The literature suggests that contextualized personality measures yield stronger predictive validity. However, frame-of-reference (FOR) theory is underdeveloped, and existing work-FOR personality measures have several limitations. Integrating FOR research with the knowledge-and-appraisal personality architecture (KAPA) theoretical framework, we developed a new work-FOR personality measure: the 20-item ORG-B5. Study 1 summarizes the procedure used to select the items and tests its basic psychometric properties with two samples. Study 2 shows that the ORG-B5 has good convergent and discriminant validity and outperforms the Mini-Markers and the Mini-IPIP in its base psychometrics. Study 3 demonstrates that the ORG-B5 predicts work-engagement and leader-member exchange (LMX), while Study 4a and 4b shows incremental validity of the ORG-B5 above other Big Five measures in predicting work-engagement and LMX. Study 5 demonstrates measurement invariance between native and nonnative English speakers and compares the criterion and incremental validity of the ORG-B5 beyond another work-FOR measure. Study 6 demonstrates convergence between self- and coworker ratings of the ORG-B5 and its prediction of time-lagged self-reported engagement and LMX and supervisor-reported deviance and task performance. Given these results, we argue that the ORG-B5 is a reliable and short personality measure more appropriate than existing measures for organizational research.

Competition can lead individuals to cheat; yet our knowledge of why competition affects cheating and how to mitigate these effects is limited. To address this limitation, we first contrast two theories: arousal theories of competition (via desire to win) and social cognitive theory (via impaired moral awareness). Our results were consistent with social cognitive theory in that competition impairs moral awareness and that this impairment explains why people cheat. We therefore build on social cognitive theory and show that two factors, moral identity and moral elevation, which are likely to make morality salient, moderated the effects of competition on cheating such that these effects were weaker for individuals whose moral identity was more (vs. less) chronically accessible or who were more (vs. less) morally elevated. We test our hypotheses in five experimental studies and one field study with students as well as working adult populations in India and the United States.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract