Traits, tests, and personality research.

Hogan, Robert; DeSoto, Clinton B.; Solano, Cecilia H.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.32.4.255

Cited by 121 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More broadly speaking, I believe my findings can serve a clarifying and corrective function vis-a-vis situationist perspectives on the determinants of social behavior much like those of others throughout the history of the trait-situation debate (e.g., Bern & Allen, 1974;Block, 1968;Bowers, 1973;Hogan, DeSoto, & Solano, 1977;Kenrick & Funder, 1988;Sarason et al, 1975).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions.

Blass

1991

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

236

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the far-reaching implications that have been drawn from Milgram's obedience research is that situations powerfully override personal dispositions as determinants of social behavior. A focused review of the relevant research on the Milgram paradigm reveals that the evidence on situational determinants of obedience is less clear than is generally recognized; contrary to the commonly held view, personality measures can predict obedience; another kind of dispositional variable, enduring beliefs, is also implicated in the obedience process; and approaches suggested by interactionist perspectives can provide some integration of the literature. The article concludes with a discussion of the broader inferences about obedience and social behavior called for by this review and the enduring significance of Milgram's obedience research.It is now 30 years since Milgram first began his series of experiments to study the dynamics of obedience to authority (Milgram

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions.

Blass

1991

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

236

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Employee Reliability Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Subgroupgan,DeSoto, & Solano, 1977;Hogan & Nicholson, 1988). How is delinquency manifested in organizations?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to measure employee reliability.

Hogan¹,

Hogan²

1989

Journal of Applied Psychology

Self Cite

261

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employee reliability (or unreliability) is often conceptualized quite narrowly-for example, as employee theft. But theft is just one element in a larger syndrome of antisocial behavior. Consequently, employee screening procedures that focus on theft necessarily ignore a number of other indicators of unreliability; these include substance abuse, insubordination, absenteeism, excessive grievances, bogus worker compensation claims, temper tantrums, and various forms of passive aggression. In this article we describe the development and validation of a personality measure designed to assess a construct called organizational delinquency. Data from several studies show that scores on this measure are related to a wide range of indicators of both positive and negative work performance. Persons with low scores on the measure engage in a variety of counterproductive behaviors on the job; persons with high scores tend to be well liked by their supervisors and coworkers. We also discuss the economic consequences of using this measure.Unreliable employees engage in a variety of undesirable behaviors ranging from theft and sabotage to absenteeism and insubordination; in so doing, they also generate substantial direct and indirect costs for their employers. One way to solve this problem is to screen out in advance those persons whose proclivities will tend to undermine the success of the organization. Sackett and Harris (1985) identify several problems that limit our understanding of and ability to assess employee unreliability; three of these are particularly pertinent. First, surprisingly little is known about the nature of workplace deviancy and few investigators have studied the structure of honesty. Second, there are serious problems with the nature and quality of the criterion data used to support the validity of most honesty tests. Correlations between two tests will not establish the external validity of either; test validity depends, in part, on relationships with relevant nontest behaviors. And third, honesty has not been studied in relation to other personality constructs.A first step toward understanding workplace deviancy is to identify the key underlying construct. In our view, counterproductive acts such as theft, drug and alcohol abuse, lying, insubordination, vandalism, sabotage, absenteeism, and assaultive actions are elements of a larger syndrome that we call organizational delinquency. To call this a syndrome suggests that employees who steal are likely to engage in other delinquent acts as well; consequently, assessments in which applicants answer a set of questions focused on their tendency to steal sample only a portion of the organizational delinquency construct. This article has two goals. The first is to describe the development of a personality measure designed to assess employee reliability and evaluate its construct validity. The measure is a reference test for the organizational delinquency construct. A more general goal is to strengthen the case for the usefulness of personality measurement in pe...

show abstract

“…With regard to Mischel"s second critique, Hogan (1991) argues that many studies report correlations that exceed .30 (e.g., Hogan, DeSoto, & Solano, 1975).…”

Section: Cross Situational Variability and Stability Of Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Am I? Well, It Depends: How Frame-of-Reference Imposes Context In Non-Contextualized Personality Inventories

McCune¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The frame-of-reference (FOR) effect refers to the finding that validities for personality measures can be improved by asking respondents to consider how they behave in a particular context (e.g., "at work"). Recently, Lievens, De Corte, and Schollaert (2008) demonstrated that a FOR serves to reduce within-person inconsistencies in responding, which then improves the reliability and validity of personality measures.Despite this important step forward in FOR research, Lievens et al. note that there is still very little known with regard to how respondents complete non-contextualized personality inventories (i.e., inventories where no FOR is provided).The present studies sought to fill this significant gap in the literature by addressing the question: Do people think of themselves in particular situations or contexts when responding to non-contextualized personality inventories and, if so, what are these contexts? In addition, does the use of context vary by the personality dimension being studied? Two studies were conducted in order to fully address these Research Questions. The first of these studies was a qualitative study which examined the number and types of contexts spontaneously generated by test-takers for noncontextualized personality items. Twenty-eight interviews were conducted with college students who held a variety of life roles (e.g., student, employee, parent, spouse). Interview data demonstrated that participants considered themselves in general, at school, at work, with friends, with family, at home, and in other more specific situations (e.g., driving a car) when responding to non-contextualized inventories. Frame-of-Referenceii Data for Study 2 were collected from 463 college students using a self-report methodology that asked participants to indicate which FORs they were using in responding to the same non-contextualized inventory used in Study 1. Results indicated significant differences in FOR endorsement across factors, such that participants endorsed the highest number of FORs for agreeableness items and the lowest number of FORs for openness to experience items. In addition, there were significant differences in the use of FORs within factors such that, for example, the "With Family" FOR was used most frequently for agreeableness but the "At School" FOR was used most frequently for openness to experience. Finally, results of Study 2 indicated that while the using more FORs in responding may increase error variances, it does not have a substantial impact on the factor structure of the Big 5.The present studies contribute to the literature by being the first to examine the role that situations play in responding to a non-contextualized inventory, and they do so using both qualitative and quantitative methods. In addition, the present studies represent a person-centric approach to the study of I/O psychology in that they focus on the individual experience as the basis for research.

show abstract

Traits, tests, and personality research.

Cited by 121 publications

References 18 publications

Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions.

Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions.

How to measure employee reliability.

Who Am I? Well, It Depends: How Frame-of-Reference Imposes Context In Non-Contextualized Personality Inventories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About