This study proposes that self-reported work stress among U.S. managers is differentially related (positively and negatively) to work outcomes depending on the stressors that are being evaluated. Specific hypotheses were derived from this general proposition and tested using a sample of 1,886 U.S. managers and longitudinal data. Regression results indicate that challenge-related self-reported stress is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to job search. In contrast, hindrance-related self-reported stress is negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to job search and turnover. Future research directions are discussed.

COPYRIGHT 8 1999 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. INC. sex differences reported. Decision regarding subject's major, overall, subjects discharge displayed more negative attitudes Although the effects varied somewhat by toward the overwt. than ex-offenders or ex-mental patients. < 56 8 E 8 Overwt. target's promotions prospects rated much lower. Work-related traits (intelligence, hard working) were not associated with wt.

The authors investigated the process of deciding whether or not to apply for jobs, using the verbal protocol analysis (VPA) technique. Verbal reports provided by participants as they evaluated job postings and decided whether or not to interview for jobs were analyzed to assess what information was heeded, the impact of incomplete or unusual information, and the role of inferences regarding job characteristics and probability of hire. Results indicated that location and compensation received the most attention and that participants also responded to the amount of information provided. In addition, participants made inferences about unobserved characteristics and probability of hire, although the latter played little role in the decision to interview. The study also provided support for the usefulness of VPA by demonstrating that neither the verbal protocol process nor the use of prompts significantly influenced participants' decisions (as compared with the decisions of control groups).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article focuses attention on research examining workplace discrimination against employees from marginalized groups. We particularly consider the experiences of seven different groups of marginalized individuals, some of which have legal protection and some of which do not but all of whom we feel have been overlooked by the field of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. We briefly describe the importance of studying each group and then delineate the brief amount of research that has been conducted. Finally, we make recommendations for I-O psychologists in terms of research and advocacy. Overall, we argue that I-O psychologists are missing an opportunity to be at the forefront of understanding and instigating changes that would result in maximizing the fairness and optimization of these often forgotten employees and their experiences in the workplace. One of the main goals of industrialorganizational (I-O) psychology is to ensure an equitable and fair workplace for all. Indeed, a large percentage of I-O psychologists devote their research programs and are hired to safeguard for fair selection Journal of Management, JOBU = Journal of Business and Psychology.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY For Authors:If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.