1 / 48

Research Colloquium 2007

Research Colloquium 2007. Projects and Proposals. Representing Semantic Relatedness via Pathfinder Analysis. Sample Set of Fruit/Vegetable/ Tool Concepts. FRUITS VEGETABLES TOOLS Apple Bean Hammer Banana Pea Saw Orange Potato Wrench Tool. For each of the following pairs of

selena
Download Presentation

Research Colloquium 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research Colloquium2007 Projects and Proposals

  2. Representing Semantic Relatedness via Pathfinder Analysis

  3. Sample Set of Fruit/Vegetable/ Tool Concepts FRUITSVEGETABLESTOOLS AppleBeanHammer BananaPeaSaw OrangePotatoWrench Tool

  4. For each of the following pairs of terms, your task is to rate how similar or closely related the two terms are to each other. Use this key to guide your ratings: 1 = The two terms are very closely related 2 = The two terms are moderately related 3 = The two terms are slightly related 4 = The two terms are not related Apple – Banana Bean – Potato Saw – Wrench Banana – Hammer Pea – Orange Tool – Apple 45. Hammer - Tool Sample Instructions/Concept Pairs

  5. Results of Pathfinder Analysis:No/Naive Understanding of Concepts • Every concept equally related to all other concepts • No distinctly separate schemata • Effect is classic “wheel” or “sphere” network w/low coherence (approx. = .00)

  6. Results of Pathfinder Analysis: Ideal/Expert Understanding of Concepts • Concepts integrated into distinctly separate schemata • Meaningful interconnections among schemata • Effect is coherent concept network (approx. = 1.00)

  7. Basic Trust Ego Identity Locus of Control Self-efficacy Neurosis Empathy Psychotherapy Transference Conformity Groupthink Social Loafing Social Attraction Reliability Correlation Predictive Validity Statistical Significance Concepts Selected for 2003-2004 Tiffin University Psychology Program Assessment

  8. Contact: • Dr. Bates • jbates@ubalt.edu

  9. Next...

  10. Research Projects John W. Michel, Ph.D. Department of Management Towson University

  11. Customer Service Management Model Organizational Goals, Values, and Norms and (ASA) + Service Quality + Mediating Processes .Employee Motivation -------------------------------.Job Satisfaction -------------------------------.Org. Commitment -------------------------------.Org. Justice -------------------------------.Positive Mood ------------------------------ 6. Job Engagement 2 + Organizational Support for Service (HRM, Job Design) - + CCB ---------- CPB + Supportive Organizational Climate for Customer Service + + + Customer Satisfaction - - Managerial Support for Service (Leadership) Employee Retention + + + Customer Loyalty + + Organizational Identification Coworker Support for Service +

  12. Goal Self-Concordance Model Participative Goal-Setting Goal Commitment Self-Concordant Goals Task Performance Time 1 Task Performance Time 2 Core Self-Evaluations Self-Efficacy Task Feedback Goal Orientation

  13. Contact Info… • John W. Michel, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorDepartment of ManagementTowson University8000 York Road • Phone: (410) 704-494 • Email: jmichel@towson.edu

  14. Next...

  15. Know thyself?know what others think of you?

  16. Research Question • Why do Correctional Officers who can fake well on personality measures: • …. Perform better at the Academy • …. Rate higher on “rehire” by supervisors

  17. Prior Research • CO Test Validation Study(Mitchell & Serra, 2004) • Personality Traits, Cognitive ability, BIO data predicted success in job • CO Faking Study (Mitchell & Thune, 2005) • As predicted, on Big 5 traits COs instructed to Fake scored higher than honest on • Conscientiousness • Extraversion • Emotional stability • Openness to experience • No difference on • Agreeableness • Surprisingly, validity was stronger for Fakers on academy scores and rehire for • Conscientiousness (ns for honest) • Emotional stability • Openness to experience

  18. Table 1: Cf of Validity for Honest and Fake

  19. Question: • Why is faking ability related to Academy performance and likelihood of rehire? • Cognitive ability? • How well one knows • who they are (their own trait levels) • how they are perceived by others? (social self awareness? EQ?) • What other factors play a role? • Impression management ability as a moderator? • Need for approval? (to be liked, accepted?) • ??

  20. Cognitive ability? • Not much • Some role in ability to fake integrity tests • Alliger et al. (1996) • As moderator in one study • Yun et al. (SIOP 08?)

  21. Social Self Awareness? • Hogan thinks so (Hogan, 1991) • Those with higher social self-awareness, i.e. what others think of them (Reputation) • Should be better able to manage other’s impression of them • Hypothesis: • Those who can fake well on personality inventory (self report) should… • Also be able to manage their supervisor’s impression of them (Behavior)

  22. Exploratory study to: • Determine • if those who are more accurate in estimating their own traits scores • are better able to judge how others see them • (i.e. of social self-awareness • Determine what factors may help explain why they differ • EQ? • Impression management capability • ? • ?

  23. Method • Correlational study (using Goldberg’s IPIP Five Factors) • Compare • discrepancy between individual’s • Actual and predicted trait scores (knowledge of self) • with discrepancy • between self and other ratings (social awareness) • Hypothesis • Discrepancies will be positively related • i.e. those who know themselves well are better able to judge others’ opinion of them • Procedure • Ps estimate trait scores and complete IPIP • Ps’ have 2 significant others rate P on IPIP • Ps complete other measures that may explain predicted relationship • Possible predictors to explain discrepancies • EQ measure • Self-monitoring Scale (M. Snyder’s) • Impression management tactics used • Need for Approval measure

  24. Contact: • Dr. Thomas Mitchell • tmitchell@ubalt.edu

  25. Next...

  26. Research Interests: Performance Appraisal • What kinds of individual and situational factors will affect performance ratings? • Yun et al. (2005). Rater personality, rating format, and social Context: Implications for performance appraisal ratings • Mitchell, Yun, & Pinkos. Content validation and four-factor structure of the correctional personnel rating scale • Michel, Yun, & colleagues. Meta-analysis on rating format, potential moderators (e.g., rater training, rating purposes) and rating accuracy in performance appraisal

  27. Employee Training and Development • What and how trainees’ characteristics will influence training processes and outcomes? • Colquitt et al., 2000 • Individual differences (Locus of control, test anxiety, & conscientiousness) & situations (supervisory support, peer support, & a positive work climate)  motivation to learn • Any other individual differences that will influence learning processes and outcomes?

  28. Trainee Characteristics Behaviors in Training Training Outcomes Motivation to Learn Initiative for Training Opportunity Satisfaction with an IT Course Proactive Personality Participation in Class Course-related Learning Activities Cognitive Ability Course Grade

  29. Applicant Reactions in Selection • How do applicants perceive selection tests? What factors will influence process and outcome fairness perceptions? • e.g., A positive or negative framing of information affects one’s perception differently  framing (positive vs. negative) X selection ratios (50% vs. 10%) • IM: “An examination of impression management use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: The role of competency demands.” (McFarland, Yun, Harold, & Viera, 2005) • Faking: “Influences of cognitive abilities on the effectiveness of faking traits” (SIOP 2008)

  30. Contact… • Dr. Yun • gyun@ubalt.edu

  31. Next...

  32. Research Ideas… Michael J. Walk

  33. Current Ideas / Projects • Work-Family Balance** • Time Perception • Survey-Based Time Estimates

  34. Work-Family Balance • Previous research • Two types of conflict: • Work  Family (work interferes with family) • Family  Work (family interferes with work) • Conflict is related to decreased satisfaction, well-being, and organizational outcomes • Estimated weekly hours worked also related to workfamily conflict (and vice versa) • HOWEVER…

  35. Time (Questionnaires vs. Diary) • (Kitterød & Lyngstad, 2005) • Examined hours spent in housework • Found differences between diaries and questionnaires • Age groups, education level, • (Bonke, 2005; Robinson, 1997) • Found that people working a lot greatly over estimated their weekly hours; people working less greatly underestimated. • The question: • Will the relationship between hours worked and workfamily conflict remain when hours worked is gathered by using time diaries?

  36. Objective / Design • Objective: • To study work-family conflict’s relationship to time use patterns using sound time-diary data methodology. • Basic Design: • Participants: students/staff/faculty of UB, employees at local facilities • Collect measures of conflict, org outcomes, life measures • Collect time-use data via diaries

  37. Time Perception • Time flies when you’re having fun • A watched pot never boils • Depends on level of • Conscious information processing (CIP; Flaherty, 1993) • Purpose: • Test his theory of CIP in a mundane setting • Basic Design: • Manipulate levels of CIP and look for time-estimation errors while browsing website.

  38. Survey-Based Time Estimates • Long intervals are hard to estimate… • “decomposing” (breaking into smaller parts) time periods sometimes leads to more accurate answers. • e.g., how many times did you visit a restaurant last Monday? … last Tuesday?… last Wednesday? • Will this hold true for time-use estimates? • e.g., On the average Monday, how many hours do you work?… On the average Tuesday, etc… • Are there any other ways to make time-use questionnaires more accurate?

  39. Contact Info: • Michael J. Walk • Wagman Lab 220E • x5299 • michael.walk@ubalt.edu

  40. Next...

  41. Research Overview Dr. Courtney Gasser Fall 2007

  42. Research Background • Vocational psychologist • Career development • Role of personality, interests, self-efficacy, etc • Counseling training & supervision • How can we train counselors better? • Role of self-efficacy

  43. Overview of Projects • Career Transitioners & Workshop • Personality & interests • What are their needs, & how can we help? • FSP (First and Second Year Program) • Self-efficacy: how efficacious do these students feel about their college success? • Counselor training & development • How efficacious do beginning counselors feel about their skills? • How helpful ARE they? (client measures)

  44. Opportunities for Getting Involved • Literature review • Going to the library • Making copies • Data collection • Interacting with participants • Learning new skills • Data entry • SPSS skills enhancement

  45. Who do I talk to? • Contact person: Beth Grandea AC 220 G (Wagman lab) Wednesdays & Thursdays, 9 am - 3 pm

  46. Questions & Discussion

  47. Thank you.

More Related