The results of meta-analytic (MA) and validity generalization (VG) studies continue to be impressive. In contrast to earlier findings that capped the variance accounted for in job performance at roughly 16%, many recent studies suggest that a single predictor variable can account for between 16 and 36% of the variance in some aspect of job performance. This article argues that this “enhancement” in variance accounted for is often attributable not to improvements in science but to a dumbing down of the standards for the values of statistics used in correction equations. With rare exceptions, applied researchers have suspended judgment about what is and is not an acceptable threshold for criterion reliability in their quest for higher validities. We demonstrate a statistical dysfunction that is a direct result of using low criterion reliabilities in corrections for attenuation. Corrections typically applied to a single predictor in a VG study are instead applied to multiple predictors. A multiple correlation analysis is then conducted on corrected validity coefficients. It is shown that the corrections often used in single predictor studies yield a squared multiple correlation that appears suspect. Basically, the multiple predictor study exposes the tenuous statistical foundation of using abjectly low criterion reliabilities in single predictor VG studies. Recommendations for restoring scientific integrity to the meta-analyses that permeate industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology are offered.

The present research examines the influence of implicit and explicit personality characteristics on group process and effectiveness. Individuals from 112 groups participated in 2 problem-solving tasks and completed measures of group process and effectiveness. Results indicated that groups characterized by higher levels of psychopathy and implicit aggression tended to have more dysfunctional interactions and negative perceptions of the group. In addition, task participation and negative socioemotional behaviors fully mediated the relationship between group personality traits and group commitment and cohesion, and negative socioemotional behaviors fully mediated the relationship between group personality and performance on both tasks. Implications of antisocial traits for group interactions and performance, as well as for future theory and research, are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

The Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression (CRT‐A) is based on the idea that aggressive individuals use motive‐based cognitive biases to see their behavior as reasonable and that those biases can be measured with inductive reasoning tasks. Although the initial validation efforts for the CRT‐A in the United States have been reasonably successful, there has been no attempt to determine if the evidence of validity and reliability generalizes to other cultural contexts. In this paper, we describe four studies designed to systematically accumulate validity evidence for the CRT‐A using Croatian participants. Our analyses revealed that the Croatian adaptation of the CRT‐A yielded psychometric characteristics that were similar to those obtained on the US samples (Study 1). CRT‐A scores that predicted counterproductive work behaviors occurrence beyond self‐reported personality (Study 2) were independent from general mental ability as measured with an abstract reasoning test (Study 3), and not susceptible to faking (Study 4).