Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric study

O’Connor, Jennifer; Mumford, Michael D.; Clifton, Timothy C.; Gessner, Theodore L.; Connelly, Mary Shane

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90026-8

Cited by 165 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The social psychological dimensions suggested that scores on measure of ethical decision making are related to a selfish concern with personal outcomes. In fact, this self-centered orientation has been linked to integrity in studies by Fromm (1973) and O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Connelly, and Gessner (1995). Moreover, the results obtained for the cognitive strategies scoring suggest that the effect of this self-centered focus may be that it diminishes effective forecasting of the effects of one's action in a given social situation (Gollwitzer, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

ARTICLES: Validation of Ethical Decision Making Measures: Evidence for a New Set of Measures

Mumford¹,

Devenport²,

Brown³

et al. 2006

Ethics & Behavior

Self Cite

119

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical decision making measures are widely applied as the principal dependent variable used in studies of research integrity. However, evidence bearing on the internal and external validity of these measures is not available. In this study, ethical decision making measures were administered to 102 graduate students in the biological, health, and social sciences, along with measures examining exposure to ethical breaches and the severity of punishments recommended. The ethical decision making measure was found to be related to exposure to ethical events and the severity of punishments awarded. The implications of these findings for the application of ethical decision making measures are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

ARTICLES: Validation of Ethical Decision Making Measures: Evidence for a New Set of Measures

Mumford¹,

Devenport²,

Brown³

et al. 2006

Ethics & Behavior

Self Cite

119

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Costantini & Craik, 1980). Accordingly, the same information must be obtained via indirect routes (e.g., Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987;Bass & Farrow, 1977;O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995).…”

Section: Confirmatory Versus Exploratory Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.

Simonton

1999

Psychological Methods

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychologists occasionally study eminent individuals, such as Nobel laureates, U.S. presidents, Olympic athletes, chess grandmasters, movie stars, and even distinguished psychologists. Studies using such significant samples may be differentiated along 7 distinct dimensions: qualitative versus quantitative, single versus multiple case, nomothetic versus idiographic, confirmatory versus exploratory, crosssectional versus longitudinal, micro versus macro analytical units, and direct versus indirect assessments. However, the vast majority of psychological inquiries may be clustered into just 4 types: historiometric, psychometric, psychobiographical, and comparative. After presenting the intrinsic and extrinsic justifications for studying famous persons, the main methodological issues concerning sampling, measurement, and analysis are discussed. The future prospects of significant samples in psychological research are then briefly examined.Empirical journal articles in psychology almost invariably commence their methods section with a subsection in which the researchers define the "subjects" or "participants" of the study (American Psychological Association, 1994). This sample specification comes first because all subsequent procedures and analytical strategies are usually contingent on that choice. An experimental manipulation or psychometric instrument that is indubitably appropriate for one sample might be manifestly inappropriate for another (e.g., whether to use an intelligence test designed for children or adults). In psychology, this sample description is especially critical. Few sciences feature the same diversity of entities that might serve as subjects in psychological research: human beings of every age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, and capacity; animals ranging from mammals, birds, and fish to insects, mollusks, and worms. Yet as diverse as these various subject pools may be, they all seem to have one thing in common: The individuals that compose This article is based on a paper read at the Internationa!

show abstract

“…Thus, care must be taken when applying these conclusions to other leaders (O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995;Simonton, 1990). While this may limit the generalizability of the conclusions we draw here, the use of Marshall as the subject for study using the methods described provides some advantages that we believe compensate for this issue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%