Organizational Research Methods
Week 2: Causality
What Do We Mean By Causality?
• Relationship between two events where one
is a consequence of the other
• Determinism: A (cause) leads to B (effect)
• “In the strict formulation of the law of
causality—if we know the present, we can
calculate the future—it is not the conclusion
that is wrong but the premise”.
On an implication of the uncertainty principle. Werner Heisenberg
Heisenberg & Uncertainty Principle
• Certain properties of subatomic particles are
linked so the more accurately you know one, the
less accurately you know the other
– We can compute probabilities not certainties
– Argues against determinism
• “Physics should only describe the correlation of
observations; there is no real world with causality”
Heisenberg, 1927, Zeitschrift für Physik
– Psychology, like quantum physics, is probabalistic
Cause Versus Effect
• Effect of a Cause (Description)
– What follows a cause?
• Cause of an Effect (Explanation)
– Why did the effect happen?
• Do bacteria “cause” disease?
– Actually toxins cause disease
– Actually certain chemical reactions are cause
Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models.
Sociological Methodology, 18, 449-484.
Three Elements of Causal Case
• Cause and effect are related
• Cause preceded effect
• No plausible alternative explanations
• John Stuart Mill
Experiment
• Vary something to discover effects
– Shows association
– Shows time sequence
– Can rule out only some alternatives
• Confounds
• Boundary conditions (generalizability)
• Good for causal description not explanation
• Natural science control through precise
measurement
– Sterile test tubes, electronic instruments
Encouragement Design
• Manipulation of instructions/messages
• Subjects “encouraged” to do certain things
• Subjects self-select level of condition
Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models.
Sociological Methodology, 18, 449-484.
Studying and Performance
• Students randomly assigned to study amount
• Test scores as DV
• Did studying lead to test results?
– Encouragement led to test results
– Impact on studying unclear
– Effect of studying unclear
• What was cause of test results?
Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models. Sociological
Methodology, 18, 449-484.
Nonexperimental Research Strategy
1. Determine covariation
2. Test for time sequence
•
•
Longitudinal design
Quasi-experiment
3. Rule out plausible alternatives
•
•
Based on data/theory
Logical
Inus Condition
• Multiple causes/mechanisms for a
phenomenon
–
–
–
–
The same thing can occur for different reasons
Sufficient but unnecessary conditions
Multiple motives
People do things for different reasons
• Are social phenomena a hierarchy of inus
conditions?
• Should we expect strong relationships
between variables if inus conditions exist?
Inus Conditions For Turnover
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Better job offer
Bullying
Disability
Dissatisfaction
Poor skill-job match
Pursue other interests (e.g., Olympics)
Spouse transfer
Strategic reasons: Part of plan
Confirmation/Falsification
• Observation used to
– Confirm/support theories
– Falsify/disconfirm theories
• Confirmation: All swans are white
– Must observe all swans in existence
• Falsification: One black swan
– Easier to falsify than confirm
– Null hypothesis testing disconfirmation
– Based on construct validity
• Poor measure might falsely falsify
Scientific Skepticism
• Science not completely based on objective reality
• Observations based on theory of construct
• Construct validity is theoretical interpretation of
what numbers represent
• Theories could be wrong: Biased measurement
– NA as bias (Watson, Pennebaker, Folger)
– Social constructions (Salancik & Pfeffer)
• Science based on trust of methods: Faith
– Experiments
– SEM
– Statistical control (Meehl)
Shadish et al. Skepticisms (p. 30)
• “…scientists tend to notice evidence that confirms
their preferred hypotheses and to overlook
contradictory evidence.”
• “They make routine cognitive errors of judgment”
• The react to peer pressures to agree with accepted
dogma”
• They are partly motivated by sociological and
economic rewards”
Meehl 1971: High School Yearbooks
• What is Meehl’s issue with Schwarz and
common practice?
• Schwarz approach
– Control SES because it relates to schizophrenia
and social participation
– Does not consider plausible alternatives
• Schwarz accepts without skepticism
(Shadish)
• Meehl no Automatic Inference Machine
Automatic Inference Machine
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Idea that statistics can provide tests for causation
There is no such thing as a “causal test”
There is no such thing as a “test” for mediation
Statistical controls do not provide the “true”
relationship between variables
Statistics are only numbers: They don’t know
where they came from
Inference is in the design
Inference is in the mind: Logical reasoning
Write “There is no automatic inference machine”
(Apologies to The Matrix)
Meehl 1971: High School Yearbooks
• What is Meehl’s issue with Schwarz and common
practice?
• Schwarz approach
– Control SES because it relates to schizophrenia and
social participation
– Does not consider plausible alternatives
• Schwarz accepts without skepticism (Shadish)
• Meehl no Automatic Inference Machine
• Meehl Commonest Methodological Vice in
Social Science Research
Commonest Methodological Vice
• What is the commonest methodological
vice?
• Assuming certain variables are fixed and
therefore must be causal
– SES
– Demographics
– Personality
• But these variables can’t be effects.
• Can they?
Can Job Satisfaction Cause Gender?
• Correlation of Gender and satisfaction =
group mean differences
• Satisfaction can’t cause someone’s gender
• Satisfaction can be the cause of gender
distribution of a sample
• Suppose Females have higher satisfaction
than Males
• Multiple reasons
Alternative Gender-Job
Satisfaction Model
• Females more likely to quit dissatisfying
jobs
• Dissatisfaction causes gender distribution
• Gender moderates relation of satisfaction
with quitting
Satisfaction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
…
.
.
.
.
Females
.
Males
More Alternatives
1. Women less likely to take dissatisfying
job (better job decisions)
2. Women less likely to be hired into
dissatisfying jobs (protected)
3. Women less likely to be bullied/mistreated
4. Women given more realistic previews
(lower expectations)
5. Women more socially skilled at getting
what they want at work
How To Use Controls
•
•
•
•
•
•
Controls great devices to test hypotheses/theory
Rule in/out plausible alternatives
Best based on theory
Sequence of tests
No automatic/blind use/inference
Tests with controls not more conclusive and
often less
Control Strategy
1. Test that A and B are related
•
Salary relates to job satisfaction
2. Confirm/disconfirm control variable
•
Gender relates to both
3. Generate/test alternative explanations for control
variable
•
•
•
•
Differential expectations
Differential hiring rate
Differential job experience
Differential turnover rate
Week 3: Validity and Threats To
Validity
• Validity
– Interpretation of constructs/results
– Inference based on purpose
• Hypothesized causal connections among constructs
• Nature of constructs
• Population of interest
– People
– Settings
• Not a property of designs or measures
themselves
Four Types of Design Validity
• Statistical conclusion
– Appropriate statistical method to make desired
inference
• Internal validity
– Causal conclusions reasonable based on design
• Construct validity
– Interpretation of measures
• External validity
– Generalizeability to population of interest
Threats to Validity
• Statistical Conclusion
– Statistics used incorrectly
– Low power
– Poor measurement
• Internal Validity
–
–
–
–
Confounds of IV with other events, variables
Group differences (pre-existing or attrition)
Lack of temporal order
Instrument changes
Threats To Validity 2
• Construct Validity
–
–
–
–
Inadequate specification of theoretical construct
Unreliable measurement
Biases
Poor content validity
• External Validity
– Inadequate specification of population
– Poor sampling of population
• Subjects
• Settings
Points From Shadish et. al
• Evaluation of validity based on subjective judgment
• Scientists conservative about accepting
results/conclusions that run counter to belief
• Scientists market their ideas; try to convince
colleagues
• Design controls preferable to statistical
• Statistical controls based on assumptions
– Untrue
– Untested
– Untestable
Points From Shadish et al. 2
• People in same workplace more similar than
people across workplaces
– When might this be true?
• Multiple tests
– Probability compounding assumes independent
tests
• Molar vs. molecular
– First determine molar effect
– Then breakdown to determine molecular elements
Qualitative Methods
• What are qualitative methods
– Collection/analysis of written/spoken text
– Direct observation of behavior
•
•
•
•
Participant observation
Case study
Interview
Written materials
– Existing documents
– Open-ended questions
Qualitative Research 2
• Accept subjectivity of science
– Is this an excuse?
• Less driven by hypothesis
• Assumption that reality a social construction
– If no one knows I’ve been shot, am I really dead?
•
•
•
•
•
Interested in subject’s viewpoint
More open-ended
More interested in context
Less interested in general principles
Focus more on interpretation than quantification
Analysis
• Content Analysis
–
–
–
–
–
Interviews
Written materials
Open-ended questions
Audio or video recordings
Quantifying
• Counts of behaviors/events
• Categorization of incidents
• Multiple raters with high agreement
• Nonquantitative
– Analysis of case
– Narrative description
The Value of the Qualitative
Approach
• What is the value/use of this approach?
• Is this science?
• Must everything be quantified?
Qualitative Organizational Research: Job
Stress
• Quantitative survey dominates
• Role ambiguity and conflict dominated in
1980s & 1990s (Katz & Kahn)
• Dominated by Rizzo et al. weak scales
• Studies linked RA & RC to potential
consequences and moderators
• Qualitative approach (Keenan & Newton,
1985)
• Stressful incidents
Keenan & Newton’s SIR
• Stress Incident Record
– Describe event in prior 2 weeks
– Aroused negative emotion
• Top stressful events for engineers
–
–
–
–
–
Time/effort wasted
Interpersonal conflict
Work underload
Work overload
Conditions of employment
• RA & RC rare (1.2% and 4.3%)
Subsequent SIR Research
• Comparison of occupations
– Clerical: Work overload, lack of control
– Faculty: Interpersonal conflict, time wasters
– Sales clerks: Interpersonal conflict, time
wasters
• Informed subsequent quantitative studies
– Focus on more common stressors
• Interpersonal conflict
• Organizational constraints
– Forget RA & RC
Cross-Cultural SIR Research
• Comparison of university support staff
• India vs. U.S.
Stressor
India
US
Overload
0%
25.6%
Lack of control
0%
22.6%
Lack of structure
26.5%
0%
Constraints (Equipment)
15.4%
0%
Conflict
16.5%
12.3%
Research As Craft
• Scholarly research as expertise not bag of
tricks
• Logical case
• Go beyond sheer technique
– Research not just formulaic/trends
– Not just using right design, measures, stats
– Can’t go wrong with Big Five, SEM, Metaanalysis
– SEM on meta-analytic correlation matrix of Big
Five
Developing the Craft
• Experience
• Trying different things
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
Constructs
Designs/methods
Problems
Statistics
Reading
Reviewing
Teaching
Thinking/discussing
Courses necessary but not sufficient
Lifelong learning—you are never done
Developing the Craft 2
• Field values novelty and rigor
• Don’t be afraid of exploratory research
– Not much contribution if answer known in advance
•
•
•
•
•
Look for surprises
Don’t be afraid to follow intuition
Ask interesting question without a clear answer
Focus on interesting variables
Good papers tell stories
– Variables are characters
– Relationships among variables
Week 4
Construct & External Validity
and
Method Variance
Constructs
• Theoretical level
– Conceptual definitions of variables
– Basic building blocks of theories
• Measurement level
– Operationalizations
– Based on theory of construct
What We Do With Constructs
• Define
• Operationalize/Measure
• Establish relations with other constructs
– Covariation
– Causation
Construct Validity
• Case based on weight of evidence
• Theory of the construct
– What is its nature?
– What does it relate to?
• Strength based on
– Adequate definition
– Adequate operationalization
– Control for confounding
Steps To Building the Case
1.
2.
3.
4.
Define Construct
Operationalize construct: Scale development
Construct theory: What it relates to
Validation evidence
1. Correlation with other variables
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cross-sectional
Predictive
Known groups
Convergent validity
Discriminant validity
Factorial validity
Points By Shadish et al.
• Construct confounding
–
–
–
–
Assessment of unintended constructs
SD and NA
Race and income
Height and gender
• O = T + E + Bias
– Bias = Extra unintended stuff
Points by Shadish 2
• Mono-operation bias
– Not clear on what it is
• Advocates converging operations
• Multiple operationalizations
• What is a different operationalization?
–
–
–
–
Different item formats
Different raters
Different experimenters
Different training programs
Points by Shadish 3
• Compensatory equalization: Extra to control
group
• Compensatory de-equalization: Extra to
experimental group
• FMHI Study
– Random assignment to FMHI vs. state hospital
– Staff violated
Construct Validity: Example of Weak Link
• Deviance: Violation of norms
• Theoretical construct weakness
– Whose norms?
• Society, organization, workgroup
• Operationalization weakness
– List of behaviors with no reference to norms
– Norms assumed from behavior
• Retaliation: Response to unfairness
– Asks behaviors plus motive
– Retaliation mentioned in instructions
External Validity: Population
• Link between sample and theoretical
population
• Define theoretical population
• Identify critical characteristics
• Compare sample to population
– Employed individuals
– Do students qualify?
External Validity: Setting
• Link between current setting and other
settings
– Organization
– Occupation
• Identify critical characteristics of settings
• Compare setting to others
– Lab to field
External Validity: Treatment/IV
• Link between current treatment/IV and
others
• Will treatment in study work in nonresearch
setting?
• Compare treatment/IV
– Distance learning vs. traditional
External Validity: Outcome/DV
• Link between current outcome/DV and others
• Will results in study work similarly in
nonresearch condition?
• Will different operationalizations of outcome
have same result?
– Supervisor rating of performance vs. objective
– Safety behavior versus accidents/injuries
Facts Are the Enemy of Truth
When Facts Oppose Belief
•
•
•
•
•
Gender bias in medical studies (Shadish p. 87)
Women are neglected in medical research
Treatments not tested on women
New grant rules require women
Study of 724 studies (Meinart et al.)
–
–
–
–
–
55.2% both genders
12.2% males only
11.2% females only
21.4% not specified
355,000 males, 550,000 females
When Politics Attack Science
•
•
•
•
Evolution
IQ and performance
Differential validity of IQ tests
Others?
Method Variance
• Method Variance: Variance attributable to
the method itself rather than trait
• Campbell & Fiske 1959
• Assumed to be ubiquitous
• VTotal = VTrait + VError + VMethod
Campbell & Fiske, 1959
• “…features characteristic of the method
being employed, features which could also
be present in efforts to measure other quite
different traits.”
Common Method Variance
•
•
•
•
•
•
CMV or Mono-method bias, same source bias
When method component shared
VTotal = VTrait + VError + VMethod
Assumes same method has same Vmethod
Assumed to inflate correlations
Only raised with self-reports
Evidence Vs. Truth
• Truth: CMV = Everything with same method correlated
• Evidence: Boswell et al. JAP 2004, n = 1601
Leverage
seeking
Separation
seeking
-.04
Career
satisfaction
-.10
-.14
Perceived
alternatives
.07
-.09
.20
Reward
importance
.16
.05
-.03
.02
Potential Universal Biases
• Truth: Specific biases widespread
• Evidence
– Social Desirability Meta-analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Moorman & Podsakoff
Mean r = .05
Highest -.17 role ambiguity; .17 job satisfaction
Lowest .01 Performance
Lower with employees (.03) than students (.09)
– Social Desirability Control Study
• Role clarity-job satisfaction
– r = .46 to .45 (when SD controlled)
Single-Source Vs. Multi-Source
• Truth: Multisource correlations smaller
• Evidence: Crampton & Wagner Meta-analysis
–
–
–
–
Compared single-source vs. multi-source
26.6% single-source higher (job sat and perform)
62.2% no difference (job sat and turnover)
11.2% multi-source higher (job sat and absence)
Evidence-Based Conclusions
• Measures subject to bias
• Depends on construct AND method
• Shared biases can inflate correlations
– Social desirability
– Negative affectivity
• Are they really bias?
• Unshared biases can attenuate correlations
Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminate term “method variance”
3rd variables
Construct validity and potential 3rd variables
Interpret results cautiously
Choose methods to control feasible 3rd variables
Alternate sources
– Not always accurate
• Converging operations
• Use strategy of first establishing correlation
– Rule out 3rd variables in series of steps
Conway & Lance 2010
• Distinguished method variance from effects p. 325
• Note: Different methods can share bias, p. 327
– Survey versus interview and SD
• Different sources measure different things, p. 328
• Did Heisenberg really say we change things by
measuring them?, p. 329
• Judge et al. were clear that self-report of job
characteristics were perceptions and not objective,
p. 329
Conway & Lance 2010 cont.
• Construct validity evidence does not rule
out possible biases, p. 329
• Be concerned about item overlap, p. 330
CWB – OCB Overlap
OCB
Does not take extra breaks
CWB
Taken a longer break than you
were allowed to take
Takes undeserved breaks
Obeys company rules and
regulations
Purposely failed to follow
instructions
Consumes a lot of time
complaining about trivial
matters
Complained about
insignificant things at work
Conducts personal business on
company time
I used working time for private
affairs
Week 5: Quasi-Experimental Design
• What is an experiment?
– Random assignment
– Creation of Conditions?
– Naturally occurring experiment
Quasi-experiment
•
•
•
•
Design without random assignment
Comparison of conditions
Researcher created or existing
Can characteristics of people be an IV?
– Gender
– Personality
• Is a survey a quasi-experiment?
Settings
• Laboratory vs. field
• Laboratory
– Setting in which phenomenon doesn’t naturally
occur
• Field
– Setting in which phenomenon naturally occurs
• Classroom field for educational psychologist
• Classroom lab for us
Lab vs. Field Strengths/Weaknesses
• Lab
–
–
–
–
High level of control
Easy to do experiments
Limits to what can be studied
Limited external validity of population/setting
• Field
–
–
–
–
–
Limited control
Difficult to do experiments
Wide range of what can be studied
High reliance on self-report
High external validity
Lab in I/O Research
• What’s the role of lab in I/O research?
• Stone suggests lab is as generalizeable as
field. Do you agree?
• Stone says I/O field biased against lab. Is it?
• When should we do lab vs. field studies?
Quasi-Experimental Compromise
• Quasi-experiments
– Compromise when true experiment isn’t possible
– Built in confounds
• Requires more data than experiment to rule out
confounds
• Inference complex
• Logic puzzle not cookbook
• Can’t just assume IV caused DV
Quasi-Experiment and Control
• Use of design AND statistical controls
• “Statistical adjustment only after the best design
controls have been used” Shadish, p. 161
• Control through comparison groups
• Control through retesting
–
–
–
–
Pretest-posttest
Multiple pretests/posttests
Long-term follow-ups
Trends
• Statistical control: 3rd variables & potential confounds
Single Group Designs
• Posttest only
•
•
•
•
XO
When (if ever) is this useful?
Pretest-posttest
OXO
When is this useful?
What are the limitations?
Nonequivalent Groups Design
• Preexisting groups assigned treatment vs.
control
X O
O
• Establishes difference between groups
• Limited inference
Nonequivalent Groups Design Limitations
• What are the main limitations?
– Groups could have been different initially
– Interaction of group characteristics and
treatment
– Differential history causing differences
Coping With Preexisting Group Differences
1. Assess preexisting differences
•
Pretest
2. Assess trends
•
Multiple pretests and posttests
3. Assign multiple groups
•
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Random assignment of groups if possible
Replicate
Additional control groups
Matching
Statistical adjustment of potential confounds
Switching replications—Give treatment to
control
Matching
• Selecting similar participants from each group
– Choose one or more matching variables
– Assess variables
– Choose pairs that are close matches
• Difficult to match on multiple variables
– Sample size reduction
• Might bias samples
– High in one sample low in another
– Meaning of high/low can vary
– LOC: Internal Chinese is external New Zealander
Randomly Assign Groups
• Identify multiple groups
• Randomly assign to conditions
• Groups need to be isolated
– Contamination of control by treated group
– Contamination of control by supervisors who
know about study
• Creates potential levels issue
– Subjects nested in groups
Case-Control Design
• Compare sample meeting criterion with
sample not meeting
• Must match to same population
– Employees who quit vs. all other employees
– Employees who were promoted vs. other
employees
– CEOs vs. line employees
– Employees assaulted/bullied vs. others
• Assess other variables to compare
Case-Control
• Typically we have the case sample at hand
• Controls may not be easily accessible
• Often cases compared to a “normal”
population
– Cancer patients vs. norms for general public
• Could compare cases in organization with
employees in general
– E.g., absence from case group vs. absence rate
in company
Is Case-Control Useful To Us?
• What might we use this design to study in
Organizations?
• What is the Case Group?
• What is the Control Group?
• What variables do we compare?
Limits To Case-Control Design
• Defining groups from same population
• Effect size uncertain
– All cases have X
– Small proportion of people with X are cases
– Asymmetrical prediction
• Groups may differ on more than case variable
• Retrospective assessment of supposed cause
– Quitting caused report of lower satisfaction
Week 6: Design
• Experimental Design
– Random assignment
– Creation of conditions
• Randomized experiment
– Time sequence built into design
– Still must rule out plausible alternatives
• Construct validity of IV and DV
• External validity for lab studies
• Is “real science” so real?
Random Assignment
• Random sample (external validity)
• Random assignment (internal validity)
– Probability of assignment equal
– Expected value of characteristics equal
– Not all variables equal
• Type 1 errors
• Faith in random assignment
• Differential attrition
What Are We Really Assigning To?
• Encouragement Design
– Ask subjects to do certain things
• What features of complex condition are
critical?
• Confounds in IV
Control Groups
•
•
•
•
•
No treatment
Waiting list
Placebo treatment
Currently accepted treatment
Comparisons to isolate variables
Bias In Experiments
•
•
•
•
Construct validity of DV and IV
Bias in Assessment of DV
Bias/confounding in IV
Bias affects
–
–
–
–
–
–
Subjects
Experimenters
Samples
Conditions (Contamination and Distortion)
Designs
Instruments
Humans Used As Instruments
• Self vs. other reports
• Bias in judgments of others
– Schema & stereotypes
– Implicit theories
– Attractiveness
• Pretty blondes are dumb
– Physical ability
• Athletes are dumb
– Height
• Tall are better leaders
Demand Characteristics
•
•
•
•
Implicit meaning of experimental condition
IV not accurately perceived
Subject motivated to do well
Subject tries to figure out experiment
– Response not natural for situation
Lie Detection Lab Vs. Field
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lab Study
Two trials of detection
Detect Trial 1, Harder to detect Trial 2
Not detect Trial 1, Easier to detect Trial 2
Opposite to field experience
Hypothesized that motive important
– Want to fool—being detected makes it easier to
detect
– Get caught—being detected makes it harder to
detect
Lie Detection Study 2
• 2 trials x 2 conditions
– Told intelligent can fool
• Anxious when caught
– Told sociopath can fool
• Relax when caught
Percent Detected Trial 2
Motive
Fool (intelligent)
Catch (sociopath)
Detect Trial 1
Not Detect Trial 1
94%
Anxious
25%
Relaxed
19%
Relaxed
88%
Anxious
Subject Expectancies
• Hawthorne Effects
– Knowledge of being in an experiment
– Does this really happen?
• Placebo Effects
• Blind procedures
Experimenter Effects
• Observer Errors
–
–
–
–
–
Late 1700s Greenwich Observatory
Maskelyne fires Kinnebrook for errors
Astronomer Bessel: Widespread errors
About 1% of observation have errors
75% direction of hypothesis
• Experimenter expectancy—self fulfilling
prophecy
• Clever Hans
• Dull/Bright rat study
• Double blind procedure
Experimenter Behavior
• Smiling at subjects
– 12% at males
– 70% at females
• Mixed gender S-E longer to complete
• Videotape of S-E interactions (Female E)
Auditory
Visual
Male subject
Friendly
Nonfriendly
Female subject
Nonfriendly
Friendly
Cross-Sectional Design
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All data at once
Variables assessed once
Most common design in I/O & OB/HR
Often done with questionnaires
Can establish relationships
Cannot rule out most threats
Cheap and efficient
Good first step
Data Collection Method
• Ways of collecting data
– Self-report questionnaire
• Formats
– Interview
• Degree of structure
– Observation
• Behavior checklist vs. rating
– Open-ended questionnaire
Data Source
•
•
•
•
•
•
Incumbent
Supervisor
Coworker
Significant other
Observer
Existing materials
– Job description
Single-Source
•
•
•
•
All data from one source
Usually also mono-method
Usually survey
Many areas usually self-report
– Well-being
• Some area other-report
– Performance
Multi-Source
• Same variables from different sources
– Convergent validity
– Confirmation of results
• Different variables from different sources
– Rules out some biases and 3rd variables
– Some biases can be shared
• Not panacea
Multisource Discriminant Validity
Study
Variables
SelfReport
OtherReport
Dalal 2005 meta
CWB-OCB
-.12
-.60
Spector et al.
2010
CWB-OCB
-.00
-.42
Spector, Fox 2005 Autonomy-Job Characteristics
.54
.67
Glick et al. 86
.024
.598
Job Characteristics-Satisfaction
Note: Dalal meta-analysis; Spector, Fox mean correlation across 4 job characteristics; Glick
et al. multiple correlation.
Bias Can Affect All Raters
• Self-Efficacy—outward signs of confidence
– Gives impression of effortless performance
– Coworker perception of employee’s constraints
• Doesn’t appear to have constraints
– Supervisor perceptions of performance
• Looks like a great performer
Constraints
Self-report
Job
Performance
Self-report
Self-Efficacy
Self-report
Constraints
Coworker
Job
Performance
Self-report
Self-Efficacy
Self-report
Constraints
Coworker
Job
Performance
Supervisor
Self-Efficacy
Self-report
Week 7: Longitudinal Designs
• Design introducing element of time
• Same variable measured repeatedly
• Different variables separated in time
– Turnover
• How much time needed to be longitudinal?
Advantages of Longitudinal Design
• Can establish relationships
• Can sometimes establish time sequence
• Can rule out some plausible alternatives
– Some biases
– Occasion factors
– Mood
Proper Time Sequence
• Before and after an event
– Turnover
• Precursors assessed prior
– Job satisfaction
• Difficult to know when satisfaction occurred
• Arbitrary points in time not helpful
– Steady state results same as cross-sectional
Predicting Change
• Showing that X predicts change in Y
• Relation of X & Y controlling for prior
levels
• Weak evidence for causality
• Regression to mean effects
• Basement/ceiling effects
Attrition Problem
• Attrition between time periods
– From organization
– From study
• Attrition not random
• Mean change due to attrition
• Interaction of attrition and variables
– Those most/least affected quit
Practical Issues
• Tracking subjects
• Matching responses
– Loss of anonymity
– Use of secret codes
• Subject might not remember
– Anonymous identifiers
• First street lived on
• Name of first grade teacher
• Grandmother’s first name
• Participation incentives
• Time to complete study
Pretest-Posttest Design
Single Group
O1
O2
Two Group
O1 X O 2
O1
O2
Trends Over Time
Single group Time Series
O1 O 2 O3 X O 4 O5 O6
Multigroup Time Series
O1 O 2 O3 X O 4 O5 O6
O1 O 2 O3
O 4 O5 O6
Discontinuity
• Change in trend around X
• Single group
– Can’t rule out other causes
• Multigroup
– Control group to rule out alternatives
Zapf et al.
• Stress area
• Relationships small over time
• Inus conditions
– Strains caused by 15 factors
– Each accounts for 7% of variance
– .26 correlation if measurement perfect
• Attrition of least healthy
• Relationships not always linear
• Choose appropriate time frame
Longitudinal Multi-Group Design
• Identify classification variable
– Assaulted, Smoking
• Assess two times
• Group employees
–
–
–
–
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No/No
• Compare groups
Manning, M. R., Osland, J. S., & Osland, A. (1989). Work-related consequences
of smoking cessation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 606-621.
Manning Design
Time 1: Smoke
Time 1: No Smoke
Time 2: Smoke
Smokers
Starters
Time 2: No Smoke
Quitters
Nonsmokers
Yang Design
Time 1: Assaulted
Time 1: Not Assaulted
Time 2: Assaulted
Constant strain
Strain increased
Time 2: Not Assaulted
Strain decreased
(recovery)
Constant strain
Experience Sampling
• Diary Study
• Multiple measures on same person
– Daily
– Multiple times per day
– 1-2 weeks
• Look at within person variation
– Changes in DV as a function of IV
Experience Sampling Analysis
• Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)
– Level 1 within person
– Level 2 between person
• Multiple regression
– DV2 = IV1 + DV1
– Time 1 IV on Time 2 DV control for Time 1 DV
– To see if change in DV is associated with IV
HLM
• Deals with hierarchical structure of data
– Observations nested
– Individuals in groups, departments, organizations
• Experience sampling
– Observations nested in people
– Separates variance into between versus within
– Analysis of within person change
• Relationship of fluctuations of IV vs. DV
Curvilinear Stressor-Strain
• Two studies
– CISMS2: Anglo n = 1470
• Spector-Jex, 1991, n =232
• Stressors
– Conflict, Constraints, Role ambiguity, Workload
• Strains
– anxiety, anger, depression, frustration, intent, job
satisfaction, symptoms
Analyses
• Curvilinear regression
• Strain = Stressor + Stressor2
• Plot by substituting values of Stressor
– Similar to plotting moderated regression
Example
• Y = 10 - 2X + .2X2
• X ranges from 0 to 20
• Substitute values 5 points apart (0, 5, 10,
15, 20)
Computations
X
b1X
(b1 = -2)
X2
b2X2
(b2 = .2)
b1X+b2X2
10
+b1X+b2X2
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
-10
25
5
-5
5
10
-20
100
20
0
10
15
-30
225
45
15
25
20
-40
400
80
40
50
Illustration of Curvilinear Regression
60
50
Ŷ
40
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
X
20
25
Results
• Significance for workload
• Limited significance for
– Conflict
– Constraints
– Role ambiguity
Strain
CISMS
Spector-Jex
Direction
Anxiety
ns
*
U
Frustration
--
*
U
Intent
*
*
U
Job
Satisfaction
Symptoms
*
*
Inverted U
*
ns
U
Week 8: Field Research and
Evaluation
• Field Research
– Done in naturalistic settings
• Experimental
• Quasi-experimental
• Observational
• Evaluation – Organizational Effectiveness
– Figuring out if things work
• Organizations
• Programs
• Interventions
Challenges To Field Research
• Access to organizations/subjects
• Lack of control
– Distal contact with subjects (surveys)
– Who participates
– Contaminating conditions
• Participants discussing study
• Lack of full cooperation
• Organizational resistance to change
Creative and Varied Approaches
Accessing Subjects
• Define population needed for your purpose
– People
– Jobs
– Organizations
• List likely locations to access populations
• Consider ways to access locations
Defining Populations: People
• Characteristics of people
– Demographics
• Age, Education, Gender, Race
– KSAOs
– Occupations
•
•
•
•
Do variables of interest vary across occupations?
Single or multiple occupations
Single controls variety of factors
Multiple
– More variance
– Tests of occupation differences
– Greater generalizeability
Defining Populations: Organizations
• Characteristics of organizations needed
– Occupations represented
– Characteristics of people represented
– Characteristics of practices
• Single versus multiple organizations
– Single adds control
– Multiple adds
• Variance
• Tests of organization characteristics
• Generalizeability
Accessing Participants: Students
• Psychology student subject pool
• Employed students in classes, e.g., night
• Advantages/Limitations
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Easily accessed on many campuses
Cheap
Cooperative
Younger and more educated than average
Heterogeneous jobs/organizations
Often part-time and temporary jobs
Potential work-school conflict
Accessing Participants: Nonstudents
• Organizations: Access can be a problem
• Association mailing lists: Single
occupations
• Web search: Government employees
• Clubs, churches, nonwork organizations
• Unions
• General surveys
– Phone, mail, door-to-door, street corner
Approaching Organizations
•
•
•
•
Sell to management
Appeal to value of science not ideal
What’s in it for them?
Partnership
– Free service: Employee survey, job analysis
– Address their problem
– Piggyback your interest
Modes of Approach
• Personal contact: Networking
– Give talks to local managers, e.g., SHRM
– Students in class
– Approach based on known need
• Hospitals and violence
• Consider the audience
–
–
–
–
Psychologist vs. nonpsychologist
HR vs. nonHR
Level of sophistication about problem
Don’t assume you know more than
organization about their problem
Project Prospectus
• One page nontechnical prospectus
–
–
–
–
–
–
Purpose: Clear and succinct
What you need from them
What it will cost (e.g., staff time)
What’s in it for them
What products you will provide to them
Timeline
Example
• Determine factors leading to patient assaults on nurses
in hospitals
• Need to survey 200 nurses with questionnaire
• Questionnaire will take 10-15 minutes
– Can be taken on break or home
• Will provide report to organization about
– How many nurses have been assaulted
– The impact of the assaults on them
– Factors that might be addressed to reduce the problem
• Would like to conduct study next month, and provide
report within 60 days of completion.
Partnerships
•
•
•
•
Academics and nonacademics
Projects come from mutual interests
Piggyback onto organizational project
Internship
– Johannes Rank’s training evaluation
• Issues
– Proprietary results
– Organizational confidentiality
Program Evaluation/Organizational
Effectiveness
• Program Evaluation
– Education
– Human Services
– Determining if program is effective
• Organizational Effectiveness
– More generic
– Determining effectiveness of organization
– Determining effectiveness of activity/unit
Formative Approach
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on processes
Often used in developmental approach
Can be qualitative
Can be quantitative
Action research
– Identify problem, try solution, evaluate, revise
Summative Approach
•
•
•
•
•
Assess if things work
Often quantitative
Experimental or quasi-experimental design
Compare to control group/s
Utility
– Return on investment (ROI)
• Private sector
• Profitability
– Cost/outcome (bang for buck)
• Military—literally
• Nonmilitary—cost/unit of outcome
Steps In Determining Effectiveness
1. Define goals/objectives
2. Determine criteria for success
3. Choose design
1. Single group vs. multigroup
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Pick measures
Collect data
Analyze/draw conclusion
Report/Feedback
Program improvement
Week 9
Survey Methods & Constructs
• Survey methods
• Sampling
• Cross-cultural challenges
– Measurement equivalence/invariance
• Reflective Vs. Formative scales
• Artifactual constructs
Survey Settings
• Within employer organization
• Within other organization
–
–
–
–
University
Professional association
Community group
Club
• General population
– Phone book
– Door-to-door
Methods
• Questionnaire
– Paper-and-pencil
– E-mail
– Web
• Interview
–
–
–
–
–
Face-to-face
Phone
Video-phone
E-mail
Instant Message
Population
• Single organization
• Multiple organizations
– Within industry/section
• Single occupation
• Multiple occupations
• General population
– Employed students
Sample Versus Population
• Survey everyone in population vs. sample
– Single organization or unit of organization
• Often survey goes to everyone
– Multiple organizations
• Kessler: All psychology faculty
– Other organization
• Professional association
• Often survey everyone
– General population
Sampling Definitions
• Population – Aggregate of cases meeting
specification
–
–
–
–
All humans
All working people
All accountants
Not always directly measurable
• Sampling frame – List of all members of a
population to be sampled
– List of all USF support personnel
Sampling Definitions cont.
• Stratum – Segment of a population
• Divided by a characteristic
– Demographics
• Male vs. female
– Job level
• Manager vs. nonmanager
– Job title
– Occupation
– Department/division of organization
Representativeness of Samples
• Representative
– Sample characteristics match population
• Non representative
– Sample characteristics do not match population
• Some procedures more likely to yield
representative samples
Nonprobability Sampling
• Nonprobability sample – Every member of
population doesn’t have equal chance
• Representativeness not assured
• Types
– Accidental or convenience
– Snowball
– Quota – Accidental but stratified
• Choose half male/female
– Purposive – Handpick cases that meet criteria
• Pick full-time employees in a class
Probability Sampling
• Random sample from defined population
• Stratified random sample
– More efficient than random
• Cluster or multistage
– Random selection of aggregates
• Select organizations stratified by industry
International Research Methods
• Cross-cultural vs. cross-national (CC/CN)
• Purposes
–
–
–
–
Research within a country/culture (emic)
Generalize finding/theory
Compare countries/cultures (etic)
Test culture hypotheses across groups defined
by culture CC/CN differences
• Within country
• Across countries
• Across regions
– North America vs. Latin America
Challenges of CC/CN Research
• Equivalence of samples
• Measurement Equivalence/Invariance (MEI)
Sample Equivalence
• What is it about samples that causes differences?
• Confounding of country with sample characteristics
– Occupations
• Can vary across countries
– Industry sectors
• Private sector doesn’t exist universally
– Organization characteristics
– People characteristics (e.g., demographics)
• Gender breakdown differs across countries
Instrument Issues
• Linguistic meaning
– Translation – Back-translation
• Calibration
– Numerical equivalence
– Cultural response tendencies
• Asian modesty
• Latin expansiveness
• Measurement equivalence
– Construct validity
– Factor Structure
Measurement Equivalence/Invariance MEI
• Construct Validity
– Same interpretation across groups
• SEM and IRT approaches
– Based on item inter-relationship similarity
– Factor structure
– Item characteristic curves
SEM Approach
• Equality of item variance/covariance
• Equal corresponding loadings
• Form invariance
– Equal number of factors
– Same variables load per factor
IRT Approach
• Equivalent item behavior
• For unidimensional scales
• Better developed for ability tests
Eastern versus Western Control Beliefs at
Work
Paul E. Spector, USF
Juan I. Sanchez, Florida International University
Oi Ling Siu, Lingnan University, Hong Kong
Jesus Salgado, University of Santiago, Spain
Jianhong Ma, Zhejiang University, PRC
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2004
Background
• Cross-cultural study of control beliefs
• Americans Vs. Chinese
• Locus of control beliefs vary
– Chinese very external vs. Americans
– Suggests Chinese passive view of world
– Look to others for direction
Primary Vs. Secondary Control
• Primary: Direct control of environment
• Secondary: Adapt self to environment
–
–
–
–
Predictive: Enhance ability to predict events
Illusory: Focusing on chance, i.e., gambling
Vicarious: Associate with powerful others
Interpretive: Looking for meaning
• Asians more secondary
Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder
Socioinstrumental Control
• Control through social networks
• Build social networks
• Cultivate relationships
Juan Sanchez
Purpose
• Develop/validate new control scales
– Secondary control
– Socioinstrumental control
• Avoid ethnocentricism by using
international item writers
Pilot Study Method
•
•
•
•
Develop definitions of constructs
International team wrote 87 items
Administered 126 Americans
Item analysis
Sample Items
Secondary
• I take pride in the accomplishments of my superiors at work
(Vicarious control)
• In doing my work, I sometimes consider failure in my work
as payment for future success (Interpretative control)
Socioinstrumental
• It is important to cultivate relationship with superiors at
work if you want to be effective
• You can get your own way at work if you learn how to get
along with other people
Pilot Study Results
• Secondary control scale
– 11 items
– Alpha = .75
– r = -.44 Work LOC
• Socioinstrumental control 24 items
– Alpha = .87
– r = .26 Work LOC
• Two scales r = .12 (nonsignificant)
Main Study Method
• Subjects from HK, PRC, US
– Ns = 130, 146, 254
– Employed students & university support
• Work LOC & New Scales
• Stressors
– Autonomy, conflict, role ambiguity & conflict
• Stains
– Job satisfaction, work anxiety, life satisfaction
Coefficient Alphas
Scale
HK
PRC
US
Secondary
.87
.70
.76
Socioinstrumental
.91
.88
.91
Mean Differences
HK
PRC
US
R2
Second
43.8A
46.0B
45.6B
.02
Socio
93.4A
97.1B
91.9A
.01
Work
LOC
51.0B
57.0C
40.2A
.38
Variable
Correlations With Work LOC
Variable
HK
PRC
US
Secondary
.33
-.55
-.21
Socioinstrumental
.51
-.59
.23
Significant Correlations
Variable
HK
PRC
US
Job sat,
Autonomy
Job sat
All
Socioinstrumental
Role conflict
Job sat
Autonomy
Work LOC
Job sat,
Autonomy,
Conflict
None
All
Secondary
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
Procedure created internally consistent scale
Little mean difference China vs. US
Work LOC huge mean difference
Relationships different across samples
Nature of Indicators
• Reflective Vs. Formative
• Determines meaningful statistics
• Affects conclusions
Reflective or Effect Indicator
• Indicator caused by or reflects underlying
construct
• Change in construct  Change in indicators
• Classical test theory
• Measures of attitudes and personality
• Needs internal consistency
• Factor analysis meaningful…..sometimes
Formative or Causal Indicator
•
•
•
•
•
Indicator defines underlying construct
Items don’t reflect single construct
Items not interchangeable
Change in indicator  Change in construct
Examples
– Socio-economic status
• Education, Income, Occupation Status
– Behavior checklist (CWB or OCB)
– Symptom checklist
• Internal consistency not always high
• Factor analysis might not be meaningful
Formative Indicator Example:
Personality and CWB
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trait anger and trait anxiety: Spielberger STPI
CWB: Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist
N = 78 miscellaneous employees, community
Trait anger & CWB r = .37
Trait anxiety & CWB r = .30
Can we assume anger & anxiety relate to all behaviors?
Fox, Spector, Miles, 2001, Journal of Vocational Behavior
Trait Anger
Trait Anxiety
Purposely wasted your employer’s materials/supplies
.09
.08
Daydreamed rather than did your work
.45*
.42*
Complained about insignificant things at work
.52*
.34*
Purposely did your work incorrectly
.07
.11
Came to work late without permission
.08
.10
Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you weren’t
.20
.13
Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property
.14
.04
Purposely dirtied or littered your place of work
-.02
.19
Stolen something belonging to your employer
.16
-.08
Took supplies or tools home without permission
.05
-.03
Tried to look busy while doing nothing
.34*
.36*
Took money from your employer without permission
.08
-.05
Item
How Do You Know?
•
•
•
•
Theoretical interpretation
Are items equivalent forms of construct?
Do items correlate?
Time sequencing—which changed first?
– Does increase in SES affect education and
income equally?
• No statistical test exists
• No automatic inference machine
Artifactual Constructs:
Overinterpretation of Factor Analysis
• Tendency to assume factors = constructs
• If items load on different factors they reflect
different constructs
• Sometimes item characteristics are
confounded with factors
– Wording direction
General Assumptions About Item
Relationships
•
•
•
•
Related items reflect same construct
Unrelated items reflect different constructs
Clusters of items reflect the same construct
Factor analysis is magic
General Assumptions About
Measurement
• People agree with items in direction of position
– If I have a favorable attitude, I will agree with all
favorable items
• People disagree with items opposite to direction of
position
– If I have a favorable attitude, I will disagree with all
unfavorable items
• Responses to oppositely worded items are a mirror
image of one another
– If I moderately agree with positive items, I will
moderately disagree with negative items
Ideal Point Principle: Thurstone
• Items vary along a continuum.
• People’s positions vary along a continuum
• People agree only with items near their
position
• Oppositely worded items not always mirror
image
• Items of same value relate strongly
• Items of different value relate weakly
Agree
Disagree
Person
Item value on construct continuum
Ideal Point Principle
A
Pessimism
B
C
D
E
Optimism
Difficulty Factors
• Ability tests
• Items vary in difficulty
• Items of same difficulty relate well
– Those who get 1 easy will tend to get all easy
• Items of varying difficulty relate less well
– Those who get hard tend to get easy
– Those who get easy don’t all get hard
Example
People
Easy Items
Hard Items
Low Ability
80% Correct
0% Correct
High Ability
100% Correct
80% Correct
Effects On Statistics
•
•
•
•
Easy items strongly correlated
Hard items strongly correlated
Easy items relate modestly to Hard
Factor analysis produces factors based on
difficulty
• Difficulty factors reflect item characteristics
not people characteristics
Summated Ratings
• Items of same scale value relate strongly
• Items of different value relate modestly
• Scatterplots triangular not elliptical
– High-Low, Low-High, and Low-Low common
– Few High-High
• Often distributions are skewed
• Mixed value items produce factors according to
scale value of item
• Might not reflect underlying constructs
Plot of Moderate Positively Vs.
Negatively Worded Job
Satisfaction Items
Scatterplot of Moderate Worded
Job Satisfaction Items
46
Positively Worded Items
41
36
31
26
21
16
11
6
6
11
16
21
26
31
Negatively Worded Items
36
41
46
Plot of Extreme Positively Vs.
Negatively Worded Job
Satisfaction Items
46
Extreme Positively Worded Item Score
41
36
31
26
21
16
11
6
6
11
16
21
26
31
Extreme Negatively Worded Item Score
36
41
46
Conclusions
• Be wary of factors where content is
confounded with item direction
• Be wary when assumption of
homoscedasticity is violated
• Be wary when items are extremely worded
• More evidence than factor analysis
Week 10
Theory
What Is A Theory?
• Bernstein
– Set of propositions that account for predict and
control phenomena
• Muchinsky
– Statement that explains relationships among
phenomena
• Webster
– General or abstract principles of science
– Explanation of phenomena
Types of Theories
• Inductive
– Starts with data
– Theory explains observations
• Deductive
– Starts with theory
– Data used to support/refute theory
Common Usage of Theory
• Conjecture, opinion, speculation or
hypothesis
– Wikipedia
Advantages
• Integrates and summarizes large amounts of
data
• Can help predict
• Guides research
• Helps frame good research questions
Disadvantages
• Biases researchers
• “Theory, like mist of eyeglasses, obscures
facts” (Charlie Chan in Muchinsky)
• “Facts are the enemy of truth” (Levine’s
boss)
• A distraction as research does not require
theory (Skinner)
Hypothesis
• Statement of expected relationships among
variables
• Tentative
• More limited than a theory
• Doesn’t deal with process or explanation
Model
• Representation of a phenomenon
• Description of a complex entity or process
– Webster
• Boxes and arrows showing causal flow
Theoretical Construct
• Abstract representation of a characteristic of
people, situation, or thing
• Building blocks of theories
Paradigm
• Accepted scientific practice
• Rules and standards for scientific practice
• Law, theory, application and
instrumentation that provide models for
research.
– Thomas Kuhn
What Are Our Paradigms?
• Behaviorism?
• Environment-perception-outcome approach
• Surveys
Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas Kuhn
“An apparently arbitrary element,
compounded of personal and historical
accident, is always a formative ingredient of
the beliefs espoused by a given scientific
community at a given time.”, p. 4
“research as a strenuous and devoted attempt
to force nature into the conceptual boxes
supplied by professional education.”, p. 5
History of Theory in Psychology
• Behaviorism: Rejection of theory
– More consistent with natural science
– Avoid the unobservable
– Dustbowl empiricism criticism
• “Cognitive revolution”: Embracing models and
theory
– Unobservables commonly studied
• Organizational research
– Theory as paramount
• The empiricists strike back?
– Hambrick and Locke
Current State of Theory
• Almost required in introductions
– Marginalize importance of data
– Ideas more important than facts
• Scholarship vs. Science
– Scholarly writing—making good arguments
– Scientific writing—describing/explaining
phenomena based on data
Misuse of Theory
• Posthoc: Pretending theory drove research
• Citing theories as evidence
• Claiming hypothesis is based on a theory it
is not based on
• Sprinkling cites to irrelevant theories
– (Sutton & Staw)
Example from Stress Research
• Hobfol’s Conservation of Resources Theory
– People are motivated to acquire and conserve
resources
– Demands on resources and threats to resources
are stressful
• People routinely cite COR theory in support
of stressor-strain hypotheses
– No measure of resources or threat
– Using a theory to support a hypothesis that does
not derive from the theory
Why Do People Do This?
• Pressure for theory
• Everyone else is doing it
– Subjective norms
• Think this is real science
• Playing the game
Backlash
• Increasing criticism of the obsession with
theory
–
–
–
–
–
Hambrick & Locke
Harry Barrick: Half-life of models in cognitive
AOM sessions
One unnamed reviewer
Informal interactions
Proper Role of Theory in Science
• Goal of science is to understand the world
• Science is evidence-based not intuition-based
– Data is the heart of science
– Theory is current state of understanding how/why
things work
• Theory is the tail not the dog
• There is a place for both empiricism and theory
Natural Science
• More focused on data
• Longer timeframe
– Decades and centuries of data before theory
• “Social science theory a smokescreen to
hide weak data” USF chemist
Levels of Explanation
•
•
•
•
•
Atomic or chemical
Neural
Individual cognitive
Social
Higher the level, looser the connections and
constructs
I/O is just
applied
Social.
I/O
Social
Social is just
applied
Cognitive.
Cognitive
Cognitive is just
applied
Cog/Neuro.
Cog/Neuro
Cog/Neuro is
Just applied
Neuroscience. It’s
nice to be on top.
Neuroscience
Behavioral Genetics
Use Theory Properly
• Hypotheses: Explicitly derive from a theory
• Don’t claim support from a theory
• Often better to mention theories in the
discussion
• Only mention multiple theories if your
study is a comparative test
Week 11
Levels of Analysis
Level
• Nature of the sampling unit
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Person
Couple
Family
Group/Team
Department
Organization
Industry sector
Country
Individual Vs. Higher Level
• Most psychological constructs person level
– Attitude
– Performance
• Some constructs higher (aggregate) level
– Organizational climate
– Team performance
Types of Aggregates
• Sum of individuals
– Sales team performance
• Consensus of individuals
– Mean of individuals
– Majority votes
• Aggregate level data
–
–
–
–
Job analysis observer ratings for job title
Organization profitability
Team characteristic (size, gender breakdown)
Turnover rates
Aggregate As Sum of Individuals
• Sum individual characteristics
– Ask individuals about own values
– Sum values
• Direct assessment of aggregate
– Ask individuals about people in their unit
– “How do your team members feel about…?”
– Sum values
Aggregate As Consensus
• Shared perceptions
– Climate
• People within unit should agree
• Assess extent of agreement
– Intraclass correlation, ICC(1)
– Rwg
Intraclass Correlation ICC(1)
•
•
•
•
Multiple raters of multiple targets
Extent of within rater agreement
Var(Total) = Var(Between target) + Var(Within target)
ICC = Var(Between) / Var(Total)
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Rwg
• Compares observed to expected variance of
ratings
• Rwg = (Var(expected) – Var(Obs)) / Var(Expected)
• Var(Expected) = (A2 – 1)/12
– A = Number of rating categories
– Assumes uniform distribution of responses
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating withingroup interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
Example
•
•
•
•
•
10 Raters: 5, 2, 3, 5, 2, 3, 1 ,4, 3, 4
A = 5 (5 rating choices)
Var(Expected) = (52 – 1)/12 = 2
Var(Observed) = 1.73
Rwg = (2 – 1.73) / 2 = .135
Ecological Fallacy
• Drawing inferences from one level to another
• When measurement and question don’t match
– Job satisfaction vs. group morale
– Individual behavior vs. group behavior
• Improper inference
• Can’t draw conclusions across levels
• Empirically data only reflect own level
If it works for individuals, why
won’t it work for groups?
Correlation and Subgroups
Individual no correlation; Group positive
Individual no correlation; Group negative
Individual positive correlation: Group none
Individual positive correlation; Group
negative
Pay and Job Satisfaction
• Question 1: Job level
– Do better paying jobs have more satisfied
people?
• Question 2: Individual level
– Are better paid within jobs more satisfied?
Job Satisfaction
Nurses
Physicians
Salary
•Pay-Job Satisfaction correlation
•Mixed jobs r = .17 (Spector, 1985)
•Single job r = .50 (Rice et al. 1990)
Pooled Within-Group Correlation
Remove Effects of Group Differences in
Means
Correlation
Pooled WG
SPxy
rxy  SS x SS y
SP
 SP
x1y1
x2 y 2
rxy  (SS  SS )(SS  SS )
x1
x2
y1
y2
where 1 and 2 refer to groups 1 and 2
Independence of Observations
• Independence a statistical assumption
• Subjects nested in groups
– Subjects influence one another
– Observations non-independent
• Example
–
–
–
–
–
Effects of supervisory style on OCB
Subjects nested in workgroups
Style ratings within supervisor nonindependent
Subjects influence one another
Shared biases
Confounding of Levels
• Individual case per unit
– One person per organization
• Nonindependence issue resolved
• Confounding of individual vs. organization
– Is relation due to individual or organization?
• Potential problem for inference
– Self report of satisfaction and org performance
– Could be shared bias—happy employee reports
greater performance
Hierarchical Linear Modeling
• Statistical technique
• Deals with nonindependence
• Analyze data at two or more levels
– Individuals in teams
– Teams in organizations
• Interaction of levels
– Does team moderate relation between
satisfaction and OCB?
Levels of Behavior Aggregation
• How should behaviors be combined?
Overall Index
•
•
•
•
Sum of multiple behaviors
Skarlicki-Folger Retaliation = 17 items
Bennett-Robinson Deviance = 24 items
Spector-Fox Counterproductive Work
Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) = 45
Distinguish Target
• Robinson-Bennett 1995
– Organization versus person target
– Bennett-Robinson deviance scale
– CWB-C
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 349-360.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional
scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Five Dimensions of CWB-C
•
•
•
•
•
Abuse
Production Deviance
Sabotage
Theft
Withdrawal
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of
counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68, 446-460.
More Dimensions
• Abuse
– Physical
– Verbal
• Production deviance
– Loafing
– Damaging
• Sabotage
• Theft
– From coworker
– From Organization
• Withdrawal
Even Finer Grained
• Abuse
– Physical
• Weapon
• No Weapon
– Slap
– Punch
• Injure vs. not
• Injury needs medical treatment vs. not
• Reactive vs. proactive
Does It Matter?
• CWB-C
– 45 items
• Job Satisfaction
• N = 312
Correlation With Job Satisfaction
• Total
-.32*
– CWB-organization -.35*
– CWB-person
-.19*
•
•
•
•
•
Abuse
Withdrawal
Production deviance -.19*
Sabotage
Theft
– Individual Items
-.31*
-.22*
-.14*
-.05
40% Significant
Item
r
Ran down employer to others
-.60
Called in sick when not
-.24
Worked slowly on purpose
-.22
Insulted someone about their work
-.20
Stole from employer
-.08
Purposely dirtied or littered workplace
-.03
Purposely damaged equipment
-.02
Spread rumor
-.02
Conclusion
• Behavior checklist is formative not
reflective
– Items are not interchangeable
– High levels of composite do not mean high
levels of all components
– Same score from different sets of behaviors
• Do not cross levels with inference
– Assume components have same relation as
composite
Week 12
Literature Reviews
Narrative Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
Summary of research findings
Qualitative analysis
“Expert” analysis
Based on evidence
Room for subjectivity
Classical approach
Meta-analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Quantitative cumulation of findings
Based on common metric
Many approaches
Many decision rules
Room for subjectivity in decision rules
Meta-Analysis  HunterSchmidt Approach
There are MANY ways to conduct
meta-analysis
Use of Narrative Review
•
•
•
•
Used almost exclusively before 1990s
Psychological Bulletin
In depth literature summary
Brief overview vs. comprehensive
– Brief overview part of empirical articles
• Can contrast very different studies
– Constructs
– Designs
– Measures
• Small number of studies
Limitations to Narratives
• One person’s subjective impression
• Different reviews – different conclusions
• Lacks decision rules for drawing
conclusions
– What if half studies are significant?
• Difficulty with conflicting results
• Narratives often hard to read
• Narratives difficult to write
Narrative Review Procedure
•
•
•
•
•
•
Define domain
Decide scope (how comprehensive)
Inclusion rules
Identify/obtain studies
Read studies/take notes
Organize review
– Outline of topics
– Assign studies to topic
• Write sections
• Draw conclusions
Meta-Analysis
• NO AUTOMATIC INFERENCE MACHINE
• Does NOT provide absolute truth
• Does NOT provide population parameters
– Provides parameter estimates, i.e. statistics
– Samples not always random or representative
• Has not revolutionized research
• Is just another tool that you need
Just Another Tool
Use of Meta-Analysis
•
•
•
•
Dominant procedure today for reviews
Published in most journals
Often descriptive and superficial
Allows for hypothesis tests
– Moderators
• Requires highly similar studies
– Constructs
– Designs
– Measures
Limitations To Meta-Analysis
• Small number of studies meeting criteria
• Convenience sample of convenience samples
• Subjectivity of decision rules
– Inclusion/exclusion rules
– Statistics used
– Procedures to gather studies
• Journals
• Dissertations
• Unpublished
• Different reviewers, different conclusions
• Sometimes data are made up
• Need lots of studies
Meta-Analysis Procedure
• Define domain and scope
• Inclusion rules
• Decide on M-A method
– Artifact adjustments?
•
•
•
•
•
Identify/obtain studies
Code data from studies
Conduct analyses
Prepare tables
Write paper/interpret results
Define Domain
• Choose topic
• Specify domain
– Personality: Big Five vs. Individual traits
• Define populations
– Employees vs. Students
• Define settings
– Workplace vs. Home
• Types of studies
– Group comparisons vs. correlations
• Define variable operationalizations
– Self-reports vs. other reports
Apples Vs. Oranges
• Quantitative estimate of population parameter
– What is the population?
• Mean effect size across samples
• Assumes sample statistics assess same thing
• Cumulating results across different constructs
not meaningful
Inclusion Rules
• Operationalizations parallel forms
– Measures of NA, neuroticism, emotional
stability, trait anxiety
– All trait measures
• Samples from same population
– All full-time working adults
– Full-time = > 30 hours/week
– All American samples
• Designs equivalent
– All cross-sectional self-report
• Journal published studies vs. others
Meta-Analysis Method
• Many to choose from
• Nature of studies
– Group comparisons
– Correlations
• Rosenthal
– Describe distribution of rs
– Moderators as specific variables to test
• Hunter-Schmidt
– Adjust for artifacts
– Moderators as more variance than expected
Effect Size Estimates
• Combine effect sizes
• Correlation as amount of shared variance
• Magnitude of mean differences
d
M
M
SE
Treatment
Control
Where d is difference in means in SD units
Identify/Obtain Studies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Electronic databases (PsycINFO)
Other reviews
Reference lists of papers
Conference programs/proceedings
Listservs
Write authors in area
Coding
• Choose variables to code
• Judgments about inclusion rules
• How to handle multiple statistics
– Independent samples
– Dependent samples: Average
• Sometimes ratings made, e.g., quality
– Interrater agreement
Variables To Code
•
•
•
•
•
Effect sizes
N
Reliability of measures
Name of measures
Sample description
–
–
–
–
Demographics
Job types
Organization types
Country
• Design
Analysis
• Meta-analysis software
• Statistical package
– Excel, SAS, SPSS
• Organize results
– Tables by IV or DV
• Analysis of moderators
Interpret
• Often descriptive
– Little insight other than mean correlations
– Nothing new if results have been consistent
•
•
•
•
•
Often superficial
Can test hypotheses
Effects of moderators
Can inconsistencies be resolved?
Suggest new directions or research gaps?
Rosenthal Approach
• Convert statistics to r
– Chi square from 2x2 table
– Independent group t-test
– Two-level between group ANOVA
•
•
•
•
Convert r to z
Compute descriptive statistics
Describe results in tables
Meta-analysis as summary of studies
Rosenthal Descriptives
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mean effect size
Weighted mean
Median
Mode
Standard deviation
Confidence interval
Rosenthal Moderators
• Identify moderator and relate to effect sizes
• Correlate characteristic of study with r
• Shows if r is a function of moderator
Moderator Example
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Satisfaction – turnover
Unemployment as moderator
Found studies
Contacted authors where/when conducted
Database of unemployment rates
Correlated unemployment to r of study
Unemployment –r with satisfactionturnover
Carsten-Spector 1987 Journal of Applied Psychology
Schmidt-Hunter
• Convert effect sizes to r
• Compute descriptive statistics on r
• Collect artifact data
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Theoretical variability
Unreliability
Restriction of range
Quality of study
Artifact distributions to estimate missing data
Adjust observed mean r to estimate rho
Compare observed SD to theoretical after adjustments
Residual variance = moderators
Estimating Missing Artifacts
• Estimate = Make up data
• “The magic of statistics cannot create
information where none exists” Wainer
• Existing data to guess what missing might
have been
• Hall-Brannick JAP 2000 it is inaccurate
• Science of what might be rather than what
is
Value of Artifact Adjustments
• Variability in r is what is/isn’t expected
• Show that variance due to differential
reliability, restriction of range, etc.
• Requires you have artifact data
Rosenthal Vs. H-S
• Both identify/code studies
• Both compute descriptive statistics
• r to z transformation
– Rosenthal yes, H-S no
•
•
•
•
•
•
H-S artifact adjustments
H-S rho vs. Rosenthal mean r
H-S advocate estimating unobservables
Rosenthal deals only with observables
Begin the same, H-S goes farther
Rosenthal similar to H-S bare bones
Why I Prefer Rosenthal
• Rho is parameter for undefined population
– Convenience sample of convenience samples
– Population = studies that were done/found
• Unavailable artifact data
– Uncomfortable in estimating missing data
• Prefer to deal with observables
• Don’t believe in automatic inference
• Lot’s of competing methods
Week 13
Ethics In Research
Ethical Practices
• Conducting Research
– Treatment of human subjects
– Treatment of organizational subjects
• Data Analysis/Interpretation
• Disseminating Results
– Publication
• Peer reviewing
Ethical Codes
•
•
•
•
•
Appropriate moral behavior/practice
Accepted practices
Basic Principle: Do no harm
Protect dignity, health, rights, well-being
Codes
– APA??
– AOM
American Psychological Association Code
• Largely Practice oriented
• Five principles
–
–
–
–
–
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence [Do no harm]
Fidelity and Responsibility
Integrity
Justice
Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity
• Standards and practices
• Applies to APA members
• http://www.apa.org/ethics/
Preamble
Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific and
professional knowledge of behavior and people's understanding
of themselves and others and to the use of such knowledge to
improve the condition of individuals, organizations, and society.
Psychologists respect and protect civil and human rights and the
central importance of freedom of inquiry and expression in
research, teaching, and publication. They strive to help the
public in developing informed judgments and choices
concerning human behavior. In doing so, they perform many
roles, such as researcher, educator, diagnostician, therapist,
supervisor, consultant, administrator, social interventionist, and
expert witness.
APA Conflict Between
Profession and Ethical Principles
• Restriction of Advertising
– Violation of the law
• Maximization of income for members
• Tolerance of torture
– Convoluted statements
• Other associations manage to avoid such
conflicts
Academy of Management Code
•
•
Largely academically oriented
Three Principles
–
–
–
•
Responsibility to
–
–
–
–
–
•
Responsibility
Integrity
Respect for people’s rights and dignity
Students
Advancement of managerial knowledge
AOM and larger profession
Managers and practice of management
All people in the world
http://www.aomonline.org/aom.asp?ID=&page_ID=239
Professional Principles
Our professional goals are to enhance the
learning of students and colleagues and the
effectiveness of organizations through our
teaching, research, and practice of
management.
Why I Prefer AOM
• Consistent principles
• Simpler
• More directly relevant to organizational
practice and research
• No attempt to compromise ethics for profit
Principles Vs. Practice
• Principles clear in theory
• Ethical line not always clear
• Ethical dilemmas
– Harm can be done no matter what is done
– Conflicting interests between parties
• Employee versus organization
• Whose rights take priority?
Example: Exploitive Relationships
• Principle
– Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they
have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority
• What does it mean to exploit?
• Professor A hires Student B to be an RA
– How much pay/compensation is exploitive?
– How many hours/week demanded?
• What if student gets publication?
Example: Assessing Performance
• In academic and supervisory relationships,
psychologists establish a timely and specific
process for providing feedback to students
and supervisees.
• Not giving an evaluation is unethical?
• How often?
• How detailed?
• What if honest feedback harms the person’s
job situation?
Conducting Research
•
•
•
•
•
Privacy
Informed consent
Safety
Debriefing
Inducements
Privacy
• Anonymity: Best protection
– Procedures to match data without identities
• Confidentiality
– Security of identified data
• Locked computer/cabinet/lab
• Encoding data
• Code numbers cross-referenced to names
– Removing names and identifying information
Informed Consent
• Subject must know what is involved
– Purpose
– Disclosure of risk
– Benefits of research
• Researcher/society
• Subject
– Privacy/confidentiality
• Who has access to data
• Who has access to identity
– Right to withdraw
– Consequences of withdrawal
Safety
• Minimize exposure to risk
– Workplace safety study: Control group
• Physical and psychological risk
Debriefing
•
•
•
•
•
•
Subject right to know
Educational experience for students
Written document
Presentation
Surveys: Provide contact for follow-up
Provide results in future upon request
Inducements
• Pure Volunteer – no inducement
• Course requirement
– Is this coercion?
• Extra credit
• Financial payment
– Is payment coercion?
Institutional Review Board: IRB
• Original Purpose: Protection of human subjects
• Current Purpose: Protection of institution
– Federal government requirement
• We pay for government atrocities of the past
–
–
–
–
Government sanctions
Bureaucratic
Often absurd
Designed for invasive medical research
IRB Jurisdiction
•
•
•
•
•
Institutions receiving federal research funds
All research at institution under jurisdiction
Cross-country differences
Canada like US
China doesn’t exist
Types of Review
• Full
– One year
• Expedited: Research with limited risk
– Data from audio/video recordings
– Research on individual or group characteristics or
behavior (including, but not limited to, research on
perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language,
communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and social
behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral
history, focus group, program evaluation, human
factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies.
– One year
• Exempt
– Five years
Exempt
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project doesn’t get board review
Determined by staff member
You can’t determine own exemption
Five year
Surveys, interviews tests, observations
Unless
Subjects identified AND potential for harm
–
–
–
–
Legal liability
Financial standing
Employability
Reputation
IRB Impact
• Best: Minor bureaucratic inconvenience
– Protects institution
– Protects investigator
• Worst: Chilling effect on research
– Prevents certain projects
– Ties up investigators for months
• Which is USF?
– Good as it gets
IRB: What Goes Wrong?
• Inadequate expertise
– Lack of understanding of research
– Apply medical model to social science
• Going beyond authority
– Copyright issues
• Abuse of power
• Refuge of the petty and small minded tyrant
Research Vs. Practice
• Research = Purpose not activity
• Dissemination intent = research
– Presentation
– Publication
• Class demo not research
• Management project not research
– Consulting projects as research projects
• Don’t ethics apply to class demos?
– Not IRB purview
Dealing with Organizations
• Who needs protection
– Employee
– Organization
• Who owns and can see the data?
– Researcher
– Organization
• What if organization won’t play by IRB
rules?
– IRB has no jurisdiction off campus
Anticipate Ethical Conflicts
• Avoid issues
– Don’t know can’t tell
• Negotiate issues
–
–
–
–
Confidentiality
Nature of report
Ownership of data
Procedures
Ethical Issues: Analysis
• Honesty in research
• Report what was done
– Why Hunter-Schmidt aren’t unethical making up data
• Bad data practice
–
–
–
–
Fabrication
Deleting disconfirming cases: Trimming
Data mining: Type 1 Error hunt
Selective reporting: Only the significant findings
Dissemination
•
•
•
•
Authorship credit
Referencing
Sharing Data
Editorial issues
– Editor
– Reviewers
Author Credit
• Authors: Substantive contributions
– What is substantive?
– People vary in generosity
• Order of authorship
–
–
–
–
Order of contribution
Not by academic rank
Dissertation/thesis special case
Last for senior person
• Authorship agreed to up front
• Potential for student/junior colleague exploitation
Slacker Coauthors
•
•
•
•
•
When do you drop from coauthorship
Late
Not at all
Poor quality
Less than you expected
Submission
• One journal at a time
• One conference at a time
• Can submit to conference and journal
– Prior to paper being in press
• Almost all electronic submission
– Difficult and tedious
– Break paper into multiple documents
– Enter each coauthor
• Most reviewing is blind
– Only editor knows authors/reviewers
Journal Review
• All 1st submissions are rejects
– Don’t want to see again
– Revise and resubmit (R&R)
• Will consider revision if you insist (high risk)
• Encourages resubmission
•
•
•
•
Desk rejections: No review
Feedback from 1 to 4 reviewers (mode 2)
Feedback from editor
Multiple cycles of R&R can be required
– Can be rejected at any step
• Tentative accept: Needs minor tweaks
• Full accept: Congratulations!
Steps To Publication
• Submit
• R&R
• Revise
– Include response to feedback
• Provisional acceptance
– Minor revision
• Acceptance
– Copyright release
– Proofs
• In print
– Entire process 1 year or more
R&R
• More likely accepted than rejected
– Depends on editor
– Good editor has few R&R rejects
• Work hard to incorporate feedback
• Argue points of disagreement
– Additional analyses
– Prior literature
– Logical argument
• Don’t be argumentative
– Choose your battles
• Give high priority
Author Role
• Make good faith effort to revise
• Incorporate feedback
• Be honest in what was done
– Don’t claim you tried things you didn’t
• Treat editor/reviewers with respect
Editor Role
•
•
•
•
Be an impartial judge
Weight input from authors and reviewers
Be decisive
Keep commitments
– R&R is promise to publish if things fixed
• Treat everyone with respect
Reviewer Role
•
•
•
•
Objective review
No room for politics
Reveal biases to editor
Disclose ghost-reviewer to editor
– E.g., doctoral student
– Pre-approval
•
•
•
•
Private recommendation to editor
Feedback to author/s
Keep commitments
Treat author with respect
Reviewer As Ghostwriter
• Art Bedeian
• Notes reviewers go too far
– Dictating question asked, hypotheses, analyses,
interpretation
• Review inflation over the years
– Sometimes feedback longer than papers
• Reviewers subjective
• Poor inter-rater agreement
• Abuse of power?
Reviewer Problems
•
•
•
•
•
Reviewers late
Reviewers nasty
Overly picky
Factually inaccurate
Overly dogmatic
–
–
–
–
Favorite stats (CFA/SEM)
Edit out ideas they disagree with
Insist on own theoretical position
Assume there’s only one right way
• Not knowledgeable
• Miss obvious
• Careless
Scientific Progress Through Dispute
• Work is based on prior work
– Testing theories
– Integrating findings/theories
• Build a case for an argument or conclusion
• Disseminate
• Colleagues build case for alternative
– Scientific dispute
• Two camps battle producing progress
– Dispute motivates work
– Literature enriched
Crediting Sources
• Must reference anything borrowed
– Cite findings/ideas
– Quote direct passages
– Little quoting done in psychology
• Stealing work
– Plagiarism: not quoting quotes
– Borrowing ideas
• Papers
• People
• Reviewed papers
– Easy to forget you didn’t have idea
Strategy For Successful Publication
• Choose topic field likes
– Existing hot topic
– Tomorrow’s hot topic (hard to predict)
• Conduct high quality study
• Craft good story
– Make a strong case for conclusions
– Theoretical arguments in introduction
– Strong data to test
• Write clearly and concisely
• Pay attention to current practice
• Lead don’t follow
Dealing With Journals
• Be patient and persistent
• Match paper to journal
– Journal interests
– Quality of paper
• Count on extensive revision
• Learn from rejection
– Consider feedback
– Only fix things you agree with
– Look for trends over reviewers
Fragmented Publication
• Multiple submission from same project
• Discouraged in theory
• Required in practice
– Single purpose
– Tight focus
• Different purposes
– Minimize overlap
– Cross-cite
– Disclose to editor
Example: CISMS
• Four major papers
• Unreliability of Hofstede measure
– Applied Psychology: An International Review
• Universality of Work LOC and well-being
– Academy of Management Journal
• Country level values and well-being
– Journal of Organizational Behavior
• Work-family pressure and well-being
– Personnel Psychology
How Much Overlap Is Too Much?
• A: Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D.
G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical
status, and self-determination on workplace victimization,
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 260-272.
• B: Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual
determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of
hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal
of Management, 26, 171-193.
Purpose from Abstract
• A: “Conditions under which employees are
likely to become targets of coworkers’
aggressive actions”
• B: “…when employees are more likely to
perceive themselves as targets of coworkers’ aggressive actions”
Procedure
• A:“Two surveys were administered to employees
of a public utility as part of an organizational
assessment. Although the surveys differed in
content, both versions contained an identical set of
items measuring workplace victimization”
• B: “Two different surveys were administered to
employees of a public utility as part of an
organizational assessment. Although the surveys
differed in content, both versions contained an
identical set of items measuring workplace
victimization.”
Sample/Measures
• A: n = 371, 76% response, mean age 40.7, tenure
11.5, 65% male, 72% African American
• B: n = 369, 76% response, mean age 40.7, tenure
11.5, 65% male, 72% African American
• A: PANAS, Hierarchical status (Haleblian), selfdetermination, Victimization (14 items)
• B: Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II,
Hierarchical status (Haleblian), Victimization (14
items)
Factor Analysis/Table 1
• A: Exploratory FA of Victimization, CFA of 8
items on holdout sample
• B: Exploratory FA of Victimization, CFA of 8
items on holdout sample
• A: “Factor loadings and lamdas for victimization
itemsa” [Note misspelling of lambda]
• B: “Factor loadings and lamdas for victimization
items1” [Note misspelling of lambda]
Table 3/Hypothesis Tests
• A: “Results of hierarchical regression analysis”
• B: “Results of hierarchical regression analysis”
• A: “Two regression equations were fitted: one
predicting direct victimization and the other predicting
indirect victimization.”
• B: “Two regression equations were fitted: one
predicting direct victimization and the other predicting
indirect victimization.”
Limitations
• A: “This study has several limitations that deserve
comment. Perhaps the most serious is its crosssectional research design. The victim precipitation
model is based on the assumption that victims
either intentionally or unintentionally instigate
some negative acts.”
• B: “This study has several limitations that deserve
comment. Perhaps the most serious is its crosssectional research design. The victim precipitation
model is based on the assumption that victims
either intentionally or unintentionally instigate
some negative acts…”
Research Support: Grants
• Funding needed for many studies
– Expands what can be done
• Some research very cheap
– Shoestring because lack of funding?
– Lack of funding because research is cheap?
• Universities encourage grants
– Diminishing state support
Grant Pros
• Tangible
– Covers direct costs of research
• Equipment/supplies
• Subject fees/inducements
• Human resources (research assistants)
– Rewards to investigator
• Summer salary
• Course buyout
• Conference travel
– Support students
• Intangible
– Forces you to plan study in detail
– Prestige
– Administrative admiration (rewards)
Grant Cons
• Tough to get: Competitive
– Time consuming
•
•
•
•
Requires resubmission with long cycle time
Administrative burden
Takes time from teaching/research
Can redirect research focus
– Not always a bad thing
• Confuse path with goal
– Grant is not a research contribution
Sources
• Federal (Highest status—indirects to university)
• Foundations
• Internal University Grants
– Small
– Not as competitive
• New faculty
– New investigator and small grants
• Doctoral students
– ERC pilot grants
– SIOP grants
– Dissertation grants
Federal Grants Challenging
• High rejection rate
• Takes multiple submissions (R&R)
• Must link to priorities—not everything
fundable
Grant Strategy
• Develop grant writing skill
• Tie to fundable
– Workplace health and safety
• Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD) and ….
• Workplace violence
•
•
•
•
•
Intervention research in demand
Interdisciplinary
Use of consultants
Pilot studies
Programmatic and strategic
Week 14
Thanksgiving Week
Week 15
Wrap-Up
Successful Research Career
• Conducting good research
– Lead don’t follow
• Visibility
–
–
–
–
Good journals
Conferences
Other outlets
Quantity
• First authored publications
– Important more early in career
• Impact
• Grants
Programmatic
• Program of research
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
More conclusive
Multiple tests
Boundary conditions
More impact through visibility
Helps getting jobs
Helps with tenure/promotion
Can have more than one focus
Conducting Successful Research
• Develop an interesting question
–
–
–
–
Based on theory
Based on literature
Based on observation
Based on organization need
• Link question to literature
–
–
–
–
Theoretical perspective
Place in context of what’s been done
Multiple types of evidence
Consider other disciplines
Conducting Successful Research 2
• Design one or more research strategies
– Lab vs. field
– Data collection technique
• Survey, interview, observation, etc.
– Design
• Experimental, quasi-experimental or observational
• Cross-sectional or longitudinal
• Single-source or multisource
– Instrumentation
• Existing or ad hoc
Conducting Successful Research 3
• Analysis
• Hierarchy of methods simple to complex
–
–
–
–
Descriptives
Bi-variable relationships
Test for controls
Complex relationships
•
•
•
•
Multiple regression
Factor analysis
HLM
SEM
Conducting Successful Research 4
• Conclusions
–
–
–
–
–
What’s reasonable based on data
Alternative explanations
Speculation
Theoretical development
Suggestions for future
KSAOs Needed
•
•
•
•
•
•
Content knowledge
Methods expertise
Writing skill
Presentation skill
Creativity
Thick skin
Pipeline
• Body of work at various stages
–
–
–
–
–
In press
Under review
Writing/revising
In progress
Planning
• Set priorities
– Don’t let revisions sit
– Get work under review
– Always work on next project
• Collaboration to multiply productivity
• Time management
Authorship Order
• First takes the lead on paper
– Most of writing
– Most input in project
• Important early in career to be first
• Balance quantity with order
• Sometimes most senior person is last
– PI on project
– Senior member of lab
Impact
• Effect of work on field/world
• Citations
– Sources
• ISI Thomson
• Harzing’s Publish or Perish
• Others
– Self-citation
– Citation studies
• Individuals (e.g., Podsakoff et al. Journal of Management 2008)
• Programs (e.g., Oliver et al. TIP, 2005)
• Being attacked
Partnering
•
•
•
•
State/local government
Corporations
Tying research to consulting
Partnership with practitioner
– In kind
Grants
• Expands what you can do
• Good for career
– Current employer
– Potential future employers
Grantsmanship
• Develop grant writing skill
– Start as a student
• Small grant at first
• Proposal somewhat different from article
– Background that establishes need for study
– Demonstrates ability to conduct
• Expertise of team
• Letters of agreement/support
– High likelihood of success
• Pilot data important
• Low risk
• Address funding agency priority
Final Advice
• Be a leader not a follower
– Address problem that is not being addressed
– Find creative ways of doing things
• Be evolutionary not revolutionary
– Too different unlikely to be accepted
– Most creative often in lesser journals
• Follow-up studies in better journals
• Critical mass
– Need multiple publications on topic to be noticed
– Programmatic
• Build on the past, don’t tear it down
– Positive rather than negative citation
Final Advice cont.
• Be flexible in thinking
– Don’t get prematurely locked into
• Conclusion, Idea, Method, Theory
• Use theory inductively
– A good theory explains findings
• Don’t take yourself too seriously
• Have a thick skin
• Enjoy your work