We propose that generational differences are meaningful despite some theoretical and methodological challenges (cf. Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). We will address five main issues: operationalizing generations, measuring generational differences, theoretical models of generations, mechanisms of generational change, and the importance of science versus stereotypes.

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

Although there is evidence that experts agree on the traits that characterize narcissism, this agreement may be due, in part, to the influence of the operationalizations based on the American Psychiatric Association's series of (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980, 1994, 2013). Because these trait descriptions are important in shaping conceptualizations and serving as empirical criteria for construct validation, we explored their generalizability. In Study 1, we collected lay ratings (N = 1,792) of prototypical cases of narcissism across 15 different categories (e.g., gender, age, occupational status) on the 30 traits of the five-factor model (FFM). There was good agreement within and across rating categories and the trait profiles were quite similar to existing ratings made by academicians and clinicians. In Study 2 (N = 603), we examined the degree to which various scores from the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory-Short Form (FFNI-SF; Sherman et al., 2015) provided empirical matches to these FFM profiles (mean lay ratings from Study 1; existing expert-based and meta-analytically derived profiles). In general, scores from the FFNI-SF grandiose scale, as well as the empirically derived FFNI-SF Antagonism and Agentic Extraversion components yielded FFM profiles closely aligned to the various consensus profiles. These results are generally consistent with a burgeoning literature that suggests that the FFNI/FFNI-SF is a promising tool for the study of narcissism given its comprehensiveness, flexibility, and ties to the predominant model of personality. (PsycINFO Database Record

The issue of Americans' levels of narcissism is subject to lively debate. The focus of the present research is on the perception of national character (PNC) of Americans as a group. In Study 1, American adults (N = 100) rated Americans as significantly more narcissistic than they perceived themselves and acquaintances. In Study 2, this finding was replicated with American college students (N = 322). PNC ratings of personality traits and externalizing behaviors revealed that Americans were perceived as disagreeable and antisocial as well. In Study 3, we examined the broader characteristics associated with PNC ratings (N = 183). Americans rated the typical American as average on a variety of characteristics (e.g., wealth, education, health, likability) and PNC ratings of narcissism were largely unrelated to these ratings. In Study 4 (N = 1,202) Americans rated PNCs for different prespecified groups of Americans; as expected, PNC ratings of narcissism differed by gender, age, and occupational status such that American males, younger Americans, and Americans working in high-visibility and status occupations were seen as more narcissistic. In Study 5 (N = 733), citizens of 4 other world regions (Basque Country, China, England, Turkey) rated members of their own region as more narcissistic than they perceived themselves, but the effect sizes were smaller than those found in the case of Americans' perceptions of Americans. Additionally, members of these other regions rated Americans as more narcissistic than members of their own region. Finally, in Study 6, participants from around the world (N = 377) rated Americans as more narcissistic, extraverted, and antagonistic than members of their own countries. We discuss the role that America's position as a global economic and military power, paired with a culture that creates and reifies celebrity figures, may play in leading to perceptions of Americans as considerably narcissistic.

No abstract