Application: Personality Assessment & Aggression

1. 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.)

2. 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. 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

4. 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?

5. (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?

6. 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?

7. Ch 5 – Emotions and Stress Part 1: Feb 7, 2008

8. 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

9. 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 ?

10. Emotions v Moods • Emotions are distinct from moods • What is the distinction? • Both appear to influence job perf: how?

11. 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

12. Unanswered Questions • Beginning to distinguish job sat, emotions, & moods’ influences on perf, but…what are some remaining Qs?

13. 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

14. (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