Multilevel Modeling: Research-Based Lessons for Substantive Researchers

González-Romá, Vicente; Hernández, Ana

doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062407

Cited by 64 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ANOVA seems to be the dominant approach to analyze experimental data in organizational research and social sciences [71]. However, all ordinary least squares (OLS) techniques rely on the assumption of independence of observations [72], which is likely to be violated in our sample due to the fact that we asked participants to rate two different scenarios. Therefore, our data have a nested structure and should be analyzed accordingly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speaking Up about Workplace Safety: An Experimental Study on Safety Leadership

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we test whether different types of safety leadership styles predict different employees’ change-oriented discretionary communications about safety (i.e., safety voice) after controlling for proactive personality disposition to improve organizational sustainability. Building upon a multidimensional model of safety voice, which attempts to conceptualize different ways in which employees make suggestions about safety procedures, we developed four realistic scenarios in which we manipulated the supervisor’s safety leadership style, including: (1) transformational safety leadership, (2) transactional safety leadership, (3) passive safety leadership, and (4) control group (i.e., no leadership at all). We randomly assigned 103 participants to two of four scenarios and measured four facets of safety voice and proactive personality dispositions. The findings showed that after controlling for the respondents’ proactive personality, transformative safety leadership predicted promotive safety voice, transactional safety leadership predicted preventive safety voice, and passive safety leadership predicted hostile safety voice. These findings have a number of implications for our understanding of safety leadership and employees’ safety communications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speaking Up about Workplace Safety: An Experimental Study on Safety Leadership

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A multilevel approach about the antecedents and consequences of positive affect : Although groups and organizations are multilevel structures that require a multilevel approach [ 109 ], most previous studies on group positive affect have focused on analyzing the construct at the group level of analysis, leaving out cross-level effects. For example, currently, little knowledge is available about the effect of group positive affect on individual well-being (e.g., work engagement) or even on individual behaviors such as job crafting [ 110 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Positive Affect and Beyond: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda

Peñalver

Salanova

Martínez

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group positive affect is defined as homogeneous positive affect among group members that emerges when working together. Considering that previous research has shown a significant relationship between group positive affect and a wide variety of group outcomes (e.g., behaviors, wellbeing, and performance), it is crucial to boost our knowledge about this construct in the work context. The main purpose is to review empirical research, to synthesize the findings and to provide research agenda about group positive affect, in order to better understand this construct. Through the PsycNET and Proquest Central databases, an integrative review was conducted to identify articles about group positive affect published between January 1990 and March 2019. A total of 44 articles were included and analyzed. Finding suggests that scholars have been more interested in understanding the outcomes of group positive affect and how to improve the productivity of groups than in knowing what the antecedents are. A summary conclusion is that group positive affect is related to leadership, job demands, job resources, diversity/similarity, group processes, and contextual factors, all of which influence the development of several outcomes and different types of wellbeing at the individual and group levels. However, with specific combinations of other conditions (e.g., group trust, negative affect, and interaction), high levels of group positive affect could cause harmful results. Conclusions shed light on group positive affect research and practice and might help Human Resources professionals to initiate empirically-based strategies related to recruitment, group design and leadership training.

show abstract

“…We ran this model to examine the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that resided between locations (Raudenbush & Bryk, ). As the total variance of proactive behaviour (Time 2) that resided between locations was below 5 per cent (it was 2.4%), and considering the small number of locations ( n = 11), we followed previous guidelines (Finch & French, ; Julian, ; Maas & Hox, ) and proceeded to test the proposed hypotheses using ordinary least squares regression (for a recent review on multi‐level modelling see González‐Romá & Hernández, ) based on the recommendations of Aiken and West (). This analysis included the three‐way interaction between work engagement, type of intervention (SN versus MER), and supervisor justice, while controlling for age, average time spent doing the exercise, and proactive behaviour at Time 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindful Emotion Regulation, Savouring and Proactive Behaviour: The Role of Supervisor Justice

Molina

O’Shea

2019

Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global financial crisis and recession‐prompted budget cuts represent significant challenges to public sector organisations, limiting their ability to make changes to job design and increasing job demands. In such environments, primary interventions targeted at changing the job or the work are not always viable. In this research, we examine the effectiveness of a mindful emotion regulation (MER) intervention versus a “control” savouring nature (SN) intervention in terms of facilitating the investment of work engagement into proactive behaviours. We also examine how the job resource of supervisor justice impacts these relationships. We collected data from an Irish public sector organisation using a cluster randomised controlled trial design. The final sample comprised 108 participants (MER = 74; SN = 34). Results highlight the valuable role that job resources play as boundary conditions of psychological‐based interventions since the success of MER and SN depended on the participants’ perceptions of supervisor justice. When supervisor justice was high, a restorative SN exercise was effective in promoting proactive behaviours. When supervisor justice was low, a more complex cognitive and emotional exercise in the form of MER was required. We explain these results and consider their implications for future research.

show abstract

Multilevel Modeling: Research-Based Lessons for Substantive Researchers

Cited by 64 publications

References 101 publications

Speaking Up about Workplace Safety: An Experimental Study on Safety Leadership

Speaking Up about Workplace Safety: An Experimental Study on Safety Leadership

Group Positive Affect and Beyond: An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda

Mindful Emotion Regulation, Savouring and Proactive Behaviour: The Role of Supervisor Justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About