important variables that influenced perceived similarity. Consistent with the similarity-attraction paradigm, perceived similarity was related to liking and, in turn, liking was related to expected levels of applicant task and organizational citizenship behavior performance. Further, in both studies, political affiliation related variables influenced hireability decisions over and above job-relevant individuating information. Future research should continue to examine political affiliation similarity, particularly in light of its frequent availability to decision-makers (e.g., via social media websites). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: Reasons for caution.

Meta-analysis has become a well-accepted method for synthesizing empirical research about a given phenomenon. Many meta-analyses focus on synthesizing correlations across primary studies, but some primary studies do not report correlations. Peterson and Brown (2005) suggested that researchers could use standardized regression weights (i.e., beta coefficients) to impute missing correlations. Indeed, their beta estimation procedures (BEPs) have been used in meta-analyses in a wide variety of fields. In this study, the authors evaluated the accuracy of BEPs in meta-analysis. We first examined how use of BEPs might affect results from a published meta-analysis. We then developed a series of Monte Carlo simulations that systematically compared the use of existing correlations (that were not missing) to data sets that incorporated BEPs (that impute missing correlations from corresponding beta coefficients). These simulations estimated ρ̄ (mean population correlation) and SDρ (true standard deviation) across a variety of meta-analytic conditions. Results from both the existing meta-analysis and the Monte Carlo simulations revealed that BEPs were associated with potentially large biases when estimating ρ̄ and even larger biases when estimating SDρ. Using only existing correlations often substantially outperformed use of BEPs and virtually never performed worse than BEPs. Overall, the authors urge a return to the standard practice of using only existing correlations in meta-analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record

The role of political affiliation in employment decisions: A model and research agenda.

Organizational researchers have studied how individuals identify with groups and organizations and how this affiliation influences behavior for decades (e.g., Tajfel, 1982). Interestingly, investigation into political affiliation and political affiliation similarity in the organizational sciences is extremely rare. This is striking, given the deep political divides that exist between groups of individuals described in the political science literature. We draw from theories based on similarity, organizational identification, and person-environment fit, as well as theoretical notions related to individuating information, to develop a model, the political affiliation model (PAM), which describes the implications of political affiliation and political similarity for employment decisions. We set forth a number of propositions based on PAM, to spur future research in the organizational sciences for a timely topic which has received little attention. (PsycINFO Database Record

Carrots, Not Sticks: Adverse Impact and Wellness Programs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if wellness programs are likely to produce an adverse impact in various protected groups and to determine what features of the program may contribute to adverse impact. METHODS: Using a nationally representative sample of US adults, we examined the proportions of protected groups that would be expected to encounter adverse impact using various health factors such as weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels. RESULTS: The results of this study indicate that disincentive-based programs pose a high risk of differentially selecting protected groups into program categories. This is especially true for members of multiple protected classes. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest organizations carefully consider both the type of program and the health factors incorporated into their wellness efforts and use incentives rather than disincentives to encourage health promotion.

Hispanic and Asian performance on selection procedures: A narrative and meta-analytic review of 12 common predictors.

Hispanics are both the largest and fastest growing minority group in the U.S. workforce. Asians also make up a substantial and increasing portion of the workforce. Unfortunately, empirical research on how these groups perform selection procedures appears to be lacking. To address this critical gap, we identified and reviewed research from a variety of literatures relevant to Hispanic and/or Asian performance on 12 commonly used staffing procedures. We also contacted authors of studies that included members of these subgroups and requested the relevant data. On the basis of our review, we provide updated estimates of Hispanic-White and Asian-White differences for the predictors, which often differ from existing estimates of these differences. Further, we provide the first known meta-analytic estimates for Hispanics and Asians on many predictors, such as vocational interests and physical ability. We discuss the implications of the findings for staffing research and practice. We also identify critical next steps for future research regarding these 2 important, yet largely neglected, groups. (PsycINFO Database Record

Who r u?: On the (in)accuracy of incumbent-based estimates of range restriction in criterion-related and differential validity research.

Correcting validity estimates for selection procedures for range restriction typically involves comparing variance in predictor scores between all job applicants and applicants who were selected. However, some research on criterion-related and differential validity of cognitive ability tests has relied on range restriction corrections based on data from job incumbents. Unfortunately, there remains ambiguity concerning the accuracy of this incumbent-based approach vis-à-vis the applicant-based approach. To address this issue, we conducted several Monte Carlo simulations, as well as an analysis of college admissions data. Our first simulation study showed that incumbent-based range restriction corrections result in downwardly biased estimates of criterion-related validity, whereas applicant-based corrections were quite accurate. Our second set of simulations showed that incumbent-based range restriction corrections can produce evidence of differential validity when there is no differential validity in the population. In contrast, applicant-based corrections tended to accurately estimate population parameters and showed little, if any, evidence of differential validity when there is no differential validity in the population. Analysis of data for the ACT as a predictor of academic performance revealed similar patterns of bias for incumbent-based corrections in an academic setting. Overall, the present findings raise serious concerns regarding the use of incumbent-based range restriction corrections in lieu of applicant-based corrections. They also cast doubt on recent evidence for differential validity of predictors of job performance. (PsycINFO Database Record

Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: not much more than range restriction?

The concept of differential validity suggests that cognitive ability tests are associated with varying levels of validity across ethnic groups, such that validity is lower in certain ethnic subgroups than in others. A recent meta-analysis has revived the viability of this concept. Unfortunately, data were not available in this meta-analysis to correct for range restriction within ethnic groups. We reviewed the differential validity literature and conducted 4 studies. In Study 1, we empirically demonstrated that using a cognitive ability test with a common cutoff decreases variance in test scores of Black subgroup samples more than in White samples. In Study 2, we developed a simulation that examined the effects of range restriction on estimates of differential validity. Results demonstrated that different levels of range restriction for subgroups can explain the apparent observed differential validity results in employment and educational settings (but not military settings) when no differential validity exists in the population. In Study 3, we conducted a simulation in which we examined how one corrects for range restriction affects the accuracy of these corrections. Results suggest that the correction approach using a common range restriction ratio for various subgroups may create or perpetuate the illusion of differential validity and that corrections are most accurate when done within each subgroup. Finally, in Study 4, we conducted a simulation in which we assumed differential validity in the population. We found that range restriction artificially increased the size of observed differential validity estimates when the validity of cognitive ability tests was assumed to be higher among Whites. Overall, we suggest that the concept of differential validity may be largely artifactual and current data are not definitive enough to suggest such effects exist.

The critical role of the research question, inclusion criteria, and transparency in meta-analyses of integrity test research: a reply to Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012).

We clear up a number of misconceptions from the critiques of our meta-analysis (Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, & Odle-Dusseau, 2012). We reiterate that our research question focused on the criterion-related validity of integrity tests for predicting individual work behavior and that our inclusion criteria flowed from this question. We also reviewed the primary studies we could access from Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt's (1993) meta-analysis of integrity tests and found that only about 30% of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Further, analyses of some of the types of studies we had to exclude revealed potentially inflated validity estimates (e.g., corrected validities as high as .80 for polygraph studies). We also discuss our experience trying to obtain primary studies and other information from authors of Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012). In addition, we address concerns raised about certain decisions we made and values we used, and we demonstrate how such concerns would have little or no effect on our results or conclusions. Finally, we discuss some other misconceptions about our meta-analysis, as well as some divergent views about the integrity test literature in general. Overall, we stand by our research question, methods, and results, which suggest that the validity of integrity tests for criteria such as job performance and counterproductive work behavior is weaker than the authors of the critiques appear to believe.

The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: an updated meta-analysis.

Integrity tests have become a prominent predictor within the selection literature over the past few decades. However, some researchers have expressed concerns about the criterion-related validity evidence for such tests because of a perceived lack of methodological rigor within this literature, as well as a heavy reliance on unpublished data from test publishers. In response to these concerns, we meta-analyzed 104 studies (representing 134 independent samples), which were authored by a similar proportion of test publishers and non-publishers, whose conduct was consistent with professional standards for test validation, and whose results were relevant to the validity of integrity-specific scales for predicting individual work behavior. Overall mean observed validity estimates and validity estimates corrected for unreliability in the criterion (respectively) were .12 and .15 for job performance, .13 and .16 for training performance, .26 and .32 for counterproductive work behavior, and .07 and .09 for turnover. Although data on restriction of range were sparse, illustrative corrections for indirect range restriction did increase validities slightly (e.g., from .15 to .18 for job performance). Several variables appeared to moderate relations between integrity tests and the criteria. For example, corrected validities for job performance criteria were larger when based on studies authored by integrity test publishers (.27) than when based on studies from non-publishers (.12). In addition, corrected validities for counterproductive work behavior criteria were larger when based on self-reports (.42) than when based on other-reports (.11) or employee records (.15).

Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover.

A common belief among researchers is that vocational interests have limited value for personnel selection. However, no comprehensive quantitative summaries of interests validity research have been conducted to substantiate claims for or against the use of interests. To help address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of relations between interests and employee performance and turnover using data from 74 studies and 141 independent samples. Overall validity estimates (corrected for measurement error in the criterion but not for range restriction) for single interest scales were .14 for job performance, .26 for training performance, -.19 for turnover intentions, and -.15 for actual turnover. Several factors appeared to moderate interest-criterion relations. For example, validity estimates were larger when interests were theoretically relevant to the work performed in the target job. The type of interest scale also moderated validity, such that corrected validities were larger for scales designed to assess interests relevant to a particular job or vocation (e.g., .23 for job performance) than for scales designed to assess a single, job-relevant realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, or conventional (i.e., RIASEC) interest (.10) or a basic interest (.11). Finally, validity estimates were largest when studies used multiple interests for prediction, either by using a single job or vocation focused scale (which tend to tap multiple interests) or by using a regression-weighted composite of several RIASEC or basic interest scales. Overall, the results suggest that vocational interests may hold more promise for predicting employee performance and turnover than researchers may have thought.

Updating the trainability tests literature on Black-White subgroup differences and reconsidering criterion-related validity.

A number of applied psychologists have suggested that trainability test Black­White ethnic group differences are low or relatively low (e.g., Siegel & Bergman, 1975), though data are scarce. Likewise, there are relatively few estimates of criterion-related validity for trainability tests predicting job performance (cf. Robertson & Downs, 1989). We review and clarify the existing (and limited) literature on Black­White group differences on trainability tests, provide new trainability test data from a recent video-based trainability exam, and present archival data about how trainability test scores relate to cognitive ability, Black­White differences, and job performance. Consistent with hypotheses, our results suggest large correlations of trainability tests with cognitive ability (e.g., .80) and larger standardized ethnic group differences than previously thought (ds of 0.86, 1.10, and 1.21 for 3 samples). Results also suggest that trainability tests have higher validity than previously thought. Overall, our analysis provides a substantial amount of data to update our understanding of the use of trainability tests in personnel selection.

Ethnic and gender subgroup differences in assessment center ratings: a meta-analysis.

Assessment centers are widely believed to have relatively small standardized subgroup differences (d). However, no meta-analytic review to date has examined ds for assessment centers. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of available data and found an overall Black-White d of 0.52, an overall Hispanic-White d of 0.28, and an overall male-female d of -0.19. Consistent with our expectations, results suggest that Black-White ds in assessment center data may be larger than was previously thought. Hispanic-White comparisons were smaller than were Black-White comparisons. Females, on average, scored higher than did males in assessment centers. As such, assessment centers may be associated with more adverse impact against Blacks than is portrayed in the literature, but the predictor may have less adverse impact and be more "diversity friendly" for Hispanics and females.

Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: reasons for caution.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 4/5ths rule has been used for over 20 years in applied psychology and employment law. The rule signals that there is adverse impact when the protected group selection ratio is less than 80% of the highest scoring group's selection ratio. We conducted several simulations and found, consistent with some previous management science literature, that the 4/5ths rule often resulted in false-positive readings of adverse impact even when there were no underlying (population) standardized group differences between subgroups. We then incorporated tests of statistical significance and found that adding such tests to the 4/5ths rule eliminated many false-positive indications of adverse impact. We also examined simulated selection systems based on meta-analytic values from the selection literature. The frequency of adverse impact signals from the 4/5ths rule increased markedly relative to simulations with no subgroup population differences. Adding statistical tests mitigated the number of indications of adverse impact to some extent.

Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: construct-related validity and susceptibility to response inflation.

The authors evaluated the extent to which a personality-based structured interview was susceptible to response inflation. Interview questions were developed to measure facets of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Interviewers administered mock interviews to participants instructed to respond honestly or like a job applicant. Interviewees completed scales of the same 3 facets from the NEO Personality Inventory, under the same honest and applicant-like instructions. Interviewers also evaluated interviewee personality with the NEO. Multitrait-multimethod analysis and confirmatory factor analysis provided some evidence for the construct-related validity of the personality interviews. As for response inflation, analyses revealed that the scores from the applicant-like condition were significantly more elevated (relative to honest condition scores) for self-report personality ratings than for interviewer personality ratings. In addition, instructions to respond like an applicant appeared to have a detrimental effect on the structure of the self-report and interview ratings, but not interviewer NEO ratings.

Data quality affects meta-analytic conclusions: a response to Miner and Raju (2004) concerning entrepreneurial risk propensity.

J. B. Miner and N. S. Raju (2004) contended that there are additional studies that compare the risk propensity of entrepreneurs and managers, which, when added to the data from W. H. Stewart and P. L. Roth (2001) and meta-analyzed, produce relationships between risk propensity and entrepreneurial status that are substantially weaker than previously believed. This conclusion was evaluated by identifying and examining methodological problems associated with their inclusion of effect sizes (i.e., ds) from studies with variables not relevant to research questions, dependent samples, extraneous variance in outcome variables, and confusion of constructs. When these methodological issues were addressed, a new meta-analysis indicated an overall conclusion consistent with that of Stewart and Roth, but the results varied according to instrumentation, particularly objective instrumentation (observed d = 0.31) versus the Miner Sentence Completion Scale-Form T (observed d = -0.35).