Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.

Despite the concern that has been expressed about potential method biases, and the pervasiveness of research settings with the potential to produce them, there is disagreement about whether they really are a problem for researchers in the behavioral sciences. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to explore the current state of knowledge about method biases. First, we explore the meaning of the terms "method" and "method bias" and then we examine whether method biases influence all measures equally. Next, we review the evidence of the effects that method biases have on individual measures and on the covariation between different constructs. Following this, we evaluate the procedural and statistical remedies that have been used to control method biases and provide recommendations for minimizing method bias.

This article reports a meta-analytic test of a two-dimensional work stressor framework with respect to stressors' relationships with strains, motivation, and performance. Hindrance stressors had a negative direct effect on performance, as well as negative indirect effects on performance through strains and motivation. Challenge stressors had a positive direct effect on performance, as well as offsetting indirect effects on performance through strains (negative) and motivation (positive). Results suggest research and practice could benefit by distinguishing among challenge and hindrance stressors. A TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF STRESSORS AND PERFORMANCE One explanation for inconsistent findings on stress-performance relationships is that there is "good" stress as well as "bad" stress, and it is this good stress that is associated with high perfor-An earlier version of this article was presented at the

No abstract

In this article, a 2-dimensional work stressor framework is used to explain inconsistencies in past research with respect to stressor relationships with retention-related criteria. Results of meta-analyses of 183 independent samples indicated that whereas hindrance stressors had dysfunctional relationships with these criteria (negative relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and positive relationships with turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior), relationships with challenge stressors were generally the opposite (positive relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and negative relationships with turnover intentions and turnover). Results also suggested that the differential relationships between challenge stressors and hindrance stressors and the more distal criteria (withdrawal behavior and turnover) were due, in part, to the mediating effects of job attitudes.

Although one of the main reasons for the interest in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) is the potential consequences of these behaviors, no study has been reported that summarizes the research regarding the relationships between OCBs and their outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide a meta-analytic examination of the relationships between OCBs and a variety of individual- and organizational-level outcomes. Results, based on 168 independent samples (N = 51,235 individuals), indicated that OCBs are related to a number of individual-level outcomes, including managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria (e.g., employee turnover intentions, actual turnover, and absenteeism). In addition, OCBs were found to be related (k = 38; N = 3,611 units) to a number of organizational-level outcomes (e.g., productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover). Of interest, somewhat stronger relationships were observed between OCBs and unit-level performance measures in longitudinal studies than in cross-sectional studies, providing some evidence that OCBs are causally related to these criteria. The implications of these findings for both researchers and practitioners are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

No abstract

In the organizational sciences, scholars are increasingly using experience sampling methods (ESM) to answer questions tied to intraindividual, dynamic phenomenon. However, employing this method to answer organizational research questions comes with a number of complex—and often difficult—decisions surrounding: (1) how the implementation of ESM can advance or elucidate prior between-person theorizing at the within-person level of analysis, (2) how scholars should effectively and efficiently assess within-person constructs, and (3) analytic concerns regarding the proper modeling of interdependent assessments and trends while controlling for potentially confounding factors. The current paper addresses these challenges via a panel of seven researchers who are familiar not only with implementing this methodology but also related theoretical and analytic challenges in this domain. The current paper provides timely, actionable insights aimed toward addressing several complex issues that scholars often face when implementing ESM in their research.