2020
DOI: 10.1080/1359432x.2020.1745882
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring the motive for power using conditional reasoning: some preliminary findings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A number of studies have confirmed the satisfactory psychometric characteristics of this instrument (James et al, 2005;LeBreton et al, 2005;Berry et al, 2010;Galić et al, 2014). The conditional reasoning test for power still represents a work-in-progress, but Galić et al (2020) showed that there is evidence about its convergent and discriminant validity. The same analysis also showed that CRT for power is less fakeable than self-reported measures.…”
Section: Conditional Reasoning Tests (Crt)mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…A number of studies have confirmed the satisfactory psychometric characteristics of this instrument (James et al, 2005;LeBreton et al, 2005;Berry et al, 2010;Galić et al, 2014). The conditional reasoning test for power still represents a work-in-progress, but Galić et al (2020) showed that there is evidence about its convergent and discriminant validity. The same analysis also showed that CRT for power is less fakeable than self-reported measures.…”
Section: Conditional Reasoning Tests (Crt)mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Thus, by considering both traits and motives, researchers are better able to understand the dispositional bases of behavior. For example, incremental effects (additive or interactive) of implicit motives have been found for a number of work‐related outcomes including the prediction of counterproductive workplace behaviors (Bing et al, 2007; Frost et al, 2007; Gadelrab, 2019; Galić, 2016; Galić & Ružojčić, 2017), task motivation, task choice, and task performance (Bing et al, 2007; Brunstein & Maier, 2005), contextual performance (Lang et al, 2012), team processes and outcomes (Baysinger et al, 2014), likelihood of occupying management positions (Galić et al, in press), and the pursuit of high‐impact careers and the importance of work relationships (McClelland et al, 1989; Winter et al, 1998; see also reviews in James & LeBreton, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%