Application: Personality
Assessment & Aggression
• Bing et al. (2007) Jrnl Applied Psych article:
– Compares self-reports of aggression & an implicit
measure
• Conditional Reasoning Test (CRT) – likelihood you’ll
consider a behavior reasonable depends your inclination
to engage in that behavior
• Uses ‘justification mechanisms’ or biases that aggressive
people may have (hostile attribution bias, derogation of
target, etc.)
Bing et al. (cont.)
• Their typology: 4 groups based on explicit &
implicit ratings –
– 1) Manifest aggressives – self-perception &
conditional reasoning congruent aggressive
• Cognitively prepared to be aggressive and view their
own aggression as justifiable
– 2) Prosocials – view self as nonaggressive &
conditional reasoning is nonaggressive
• Avoid engaging in aggression
– 3) Latent aggressives – view self as
nonaggressive, but cognitively ready to be
aggressive (justification in place)
• Likely to retaliate but try to maintain inaccurate
self-perception (passive-aggressive)
– 4) Overcompensating prosocials – view self
as aggressive but have cognition to reason as
prosocial (controlling)
• Overly self-critical of own intentions; very high self-
monitors
Bing et al. Samples & Results
• Sample 1- lab experiment w/students
– Intentionally frustrated then given chance to lie
– Results?
• Correlation betw implicit & explicit measures?
• Correlation betw implicit measure & actual lying?
• Correlation bet explicit measure & actual lying?
(cont.)
• Sample 2 – univ students & traffic violations
(as aggressive behavior?)
– Traffic violation obtained via univ. records, not
self-report
– Results:
• Correlation betw implicit & explicit measures?
• Who engaged in most aggression (traffic tickets)?
• Overcompensating prosocials?
Sample 3 – org setting
• Hospital employees
– Self reports (explicit) of aggression
– Coworker reports of deviant work behaviors
– Org records of complaints filed against org
• Correlation of implicit & explicit measures?
• Who was least deviant?
• Implications for selection?
Ch 5 – Emotions and Stress
Part 1: Feb 7, 2008
Influence of Emotions
• Emotion – overt reactions that express
feelings. 4 properties:
– 1. Emotions have an object – related to event
– 2. Six universal categories of emotions: what
are they?
– 3. Expression is universal
– 4. Cultural influence on emotion display
Brief History of Emotions in OB
• For years, org research dominated by
rational-cognitive models
– Motivation theories
– Job satisfaction evaluations
– Simon (1976) viewed emotional aspects of
org behavior as ‘irrational’
• Recent interest in moods & emotions
– Stimulated by social psy (Isen – early 90’s)
– Current view ?
Emotions v Moods
• Emotions are distinct from moods
• What is the distinction?
• Both appear to influence job perf: how?
Org Control of Emotions
• Orgs often assume that rationality must be
preserved & emotions controlled
– Ashforth & Humphrey (’95) – 4 types of org
control behaviors for emotion regulation:
• 1. Neutralizing –
• 2. Buffering –
• 3. Prescribing –
• 4. Normalizing –
• Sept 11th examples from Driver (2003) study
Unanswered Questions
• Beginning to distinguish job sat,
emotions, & moods’ influences on
perf, but…what are some remaining
Qs?
1.
2.
3.
Managing Emotion
• In addition to research on emot intell,
new research on emotional dissonance:
– Situation where you’re required to display
emotions on the job inconsistent with your
true emotions
– Can occur in at least 3 ways: how?
– Due to expectations of your role
– Cognitive & physiological effort involved is
referred to as ‘emotional labor’
– Related to stress
(cont.)
• In emot labor area, Morris & Feldman
distinguish:
– ‘surface acting’
– ‘deep acting ‘
– Some researchers suggest coping w/this by
depersonalizing the situation
• Cultural differences in emotional labor?
• Differential effects of SA & DA on burnout