The Tenuous Bridge between Research and Reality: The Importance of Research Design in Inferences Regarding Work Behavior

Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 341-352

  Landy, Frank J ^a,b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Landy Litigation Support Group   (United States)

Author keywords

Demographic characteristic; Design continuum; Gender stereotypes; Reasonable scholars; Work behavior

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889443884     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470696422.ch18     Document Type: Chapter

References (19)

1. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27, 12-49.
2. Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 81-90.
3. Copus, D. (2005) Avoiding junk science: A lawyer's view. In F. J. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives (pp. 450-462). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Davidson, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248.
5. Fiske, S. J. (2000). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum and Associates.
6. Heilman, M. J., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit was due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 905-916.
7. Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowsi, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1-28.
8. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage House.
10. House R. J., Javidian, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 489-505.
11. Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2007). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Blackwell.
12. Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777-785.
13. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835.
14. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
15. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
16. Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989) Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: Two meta-analytic integrations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 233-252.
17. Ostrom, T., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 536-552.
18. Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via internet technology: Theory and application. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 109-124.
19. Tyler, T. R. (2002). Is the internet changing social life? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 195-205.