Bennett E. Postlethwaite’s research while affiliated with Pepperdine University and other places

Academic dishonesty is widespread within secondary and higher education. It can include unethical academic behaviors such as cheating, plagiarism, or unauthorized help. Researchers have investigated a number of individual and contextual factors in an effort to understand the phenomenon. In the last decade, there has been increasing interest in the role personality plays in explaining unethical academic behaviors. We used meta-analysis to estimate the relationship between each of the Big Five personality factors and academic dishonesty. Previous reviews have highlighted the role of neuroticism and extraversion as potential predictors of cheating behavior. However, our results indicate that conscientiousness and agreeableness are the strongest Big Five predictors, with both factors negatively related to academic dishonesty. We discuss the implications of our findings for both research and practice.

Previous research on teams has found that agreeableness is one of the strongest personality predictors of team performance, yet one of the weakest personality predictors of individual-level job performance. In this study, we examined why teams with more agreeable members perform better. Data were collected across 4 months at 5 points in time from 107 project teams. We found that agreeableness affects performance through communication and cohesion and that communication precedes cohesion in time. Furthermore, we found that virtualness moderated the relationships between agreeableness and communication, as well as between agreeableness and team performance, such that teams only benefitted from high levels of agreeableness when interacting face-to-face.

Despite the wide use of physical ability tests for selection and placement decisions in physically demanding occupations, research has suggested that there are substantial male-female differences on the scores of such tests, contributing to adverse impact. In this study, we present updated, revised meta-analytic estimates of sex differences in physical abilities and test 3 moderators of these differences-selection system design, specificity of measurement, and training-in order to provide insight into possible methods of reducing sex differences on physical ability test scores. Findings revealed that males score substantially better on muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance tests but that there are no meaningful sex differences on movement quality tests. These estimates differ in several ways from past estimates. Results showed that sex differences are similar across selection systems that emphasize basic ability tests versus job simulations. Results also showed that sex differences are smaller for narrow dimensions of muscular strength and that there is substantial variance in the sex differences in muscular strength across different body regions. Finally, we found that training led to greater increases in performance for women than for men on both muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance tests. However, training reduced the male-female differences on muscular strengths tests only modestly and actually increased male-female differences on cardiovascular endurance. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on physical ability testing and adverse impact, as well as the practical implications of the results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

This study examined two hypotheses regarding the moderating effects of job characteristics on the validity of personality. Using meta‐analytic techniques, the authors explored the extent to which the structural characteristics and cognitive ability requirements of jobs influence the role of conscientiousness in predicting performance. The results suggest that conscientiousness is a stronger predictor of performance in jobs that are highly routinized, and a weaker predictor of performance in jobs with high levels of cognitive ability requirements. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

Employment interviews are one of the most widely used selection tools across organizations, industries, and countries (Dipboye, 1992, 1997; Dip-boye & Jackson, 1999; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, 1999; Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001; Wilk & Cappelli, 2003, Table 1). Interviews also play an important role in government employment decisions, particularly at the Federal level (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2003). Likewise, employment interviews have long been a focus of both laboratory (e.g., Highhouse & Bottrill, 1995; Motowidlo & Burnett, 1995; Paunonen, Jack-son, & Oberman, 1987; Purkiss, Perrewe, Gillespie, Mayes, & Ferris, 2006) and field (e.g., Chapman & Zweig, 2005; Maurer & Solamon, 2006; van der Zee, Bakker, & Bakker, 2002) research. Although the use of employment interviews is widespread, a wealth of research indicates that not all inter-views are equally valid predictors of future job performance. In particular,

Employment interviews are one of the most widely used selection tools across organizations, industries, and countries (Dipboye, 1992, 1997; Dip-boye & Jackson, 1999; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, 1999; Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001; Wilk & Cappelli, 2003, Table 1). Interviews also play an important role in government employment decisions, particularly at the Federal level (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2003). Likewise, employment interviews have long been a focus of both laboratory (e.g., Highhouse & Bottrill, 1995; Motowidlo & Burnett, 1995; Paunonen, Jack-son, & Oberman, 1987; Purkiss, Perrewe, Gillespie, Mayes, & Ferris, 2006) and field (e.g., Chapman & Zweig, 2005; Maurer & Solamon, 2006; van der Zee, Bakker, & Bakker, 2002) research. Although the use of employment interviews is widespread, a wealth of research indicates that not all inter-views are equally valid predictors of future job performance. In particular,

Although prior work has proposed a number of conditions under which task conflict in teams may improve performance, composition variables have been left unexplored. Given the effects of personality traits on team processes and outcomes demonstrated in prior work, investigating whether specific personality compositions influence the effect of task conflict on team performance is critical to researchers' understanding of conflict in teams. Our results indicate that team-level averages of both openness to experience and emotional stability function as moderators of the relationship between task conflict and team performance. Specifically, task conflict had a positive impact on performance in teams with high levels of openness or emotional stability; in contrast, task conflict had a negative impact on performance in teams with low levels of openness or emotional stability. Thus, when task conflict emerges, teams composed of members who are open minded or emotionally stable are best able to leverage conflict to improve performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

The empirical evidence that has accumulated in support of the notion that personality is a valid predictor of employee performance is vast, yet debate on the matter continues. This study investigates frame‐of‐reference effects as they relate to the validity of self‐report measures of personality. Specifically, we compare the validities of general, noncontextualized personality measures and work‐specific, contextualized measures. The findings suggest that personality measures are a more valid predictor of performance when the scale items or instructions are framed specifically so as to reference work‐specific behaviors. We found that the validities for noncontextualized measures of personality ranged from .02 to .22, with a mean validity of .11. The validities for contextualized measures ranged from .19 to .30, with a mean of .25. Additional moderator analyses were conducted in an effort to examine several alternate explanations for these validity differences. Specifically, we examined differences between the developmental purpose (general use vs. workplace use) and reliabilities of each type of personality measure. We also compared the validities from published studies to those from unpublished studies. Results suggest that these moderators did not have an impact on the validity differences between noncontextualized and contextualized measures.