Do individual differences in perceiving situational demands moderate the relationship between personality and assessment center dimension ratings?

Human Performance

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 231-250

  Jansen, Anne ^a   Lievens, Filip ^b   Kleinmann, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960380310     PISSN: 08959285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2011.580805     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (1999). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 [Intelligence-Structure- Test 2000]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
3. Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. London: Methuen.
4. Arthur, W., Jr., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56, 125-154. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00146.x
5. Arthur, W., Jr., Day, E. A., & Woehr, D. J. (2008). Mend it, don't end it: An alternate view of assessment center constructrelated validity evidence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 105-111. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00019.x
6. Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a moderator of the relationships between personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745-767. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00716.x
7. Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., Davison, H. K., & VanHook, J. B. (2004). Incremental validity of the frame-ofreference effect in personality scale scores: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 150-157. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.150.
8. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some limited empiricism. In D. Magnussen (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactionist perspective (pp. 85-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) [NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R., 1992]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
10. Bowler, M. C., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A meta-analytic evaluation of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1114-1124. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1114.
11. Brannick, M.T. (2008). Back to basics of test construction and scoring. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 131-133. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00025.x
12. Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.11.928.
13. Cheng, C., Chiu, C.-Y., Hong, Y.-Y., & Cheung, J. S. (2001). Discriminative facility and its role in the perceived quality of interactional experiences. Journal of Personality, 69, 765-786. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.695163.
14. Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). Discriminative facility in social competence: Conditional versus dispositional encoding and monitoring-blunting of information. Social Cognition, 13, 49-70.
15. Collins, J. M., Schmidt, F. L., Sanchez-Ku, M., Thomas, L., McDaniel, M. A., & Le, H. (2003). Can basic individual differences shed light on the construct meaning of assessment center evaluations? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 17-29. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00223.
16. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
17. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
18. Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. S. (2009). Assessment center dimensions: Individual differences correlates and metaanalytic incremental validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 254-270. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2389.2009.00468.x
19. Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002). Social effectiveness in organizations: Construct validity and research directions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 49-63. doi:10.1177/107179190200900104.
20. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513.
21. Goffin, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., & Johnston, N. G. (1996). Personality testing and the assessment center: Incremental validity for managerial selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 746-756. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.746.
22. Hoeft, S., & Schuler, H. (2001). The conceptual basis of assessment centre ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 114-123. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00168.
23. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100.
24. Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129-144. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_2.
25. Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2005). They're right, well... mostly right: Research evidence and an agenda to rescue personality testing from 1960s insights. Human Performance, 18, 373-387. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_4.
26. Hülsheger, U. R., Maier, G. W., Stumpp, T., & Muck, P. M. (2006). Vergleich kriteriumsbezogener Validitäten verschiedener Intelligenztests zur Vorhersage von Ausbildungserfolg in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer Metaanalyse [Comparing criterion-related validities of different intelligence tests for the prediction of training success in Germany: A meta-analysis]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 5, 145-162. doi:10.1026/1617-6391.5.4.145.
27. Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in today's organizations. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 1-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In O. P. John & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford.
29. Klehe, U.-C., Hartstein, T., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Melchers, K. G. (2007, April). Why "faked" personalityassessments predict performance: The ability to identify criteria. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.
30. Kleinmann, M. (1993). Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants? Consequences for criterion and construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 988-993. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.988.
31. Kleinmann, M. (1997). Transparenz der Anforderungsdimensionen: Ein Moderator der Konstrukt- und Kriteriumsvalidität des Assessment-Centers [Transparency of the required dimensions: A moderator of assessment centers' construct and criterion validity]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 41, 171-181.
32. Kleinmann, M., Ingold, V. P., Lievens, F., Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., & Konig, C. J. (2011). A different look at why selection procedures work: The role of candidates' ability to identify criteria. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 128-146. doi: 10.1177/2041386610387000.
33. König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., Kleinmann, M., Richter, G. M., & Klehe, U.-C. (2007). Candidates' ability to identify criteria in nontransparent selection procedures: Evidence from an assessment center and a structured interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 283-292. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00603.x
34. Kotter, J. P. (1982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review, 60, 156-167.
35. Lance, C. E. (2008). Why assessment centers do not work the way they are supposed to. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 84-97. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00017.x
36. Lance, C. E., Lambert, T. A., Gewin, A. G., Lievens, F., & Conway, J. M. (2004). Revised estimates of dimension and exercise variance components in assessment center postexercise dimension ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 377-385. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.377.
37. Lievens, F., Chasteen, C. S., Day, E. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2006). Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 247-258. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.247.
38. Lievens, F., & Conway, J. M. (2001). Dimension and exercise variance in assessment center scores: A large-scale evaluation of multitrait-multimethod studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1202-1222. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.86.6.1202.
39. McFarland, L. A., Yun, G., Harold, C. M., Viera, L., Jr., & Moore, L. G. (2005). An examination of impression management use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: The role of competency demands. Personnel Psychology, 58, 949-980. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00374.x
40. Melchers, K. G., Klehe, U.-C., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Lievens, F. (2009). "I know what you want to know": The impact of interviewees' ability to identify criteria on interview performance and construct-related validity. Human Performance, 22, 355-374. doi:10.1080/08959280903120295.
41. Meriac, J. P., Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., & Fleisher, M. S. (2008). Further evidence for the validity of assessment center dimensions: A meta-analysis of the incremental criterion-related validity of dimension ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1042-1052. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1042.
42. Mintzberg, H. (1975). Managers job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53, 49-61.
43. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283. doi:10.1037/h0035002.
44. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268. doi:10.1037/0033- 295X.102.2.246.
45. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229-258. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229.
46. Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why don't measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18, 343-357. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_2.
47. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18, 389-404. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_5.
48. Reis, H. T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 311-329. doi:10.1177/1088868308321721.
49. Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492-518). New York: Guilford.
50. Schollaert, E., & Lievens, F. (2008, July). The effects of exercise instructions on the observability of assessment center behavior. Paper presented at the XXIXth International Congress of Psychology, Berlin.
51. Schulz-Hardt, S., Mojzisch, A., & Brodbeck, F.-C. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080-1093. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.91.6.1080.
52. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1993). The role of situational demands and cognitive competencies in behavior organization and personality coherence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1023-1035. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1023.
53. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227-235.
54. Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on performance. Journal of Management, 28, 835-851. doi:10.1177/014920630202800607.
55. Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 164-169. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.164.
56. Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 809-821. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.809.
57. Woehr, D. J., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2003). The construct-related validity of assessment center ratings: A review and meta-analysis of the role of methodological factors. Journal of Management, 29, 231-258. doi:10.1177/014920630302900206.
58. Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205.
59. Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social-behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1159-1177. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1159.