Failures to replicate published psychological research findings have contributed to a "crisis of confidence." Several reasons for these failures have been proposed, the most notable being questionable research practices and data fraud. We examine replication from a different perspective and illustrate that current intuitive expectations for replication are unreasonable. We used computer simulations to create thousands of ideal replications, with the same participants, wherein the only difference across replications was random measurement error. In the first set of simulations, study results differed substantially across replications as a result of measurement error alone. This raises questions about how researchers should interpret failed replication attempts, given the large impact that even modest amounts of measurement error can have on observed associations. In the second set of simulations, we illustrated the difficulties that researchers face when trying to interpret and replicate a published finding. We also assessed the relative importance of both sampling error and measurement error in producing variability in replications. Conventionally, replication attempts are viewed through the lens of verifying or falsifying published findings. We suggest that this is a flawed perspective and that researchers should adjust their expectations concerning replications and shift to a meta-analytic mind-set.

The authors integrated predictions from the group value model of justice with an esteem threat framework of deviance to examine the within-person relation between interpersonal justice and workplace deviance. Using a moderated-mediation approach, they predicted that daily interpersonal injustice would lower daily self-esteem; daily self-esteem would in turn mediate the effect of daily interpersonal injustice and interact with trait self-esteem in predicting daily workplace deviance. Using 1,088 daily diary recordings from 100 employees from various industries, the results generally support the hypothesized model linking daily interpersonal justice and daily workplace deviance, even when the effects of previously established mediators (i.e., affect and job satisfaction) were controlled for. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

This research extends the existing theoretical understanding of what predicts organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Using experience sampling techniques, we examine the within-person relation between OCB and a novel, theoretically relevant predictor: state gratitude. Using 4 independent samples with a total of 210 working adults and 173 undergraduate students, we developed a reliable and valid measure of state gratitude. Drawing upon the moral affect model of gratitude and affective events theory, we conducted 2 experience sampling studies with data collected from 67 (Study 2) and 104 (Study 3) working adults to test the effects of state gratitude on OCB, beyond the effects of several relevant constructs (i.e., state positive affect, dispositional gratitude, and social exchange). Our results advance OCB research and explanations of OCB by modeling OCB as a dynamic, time-variant construct and by demonstrating that feelings of gratitude, a discrete positive emotion, can be an effective predictor of OCB.Conceptually, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been viewed as a critical component of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), reflecting employee behaviors that maintain, support, and enhance the psychological context, which surrounds task performance (Organ, 1997). Over the past 25 years, interest in OCB and related constructs, such as contextual performance and change-oriented, extra-role behaviors,

SummaryResearch that has sought to understand why employees engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) has concentrated on between-person variables, typically ignoring intraindividual influences. Accordingly, we know much about who engages in OCB, in general, but know relatively little regarding under what circumstances people engage in OCB. By integrating social comparison with affective events and justworld theories, we propose and test a dynamic model wherein directional social comparisons are expected to have direct (automatic-motivational) and indirect (affective) intraindividual effects on OCB. The hypotheses were tested using multilevel modeling on 1076 observations from 99 participants that were collected via an interval-contingent experience sampling methodology. The results provide support for the hypotheses that social comparisons are related to OCB through positive affect and the direct effects of social comparisons on OCB are moderated by beliefs in a just world. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

No abstract