Whereas Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) propose a model of situational judgment test (SJT) performance that removes the "situation" in favor of conceptualizing SJTs as a measure of general domain knowledge, we argue that the expression of general domain knowledge is in fact contingent on situational judgment. As we explain, the evidence cited by Lievens and Motowidlo against a situational component does not inherently exclude the importance of situations from SJTs and does overlook the strong support for a person-situation interaction explanation of behavior. Based on the interactionist literature-in particular, the trait activation theory (TAT) and situational strength literatures-we propose a model that both maintains the key pathways and definitions posited by Lievens and Motowidlo and integrates the situational component of SJTs.Interactionist explanations of work behavior have received increasing attention and support in the employee selection literature and stem from a long history of research on person-situation models of personality (e.g., Mischel, 1968). The ability to evaluate situational demands predicts performance across assessment types, including structured interviews (Melchers, Bösser, Hartstein, & Kleinmann, 2012) and assessment centers (Jansen et al., 2013). Further, the ability to identify criteria for performance evaluation (broadly conceptualized as situational cues) has been posited as a key explanation of the criterion-related validity for selection assessments (Kleinmann et al., 2011). Given the evidence supporting a person-situation interaction account of performance in assessment centers and structured

Job satisfaction researchers typically assume a tripartite model, suggesting evaluations of the job are explained by latent cognitive and affective factors. However, in the attitudes literature, connectionist theorists view attitudes as emergent structures resulting from the mutually reinforcing causal force of interacting cognitive evaluations. Recently, the causal attitudes network (CAN; Dalege et al., 2016) model was proposed as an integration of both these perspectives with network theory. Here, we describe the CAN model and its implications for understanding job satisfaction. We extend the existing literature by drawing from both attitude and network theory. Using multiple data sets and measures of job satisfaction, we test these ideas empirically. First, drawing on the functional approach to attitudes, we show the instrumental-symbolic distinction in attitude objects is evident in job satisfaction networks. Specifically, networks for more instrumental features (e.g., pay) show stable, high connectivity and form a single cluster, whereas networks regarding symbolic features (e.g., supervisor) increase in connectivity with exposure (i.e., job tenure) and form clusters based on valence and cognitive-affective distinction. We show these distinctions result in "small-world" networks for symbolic features wherein affective reactions are more central than cognitive reactions, consistent with the affective primacy hypothesis. We show the practical advantage of CAN by demonstrating in longitudinal data that items with high centrality are more likely to affect change throughout the attitude network, and that network models are better able to predict future voluntary turnover compared with structural equation models. Implications of this exciting new model for research and practice are discussed.

Applied psychologists commonly use personality tests in employee selection systems because of their advantages regarding incremental criterion-related validity and less adverse impact relative to cognitive ability tests. Although personality tests have seen limited legal challenges in the past, we posit that the use of personality tests might see increased challenges under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) due to emerging evidence that normative personality and personality disorders belong to common continua. This article aims to begin a discussion and offer initial insight regarding the possible implications of this research for personality testing under the ADA. We review past case law, scholarship in employment law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance regarding “medical examinations,” and recent literature from various psychology disciplines—including clinical, neuropsychology, and applied personality psychology—regarding the relationship between normative personality and personality disorders. More importantly, we review suggestions proposing the five-factor model (FFM) be used to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) and recent changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Our review suggests that as scientific understanding of personality progresses, practitioners will need to exercise evermore caution when choosing personality measures for use in selection systems. We conclude with six recommendations for applied psychologists when developing or choosing personality measures.

Theoretical perspectives on creativity have suggested that intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for creative behavior. Known as the threshold hypothesis, this idea has generated both controversy and confusion since Guilford (1967) suggested that creativity and intelligence would be correlated more strongly among those low in intelligence relative to those high in intelligence. In this article, we instead argue for a conditional threshold hypothesis such that the relationship between intelligence and creative achievement is moderated by other critical characteristics. Further, we propose that the relationship is in fact stronger among individuals who possess high levels of qualifying characteristics. We then argue that openness to experience represents one such critical characteristic. For those with high openness, we propose that high levels of intelligence will be the differentiating factor between those who exhibit high and extremely high creative achievement. Additionally, we argue that for domain specificity, it is necessary to differentiate between the openness aspects of aesthetic openness and intellect for explaining creative achievement in the arts and sciences, respectively. Participants living in the United States (N = 1,276; Mage = 34.56 years; 67% female, 82% White; 91% at least some college; 88% employed) completed the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) as well as fluid intelligence and personality measures. Results of Poisson analyses regressing CAQ scores onto personality and intelligence measures scored with item response theory lend full support to these hypotheses. Implications of our conditional threshold hypothesis are discussed.

Fearless Dominance (FD) generally manifests null to small relations with externalizing problems, leading some researchers to propose alternative paths by which FD features may relate to these problems. The current study provides a test of two possibilities, namely that FD (a) interacts statistically with Self-centered Impulsivity (SCI) such that FD is associated with externalizing problems only at high levels of SCI; and (b) demonstrates curvilinear relations with externalizing problems such that FD is more strongly associated with these problems at high levels. We used a large correctional sample and item-response theory-related statistics to precisely estimate individuals' scores at the extremes of each major psychopathic trait. FD was not significantly associated with externalizing problems in interaction with SCI or at higher levels of FD, suggesting that psychopathic traits linked to boldness are not especially relevant to generalized externalizing behavior.