We reviewed studies of the Dark Triad (DT) personality traits--Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy-and meta-analytically examined their implications for job performance and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Relations among the DT traits and behaviors were extracted from original reports published between 1951 and 2011 of 245 independent samples (N = 43,907). We found that reductions in the quality of job performance were consistently associated with increases in Machiavellianism and psychopathy and that CWB was associated with increases in all 3 components of the DT, but that these associations were moderated by such contextual factors as authority and culture. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that the DT explains moderate amounts of the variance in counterproductivity, but not job performance. The results showed that the 3 traits are positively related to one another but are sufficiently distinctive to warrant theoretical and empirical partitioning.
This review builds on self-control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1998) to develop a theoretical framework for investigating associations of implicit theories with self-regulation. This framework conceptualizes self-regulation in terms of three crucial processes: goal setting, goal operating and goal monitoring. In this meta-analysis, we included articles that reported a quantifiable assessment of implicit theories and at least one self-regulatory process or outcome. Using a random effects approach, meta-analytic results (total unique N = 28,217; k = 113) across diverse achievement domains (68% academic) and populations (age range = 5-42; 10 different nationalities; 58% from United States; 44% female) demonstrated that implicit theories predict distinct self-regulatory processes, which, in turn, predict goal achievement. Incremental theories, which, in contrast to entity theories, are characterized by the belief that human attributes are malleable rather than fixed, significantly predicted goal setting (performance goals, r = -.151; learning goals, r = .187), goal operating (helpless-oriented strategies, r = -.238; mastery-oriented strategies, r = .227), and goal monitoring (negative emotions, r = -.233; expectations, r = .157). The effects for goal setting and goal operating were stronger in the presence (vs. absence) of ego threats such as failure feedback. Discussion emphasizes how the present theoretical analysis merges an implicit theory perspective with self-control theory to advance scholarship and unlock major new directions for basic and applied research. Abstract = 221; Overall Word Count = 32,266 KEY WORDS: implicit theories, self-regulation, self-control theory, achievement Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation 2 Mindsets Matter: A Meta-Analytic Review of Implicit Theories and Self-RegulationWhy do some students seek to gain competency, whereas others seek to outperform their peers? Why do some athletes redouble their efforts when facing setbacks, whereas others respond with helplessness? Why do some dieters feel confident in their ability to face challenges to their weight-loss goals, whereas others feel they lack the requisite skills? Research on implicit theories has sought to answer these and similar questions for decades, examining how lay beliefs, namely incremental theories (beliefs that human attributes can be improved or developed) and entity theories (beliefs that human attributes are fixed or invariant), influence self-regulation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Molden & Dweck, 2006).Although research on implicit theories originated within an academic context, scholars have extended the theory to additional achievement domains, such as athletics (e.g., Kasimatis, Miller, & Marcussen, 1996;Ommundsen, 2003), weight management (Burnette, 2010), and leadership (Burnette, Pollack, & Hoyt, 2010). Across these contexts, implicit theories have been postulated to be linked to various self-regulatory processes, including goal setting (e.g., Robins & Pals, 2002), social comparison (Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008), ...
This meta-analysis builds upon a previous meta-analysis by (1) including 65 per cent more studies that have over twice the sample size to estimate the relationships between emotional intelligence (EI) and job performance; (2) using more current meta-analytical studies for estimates of relationships among personality variables and for cognitive ability and job performance; (3) using the three-stream approach for classifying EI research; (4) performing tests for differences among streams of EI research and their relationships with personality and cognitive intelligence; (5) using latest statistical procedures such as dominance analysis; and (6) testing for publication bias. We classified EI studies into three streams: (1) ability-based models that use objective test items; (2) self-report or peer-report measures based on the fourbranch model of EI; and (3) ''mixed models'' of emotional competencies. The three streams have corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance. The three streams correlated differently with cognitive ability and with neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Streams 2 and 3 have the largest incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and the Five Factor Model (FFM). Dominance analysis demonstrated that all three streams of EI exhibited substantial relative importance in the presence of FFM and intelligence when predicting job performance. Publication bias had negligible influence on observed effect sizes. The results support the overall validity of EI.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type item scores.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.