<%BANNER%>

Examining the Role of Observer Characteristics on the Predictive Validity of Reputational Personality Ratings across Wor...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043371/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Role of Observer Characteristics on the Predictive Validity of Reputational Personality Ratings across Workplace Outcomes
Physical Description: 1 online resource (215 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Klinger, Ryan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: acquaintanceship -- agreeableness -- conscientiousness -- coworker -- distance -- extraversion -- identity -- interpersonal -- job -- neuroticism -- observer -- openness -- other -- performance -- personality -- ratings -- reputation -- satisfaction -- self
Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Business Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In this dissertation, I extend the literature on the validity of personalityratings in the workplace by exploring the conditions under which measures ofidentity (i.e., self-ratings of personality) or measures of reputation (i.e., observerratings of personality) are more valid predictors of workplace outcomes.Drawing on Hogan’s Socioanalytic Theory (Hogan, 1996) and Funder’s RealisticAccuracy Model (Funder, 1995), I investigate key sources of variance in thepredictive validity of reputational personality ratings. More specifically, Iexplore how characteristics of the individuals providing observer ratings of personality impact the relative and incremental predictive validities of these reputational ratings. Results of a field study indicate that reputational ratings of personality have the potential to capture both higher relative predictive validities and higher incremental predictive validities over personality identity ratings. However, the extent to which reputational ratings outperform identity ratings depends on characteristics of the observer such that relative andincremental predictive validities are highest when observers score high onmeasures of conscientious, openness, and extraversion and low on measures ofagreeableness and emotional stability. Furthermore, reputational ratings aremore valid when observer raters have stronger acquaintanceship ties with the individuals they are rating. Finally, results indicate that observer characteristics have a stronger impact on predictive validities for behavioral outcomes (i.e., task performance and citizenship behavior) than attitudinal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryan Klinger.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Judge, Timothy A.
Local: Co-adviser: Kammeyer-Mueller, John D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043371:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043371/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Role of Observer Characteristics on the Predictive Validity of Reputational Personality Ratings across Workplace Outcomes
Physical Description: 1 online resource (215 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Klinger, Ryan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: acquaintanceship -- agreeableness -- conscientiousness -- coworker -- distance -- extraversion -- identity -- interpersonal -- job -- neuroticism -- observer -- openness -- other -- performance -- personality -- ratings -- reputation -- satisfaction -- self
Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Business Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In this dissertation, I extend the literature on the validity of personalityratings in the workplace by exploring the conditions under which measures ofidentity (i.e., self-ratings of personality) or measures of reputation (i.e., observerratings of personality) are more valid predictors of workplace outcomes.Drawing on Hogan’s Socioanalytic Theory (Hogan, 1996) and Funder’s RealisticAccuracy Model (Funder, 1995), I investigate key sources of variance in thepredictive validity of reputational personality ratings. More specifically, Iexplore how characteristics of the individuals providing observer ratings of personality impact the relative and incremental predictive validities of these reputational ratings. Results of a field study indicate that reputational ratings of personality have the potential to capture both higher relative predictive validities and higher incremental predictive validities over personality identity ratings. However, the extent to which reputational ratings outperform identity ratings depends on characteristics of the observer such that relative andincremental predictive validities are highest when observers score high onmeasures of conscientious, openness, and extraversion and low on measures ofagreeableness and emotional stability. Furthermore, reputational ratings aremore valid when observer raters have stronger acquaintanceship ties with the individuals they are rating. Finally, results indicate that observer characteristics have a stronger impact on predictive validities for behavioral outcomes (i.e., task performance and citizenship behavior) than attitudinal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryan Klinger.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Judge, Timothy A.
Local: Co-adviser: Kammeyer-Mueller, John D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043371:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EXAMINING THE ROLE OF OBSERVER CHARACTERISTICS ON THE PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF REPUTATIONAL PERSONALITY RATINGS ACROSS WORKPLACE OUTCOMES By RYAN KLINGER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF F LORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Ryan Klinger

PAGE 3

3 To my amazing family for all of their inspiration and support. To my dad, Sterling, for always challenging me to reach for the stars. To my mom, Trina, for always being there to catch me when I fall short. To my stepparents, Mike and Diane, for doubling my when she could

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To all of my family, friends, and faculty members, I express my sincerest gratitude. This experience has truly been like a cross ave made it through the journey without all of the help I received along the way. I thank my parents Trina, Sterling, Mike, and Diane for being the fuel for my trip. You were there to challenge me when I needed the boost, comfort me when I needed the r eassurance, entertain me when I needed the break, and nourish me when I ran out of ramen noodles. I thank my advisors Drs. Judge, Kammeyer Mueller, Erez, and Algina for being my roadmap. You gave me direction when I needed it and let me get lost when I wanted to plot my own course. With you, I knew that no matter how long and convoluted my journey, I would reach my destination. I thank my peers in the UF Management program J ess, Jessica, Erin, and everyone else for being my headlights. When I couldn always count on you to shine light on the road ahead. Thank you for sharing your experiences and advice along the way. I thank Steve AJ, Jordan, and all of my friends for being the kids in the backseat constantly asking, break every once in a while and kept me grounded during this journey. I thank were so many blocks in the road but I knew that as long as I gave you what you needed

PAGE 5

5 I thank Cliff, Shelley, Red, Evelyn, Jim, and everyone else who cheered me on along the way. At times, I had so many suppo rters that I thought I had stumbled on to a parade route. And finally, I thank my wife and soul mate, Jenny, for being the best passenger a guy could ask for. You took my hand and sat right beside me the entire way. I know at times the trip was just as ro ugh on you as it was on me but not once did I hear you complain. To everybody who helped me realize that the journey was just as important as the destination, my sincerest t hanks

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ............ 20 heory ................................ ................................ ................ 20 ................................ ................................ ......... 24 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 Assessing the Accuracy of Personality Identity and Reputation ............................. 30 Congruence between Identity and Reputation ................................ .................. 33 Construct Va lidity of Identity and Reputation ................................ .................... 38 Predictive Validity of Identity and Reputation in the Workplace ........................ 39 4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ................................ .................... 50 Research Question 1: What are the Predictive Validities of Personality Identity and Reputation across Workplace Criteria? ................................ ........................ 50 Research Question 2: How do Characteristics of the Observers Influence the Predictive Validities of Personality Reputation Ratings? ................................ ...... 53 Observer Personality Impacts Access to Target Personality Information ......... 54 Observer Personality Impacts Processing of Target Personality Information ... 56 Research Question 3: Ho w does the Relationship between Observers and Targets Influence the Predictive Validities of Personality Reputation Ratings? ... 62 Research Question 4: How does Aggregation across Observer Raters Influence the Predictive Validity of Personality Reputation Ratings? ................................ .. 66 5 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 70 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 70 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 71 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 72 Personality ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 72 Job Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 74

PAGE 7

7 Acquaintanceship and Control Variables ................................ .......................... 75 6 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 76 Comparing the Predictive and Incremental Validities of Identity and Reputation Ratings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 80 Exploring Observer Personality Characteristics as Moderators of Personality Reputation Ratings ................................ ................................ .............................. 83 Task Performance ................................ ................................ ............................ 84 Citizenship Behavior ................................ ................................ ......................... 87 Job Satis faction ................................ ................................ ................................ 90 Exploring Target Observer Acquaintanceship as a Moderator of Personality Reputation Ratings ................................ ................................ .............................. 91 Exploring the Role of Aggregating Observers on Personality Reputation Ratings .. 93 7 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 181 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ .............................. 181 Observer Personality ................................ ................................ ...................... 183 Target Observer Acquaintanceship ................................ ................................ 184 Aggregating Observers ................................ ................................ ................... 185 Theoretical and Practical Implications ................................ ................................ .. 186 Limitations and Future Research Directions ................................ ......................... 188 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 194 APPENDIX A RECRUITMENT MESSAGE ................................ ................................ ................. 198 B INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE SURVEY ................................ ............................. 199 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 200 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 215

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Hypothesized relationships ................................ ................................ ................. 69 6 1 Descriptive statistics: Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities .................... 96 6 2 Personality intercorrelations: Ratings of focal targets ................................ ......... 97 6 3 Workplace outcome intercorrelations: Ratings of focal targets ........................... 99 6 4 outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 100 6 5 Incremental validity of identity and reputation personality ratings ..................... 101 6 6 Coworker conscientiousness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance ................ 103 6 7 Coworker agreeableness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance ................ 105 6 8 Coworker emotional stability as a moder ator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance ................ 107 6 9 Coworker openness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation rati ngs and supervisor rated task performance ............................... 109 6 10 Coworker extraversion as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance ............................... 111 6 11 Coworker conscientiousness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior ............ 113 6 12 Coworker agreeableness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior ............ 115 6 13 Coworker emotional stabilit y as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior ............ 117 6 14 Coworker openness as a moderator of the relationship between coworke r reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior ............................ 119 6 15 Coworker extraversion as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citize nship behavior ............................ 121 6 16 Coworker conscientiousness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction .................... 123

PAGE 9

9 6 17 Coworker agreeableness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction .................... 125 6 18 Coworker e motional stability as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction .................... 127 6 19 Coworker openness as a moderator of the relationship be tween coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction ................................ ... 129 6 20 Coworker extraversion as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rat ed job satisfaction ................................ ... 131 6 21 Length of acquaintanceship as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance ................ 133 6 22 Interpersonal distance as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance ............................... 135 6 23 Lengt h of acquaintanceship as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior ............ 137 6 24 Interpersonal distance as a moderator of the rel ationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior ............................ 139 6 25 Length of acquaintanceship as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratin gs and supervisor rated job satisfaction .................... 141 6 26 Interpersonal distance as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction ................................ ... 143 6 27 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of length of acquaintanceship on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of task performance ................................ ................................ .............. 145 6 28 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of interpersonal distance on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of task performance ................................ ................................ .............................. 147 6 29 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of length of acquaintanceship on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of citizenship behavior ................................ ................................ .......... 149 6 30 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of interpersonal distance on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of citizenship behavior ................................ ................................ .......................... 151

PAGE 10

10 6 31 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of length of acquaintanceship on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of job satisfaction ................................ ................................ .................. 153 6 32 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of interpersonal distance on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of job satisfaction ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 155 6 33 rated workplace outcomes ................................ ................................ ......................... 157 6 34 Incremental validity of identity and reputation personality ratings: A ggregating coworker ratings ................................ ................................ ............................... 158 7 1 Summary of results: Cases where observer personality impacted the predictive validity of observer ratings ................................ ................................ 196 7 2 Summary of results: Cases where observer personality impacted the superiority of reputation vs. identity ratings ................................ ...................... 197

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Pathways of identity/reputation incongruence ................................ .................... 29 3 1 The relationship between congruence, construct validity, and predictive validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 49 6 1 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer conscientiousness: Task performance ................................ ............................. 160 6 2 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer agreeableness: Task performance ................................ ................................ ... 161 6 3 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer emotional stability: Task performance ................................ ................................ ............... 162 6 4 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer openness: Task performance ................................ ................................ ............................. 163 6 5 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer extraversion: Task performance ................................ ................................ ....... 164 6 6 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer conscientiousness: Citizenship behavior ................................ .......................... 165 6 7 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer agreeableness: Citizenship behavior ................................ ................................ 166 6 8 Predictive validi ty of personality ratings as a function of observer emotional stability: Citizenship behavior ................................ ................................ ........... 167 6 9 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer openness: Citizenship behavior ................................ ................................ ......................... 168 6 10 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer extraversion: Citizenship behavior ................................ ................................ .... 169 6 11 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer conscientiousness: Job satisfaction ................................ ................................ .. 170 6 12 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer agree ableness: Job satisfaction ................................ ................................ ....... 171 6 13 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer emotional stability: Job satisfaction ................................ ................................ ................... 172

PAGE 12

12 6 14 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer openness: Job satisfaction ................................ ................................ ................................ 173 6 15 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of obs erver extraversion: Job satisfaction ................................ ................................ ........... 174 6 16 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of length of acquaintanceship: Task performance ................................ ............................... 175 6 17 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of interpersonal distance: Task performance ................................ ................................ ............. 176 6 18 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of length of acquaintanceship: Citizenship behavior ................................ ........................... 177 6 19 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of interpersonal distance: Citizenship behavior ................................ ................................ .......... 178 6 20 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of length of acquaintanceship: Job satisfaction ................................ ................................ ... 179 6 21 Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of interpersonal distance: Job satisfaction ................................ ................................ ................. 180

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requi rements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EXAMINING THE ROLE OF OBSERVER CHARACTERISTICS ON THE PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF REPUTATIONAL PERSONALITY RATINGS ACROSS WORKPLACE OUTCOMES By Ryan Klinger August 2012 Chair: Timothy A. Judge Cochair: John D. K ammeyer Mueller Major: Business Administration In this dissertation, I extend the literature on the validity of personality ratings in the workplace by exploring the conditions under which measures of identity (i.e., self ratings of personality) or measur es of reputation (i.e., observer ratings of personality ) investigate key sources of variance in t he predictive validity of reputational personality ratings. More specifically, I explore how characteristics of the individuals providing observer ratings of personality impact the relative and incremental predictiv e validities of these reputational rating s. Results of a field study indicate that reputational ratings of personality have the potential to capture both hig her relative predictive validities and higher incremental predictive validit ies over personality identity ratings. Howev er, the extent to wh ich reputational ratings outperform identity ratings depends on characteristics of the observer such that relative and incremental predictive validit ies are highest when observers score high on measures of conscientious, openness, and extraversion and low on measures of agreeableness and emotional stability.

PAGE 14

14 Furthermore, reputational ratings are more valid when observer raters have stronger acquaintanceship ties with the individuals they are rating. Finally, results indicate that observer characteristics ha ve a stronger impact on predictive validities for behavioral outcomes (i.e., task performance and citizenship behavior) than attitudinal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction).

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In a review of the literature regarding personality as a pr edictor of workplace analytic investigations find significant correlations between personality traits and central workplace criteria including job performance (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001), job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002), and workplace deviance (Berry, Ones, & Sackett 2007). Nevertheless, this optimism is not shared by all, as recently captured by a panel discussion at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, & Schmitt, 2007). The participants, all eithe r current or former Dzieweczynski [2005] and Schmitt [2004]). Though much of t his disagreement centers around subjective judgments of what maximum potential for personality predictors has yet to be reached. Likewise, both proponents and cri tics have suggested that our understanding of the role of personality in the workplace relies too heavily on self reported personality assessment research (Morgeson et al., 2007; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007). A commonly suggested alternative is to collect personality information from sources other than the focal individual (e.g., coworkers, significant others, trained independent raters, etc.).

PAGE 16

16 In this dissertation, I investigate these alternative sources of personality information. Drawing personality as a function of both identity and reputation Whereas identity refers to assessed through self report s (Roberts, 2006), reputation refers to personality from the observer ratings (Hogan, 1991; Roberts, 2006). An important issue raised by this distinction is the relationship that these two personality perspectives converge, evaluations from different rater types can be considered interchangeable and selecting raters becomes an issue of ease and preference. However, to the extent that identity and reputational ratings offer unique from knowing how self and observer ratings of personality differ in terms of predictive validity and under what circumstances a particular rater source captures incremental validity over others. Two recent meta analyses of the convergent validity of self and observer personality ratings both indicated that although there is a high degree of overlap between mea sures of identity and reputation, each component of personality contains substantial unique variance (Connolly, Kavanagh, & Viswesvaran, 2007; Connelly & Ones, 2010). This finding raises an essential question: Are meaningful workplace criteria better predi cted by measures of identity (i.e., self report ratings) or measures of reputation (i.e., observer ratings)? If observer ratings of personality have higher predictive validities, then the true utility of personality in the workplace based primarily on th e

PAGE 17

17 meta analytic accumulations of self reported data may be undervalued. Furthermore, from an applied perspective, if observer ratings of personality prove equivalent or superior to self ratings, organizations may be best served by modifying personnel sel ection and evaluation systems to draw on this alternative form of personality information. The research to date suggests optimism for the superiority of observer ratings (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011). For instance, in a recent study, Oh et al. (2011) meta analyzed the relationship between observer ratings of the Big Five personality traits and overall job performance. Comparing their results to Hurtz and analysis of self report ratings of personality, the operational validities of observer ratings were between 29% higher (for emotional stability) and 340% higher (for openness) than self reported ratings. Nevertheless, only a handful of primary studies have directly addressed this question. In fact, Oh et al. (2011) co nclude their meta analytic investigation with the relatively small number of primary studie s included in the meta analyses Furthermore, an examination of these p rimary studies suggests that although observer ratings can be more valid (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994) and can account for incremental variance beyond self reported ratings of personality (Small & Diefendorff, 2006) considerable variance in findings ex ists both within and between research studies. This suggests the presence of moderating conditions impacting the predictive validities of reputational measures. Thus, the purpose of this dissertation is to explore

PAGE 18

18 why or under which conditions measures of reputation outperform measures of identity in terms of predicting organizational criteria. especially helpful. This model outlines the conditions necessary for individuals to form to gather and process such affective, cognitive, and behavioral information. According to the Realistic Accuracy Model, personality evaluations can be decomposed into four stages: (a) relevant information must be (b) available to the individual who must (c) detect this information and (d) utilize it appropriately. Thus, to the extent that different raters have different abilities and opportunities in terms of traversing through each of these four stages, we might expect raters to differ in the accuracy, a nd subsequently, predictive validity of their personality ratings. how observer characteristics mo derate the accuracy of their reputation judgments, I meaningful criteria better predict investigate how characteristics of the observers providing reputational ratings in terms acquaintanceship ties with the target impact the predictive va lidit ies of measures of reputation. Understanding how such

PAGE 19

19 characteristics influence the validity of personality ratings will allow researchers and practitioners to maximize the predictive validity of personality ratings by either (i) choosing the best rat er source for a given situation or (ii) modifying the situation to

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROU ND ept of personality as both identity and reputation (Hogan, 1996). Personality from the perspective of the individual and motives, as they relate to general emotional, a ttitudinal, and behavioral tendencies (Winter, John, Stewart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). Personality from the perspective of behaviors (Hogan, 2005). Here, a distinction ca Figure 2 1 outlines the relationship be tween these two components of personality. shape their behavioral tendencies and the observation of these tendencies by others shapes their reputations (Yeung & Martin, 2003). If one identifies as an extraverted individual, then one will likely appro ach situations consistent with and likewise, avoid situations inconsistent with this identity (path a). In turn, observers will interpret this is an extraverted per son (path b). In contrast, sociologists and social psychologists have long recognized the

PAGE 21

21 appears to others (Cooley, 1902; Shrauger & Shoeneman, 1979). The implication here aviors as a sign that he/she is an agreeable person, then the individual may begin to identify as one who is agreeable (path c). Most to internalization. However, reputational awareness need not necessari ly be present to can influence the modes and manners of interactions with others and these interactions can provide indirect feedback that serves to shape his/her identity. For instance, if others think an individual is an introverted person, they may tend to leave this person to himself and through their avoidance of interactions with him he may come to recognize his solitariness as a sign of his introverted n ature. Figure 2 1 also includes a path directly from behavior to identity (path d). Here, the their interpretation s of their own behavioral tendencies. As an example, drawing from Arguments abound concerning the relative importance o f each of these different pathways and the role of unmodeled constructs such as genes, culture, and social roles (McCrae & Costa, 1999; Roberts & Caspi, 2001; Stryker, 2007). Though each aforesaid path was discussed in isolation, it deserves mention that t he recursive nature of the

PAGE 22

22 model highlights the fact that the introduction of change in one part can result in changes elsewhere in the system. As a result, for the sake of this dissertation, attempting to pinpoint the causal determinants of a particular s elf or observer view is less important than understanding the presence of different pathways to incongruence between identity and reputation, and, subsequently, the impact of incongr uence on the predictive validities of personality ratings when a breakdown occurs on any of the abovementioned paths. First, to the extent that fro m these behaviors may not align with said identity. For instance, researchers have long acknowledged the role of situational strength on trait expression (Forehand & von Haller Gilmer, 1964; Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; March & Simon, 1958; Milgrim, 1965; Misc hel, 1973; 1977). When strong cues norms, roles, expectations, etc. exist pressure on individuals to act accordingly shapes behavioral expression and reduces varianc e across individuals (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). When such cues do not reputation al impressions drawn from such behaviors are more likely to align with the have been identified in the psychology and sociology literatures. For instance, in terms of

PAGE 23

23 a fundamental attribution error when interpreting the underlying causes of in behaviors, observers tend to overestimate the influence of internal factors (such as the 1958; Ross, 1977). On the other hand, the self serving bias refers tendencies to attribute successes to internal factors while blaming failures on factors beyond their control (Heider, 1958; Hastorf, Schneider, & Polefka, 1970). eputations their reputations coined social meta perception has been a central topic in both the impression management and performance feedback literatures (Goffman, 1959; Malloy & Albright, 1990). For instance, Atwater, Roush, and Fischthal (1995) showed how individuals adjusted their self evaluations of leadership ability (i.e., their identit ies ) to reflect the feedback they received from others (i.e., their reputation s ). Here, factors interpretations of the feedback such as (1) carelessness on creating the feedback could lead to incongruence s between a c Theory specifies the distinctiveness of personality as both identity and reputation. The previous paragraphs highlight the relationship

PAGE 24

24 these personality perspectives may diverge. The presence of potential divergences raises the possibility that one perspective may be better positioned to capture variance in important organizational outcomes. Moreover, as I argue in the sections to follow, observers differ in both their ab ilities and opportunities to form personality reputations. differentially predict organizational outcomes, but we may also expect differences to exist across observers to further explore the processes through which individuals form personality perceptions. Then, in the chapter to follow, I draw on these processes to explain how different observer characteri stics can moderate the predictive validit ies of measures of personality reputation and, subsequently, how these characteristics can impact the degree to which reputational ratings outperform identity ratings in terms of both relative and incremental predic tive validity. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of the process through which accurate personality evaluations are formed, Funder developed the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM; Funder, 1995). According t contribute to accurate personality judgment. First, the target must do something relevant in certain behaviors, the target must actually provid e relevant behavioral information. For instance, all else equal, the more assertive tendencies a target engages in, the more likely the observer will rate the target as assertive. Second, the behavior must be available to the observer. If the target engage s in assertive behaviors but the observer

PAGE 25

25 form an impression concerning the assertiveness of the target. Third, assuming the target is providing behaviorally relevant information and this information is available to the observer, the behavior must be detected by the observer. Thus if an observer is preoccupied by an unrelated cognitively demanding task, the observer may not detect the behavioral information necessary t o make an accurate assessment concerning the be correctly utilized by the observer to form an accurate impression. There are several significant implications of Funde product of traversing all four stages successfully (Funder, 2001). Moreover, whereas the former two stages are a function of environmental expression, the latter two are a function of observer perception (Connelly & Ones, 2010 ; Funder, 1995). That is, relevant informational cues (relevance) as well as the environment supporting the observation of such cues (availability). Once expressed (and subsequ ently observed), however, trait relevant information must be accurately perceived by the observer for correct personality judgments to be inferred. Perception requires both the acts of accurately identifying and recalling the presence of trait relevant inf ormation (detection) and drawing judgments from the informational cues detected (utilization). identity is the product of a target being cognitively available to detect and c orrectly 2001).

PAGE 26

26 Furthermore, the notion of incongruities between identity and r eputation can be explained by differences between the ways in which targets and observers advance through the stages of RAM. Jones and Nisbett (1971), for instance, argue that both the s for such differences. The target (i.e., self rater) has advantages in terms of the sheer quantity of information from which to infer personality judgments because it can be presumed that no rater has shared every possible experience with the target (Spai n et al., 2000). In addition, the target has access to private affective and cognitive information whereas others must often infer this information from directly observable behaviors. On the other hand, observers may be in a better perspective to view the behaviors and so in terms of behavioral manifestations of personality, observers may have privileged access (Vazire, 2010). For instance, a target is usually not privy to information regarding his or her own facial expressions and posture and these behavioral manifestations of personality can carry with them significant meanings that differences exist between the availability of relevant information to targets and not converge. In addition, scholars have argued that differences exist between the ways in which self and observer raters detect and utilize informati on. As John and Robins (1993) involved in their self evaluations than their evaluations of others; consequently, self perception may be influenced by motivational factors, such as self esteem needs, that do not influence

PAGE 27

27 tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal or dispositional factors when attemp behaviors (Heider, 1958; Ross, 1977). These differences in the processes through which informational cues are evaluated by targets and observers can account for Not only does RAM account for differences between measures of identity and reputation but the model is also informative in terms of detecting and understanding the role of moderators of personality rating accuracy. Factors which serve to systematically impact access to informational cues (i.e., relevance and availability) or the processing of such cues (i.e., detection and utilization) for either targets or observers may prove to be significant moderators of the accuracy of identity and reputational evaluations. This is important because the existence of moderators complicates the issue of the superiority of identity or reputation perspectives. In other words, some observers may be better raters of personality than other observers. Likewise, some observers may provide more valid persona ratings. In the next chapte r, I review the literature regarding the validity of measures of identity and reputation. Then, drawing on the aforementioned theoretical perspectives and the ensuing literature review, I explore specific moder ators of the predictive validities of identity and reputation in the workplace. More specifically, I identify

PAGE 28

28 characteristics of the observers that serve to either enhance or impede the accuracy (and, subsequently, the predictive validity) of their reputational ratings.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2 1. Pathways of id entity/reputation incongruence

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Assessing the Accuracy of Personality Identity and Reputation If I say I am dependable, am I right? If you say I am cooperative, are you right? These questions address the issue of the accuracy o f personality identities and reputation s and are fundamental to the study of personality psychology. Concerning this and hope to find accuracy commonly been used to assess the psychometric quality of personality ratings. The first, interjudge agreement, is concerned with the convergence of measures of identity and the accuracy of the other by examining whether the two perspectives converge. Interestingly, some researchers treat measures of reputation as the criterion of accuracy (e.g., Watson & Clark, 1991) whereas others consider measures of identity the criterion (e.g., Paunonen, 1989). While the majority of researchers have relied on agreement between raters to establish accuracy, agreement is an insuf ficient index for two reasons. First, two people can agree with each other and still both be wrong. Second, measures of agreement do not allow for the evaluation of the relative accuracy of measures of identity and reputation. If our goal is to determine t reputation is a better predictor of workplace criteria, knowing the extent to which these effective predictor.

PAGE 31

31 T he second cr iterion commonly used to assess the accuracy of personality perspectives is the extent to which the measures of identity and reputation predict the set of behaviors for which they are intended. If assertive individuals are defined as reverse scored; Costa & McCrae, 1992), then evidence for the accuracy ratings on these items with his or her actual proclivity to engage in these same assertiveness behaviors. That is, do peop le who consider themselves to be assertive actually assert themselves in social situations? Likewise, evidence for the accuracy of reputational ratings of behaviors. Consisten t with traditional predictive validation strategies (Wiggins, 1973), accuracy can also be inferred from the ability of a measure to predict constructs within its nomological network. Assessment of this third criterion involves examining the criterion relat ed predictive validit ies of measures of identity and reputation (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). For instance, given theoretical reasons to suppose that personality should be related to workplace constructs such as job performance and job satisfaction (McCrae & C osta, 1999), we can gauge the accuracy of each perspective by examining the extent to which self and observer ratings of personality do, indeed, predict such workplace outcomes.

PAGE 32

32 In the text to follow, I refer to the first criterion agreement between mea sures of identity and reputation as congruence The second criterion the ability of a given personality perspective to capture the true personality tendencies for which it is intended I refer to as construct validity Finally, the extent to which per sonality perspectives predict constructs within their nomological network is henceforth referred to as predictive validity Though the central research questions are concerned with the predictive validit ies of personality identity and reputation, these th ree criteria are inherently linked and information concerning one criterion can prove informative in terms of other criteria (Figure 3 1). For instance, to the extent that true personality is related to workplace outcomes, if we know that (a) targets are a ble to accurately assess true personality and (b) target and observer ratings have high congruence, then we can theorize about the predictive validit ies of both measures of identity and reputation. Likewise, if we know that (a) target and observer ratings of personality do not converge and (b) target and observer ratings differ in terms of construct validity, then we can speculate that these two rating sources may also differ in terms of predictive validity. On the other hand several important caveats must be mentioned concerning the relationship between congruence, construct validity, and predictive validity. First, it is possible for identity and reputation to be congruent yet lack both construct and predictive validity. For instance, if strong motivation s exist for both targets and observers to skew their evaluations in either a positive or negative light, then congruence may be increased at the expense of validity. In addition, if the construct of interest is not strongly related to the criterion, then t argets and observers may be able to

PAGE 33

33 validity is low. Finally, since congruence need not indicate construct validity nor construct validity indicate predictive validi ty, it is not enough to simply transpose previously investigated findings regarding congruence and construct validity onto predictive validity hypotheses. On the other hand, understanding why (in)congruence and construct (in)validity occur s can shed light on issues of predictive validity. In this regard, relatively few attempts have been made to examine the predictive validities of personality reputations as the majority of the personality research has focused on the relationships between measures of ident ity and workplace outcomes. Moreover, the roles of moderators of p ersonality reputation ratings have been much more frequently examined in the congruence and construct validity literatures than in the predictive validity literature. For these reasons, in t he following sections, I review the literature concerning the congruence, construct validity, and predictive validity of personality identity and reputation perspectives with special emphasis on the role of observer characteristics on these relationships. Congruence between Identity and Reputation One of the earliest and most influential reviews of identity and reputation congruence was published by Shrauger and Shoeneman in 1979. Drawing on nearly 50 e is no consistent agreement Some used these findings to support the claim that observers are poor raters of others considered low agreement to be a function of self deception and selective attention with regards to the ratings (Thorne, 1989). Still others cited low levels of congruence between

PAGE 34

34 tudy of personality is futile as social behaviors are primarily a function of social factors and specific person situation interactions (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Mischel, 1968; for critiques of this view, see also Block, 1977; Epstein, 1979; Hogan, DeSoto & Solano, 1977). Several researchers, however, were quick to argue that this conclusion concerning poor identity reputation congruence may have been premature (Funder, 1980; Marsh, Barnes, & Hocevar, 1985). First, Shrauger and Shoeneman (1979) acknowled ged that reviewed by Shrauger and Shoeneman, Funder (1980) identified several works supportive of identity reputation congruence that were either not cited (e.g., Hase & Goldberg, 1967; Norman & Goldberg, 1966; Norman, 1969; Scott & Johnson, 1972) or Fu distinguish between two different methods for assessing congruence between personality perspectives (Funder & Colvin, 1997). The first method involves an analysis of correlations and congruence r 1999). Here, congruence is assessed by the intercorrelation between self and observer people who tend to r ate themselves relatively high on a given trait or set of traits (as compared to the sample of self raters) also get rated by their observer as relatively high on the same trait or set (compared to the sample of observer method involve s an analysis of mean differences and has been referred to as a

PAGE 35

35 congruence d difference in mean placements on descriptive items between self and observer ratings and addresses the questio Several scholars have noted that this distinction is important because scores on these two types of congruence dimensions are theoretically orthogonal (Conrad, 1932; F under, 1980). Knowing that self raters tend to overestimate their standing on a particular personality trait compared to observers (congruence d) tells us little about the covariation of self observer ratings (congr uence r). Likewise, knowing that individuals who rate themselves higher than average on a given trait tend also to be rated higher than average by their observers tells us nothing about the mean difference between the particular self and observer ratings. In fact, a study by Warr and Bourne (1999) compared self and observer ratings of managerial competence and found no significant correlation (mean r = .01) between congruence operationalized as congruence r and congruence d. Recent meta analytic investigat ions of identity reputation congruence have also developments in the study of the predictive validity of personality in the workplace, it has been argued that qualitative conclusi ons based on studies assessing vastly different personality traits with no organizing hierarchy might obscure substantive relationships. Here, early narrative reviews reported inconsistent findings concerning the relationship between personality traits and workplace criteria (Ghiselli, 1973; Guion & Gottier, 1965). However, drawing on converging support for the Five Factor Model (FFM) of

PAGE 36

36 personality 1 (Digman, 1990) and advancements in meta analytic techniques, Barrick of the literature uncovered meaningful and consistent relationships between personality and job performance. In a similar vein, in one of the most comprehensive studies of identity reputation congruence to date, Connolly et al. (2007) organized personality ratings within the FFM framework and meta analyzed the data. In contrast to Shrauger and Shoeneman (1979), Connolly et al. (2007) found considerable evidence for congruence; the average correlation between identity and reputation ratings of personality (c orrected for unreliability in the measures) across the Big Five traits was = .55. The findings of this meta analysis also converge with other reviews of congruence between self and observer ratings of personality (Funder, 1987; McCrae & Costa, 1989). Despite the newfound optimism for evidence of congruence, even the strongest c orrelations fail to support the notion of equivalence across measures of identity and reputation. Three years after the publication of the investigation by Connolly et al. (2007), drawing on a meta analysis of a larger sampling of studies, Connelly and One s (2010) reached similar conclusions regarding convergence. Moreover, Connelly and Ones also examined inter ate 1 According to the Five Factor Model of personality, most, if not all, personality traits can be hierarchically subsumed by five broad factors: (a) conscientiousness characterizes the degree to which an individual is dependable, organized, and achievement striving; (b) agreeableness characterizes the degree to which an individual is kind, pleasant, and helpful; (c) openness to experience characte rizes the degree to which an individual is imaginative, intellectually curious, and open minded; (d) extraversion characterizes the degree to which an individual is outgoing, excitement seeking, and dominant in social situations; and (e) neuroticism (or it anxious, hostile, and depressed. These five factors emerged across both semantic clustering and factor analytic methodologies and have been shown to generalize acros s age, gender, language, culture, and personality inventories (for comprehensive reviews of the literature, see Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999)

PAGE 37

37 target, averaged across the Big Five traits, was r = .35. ratings of a given targe t are equivalent. In fact, researchers have long attempted to Three such observer characteristics motivation, ability, and personality have all been shown to moderate identity reputation congruence relationships. Flink and Park (1991) found higher levels of congruence when observers had a vested interest in the congruent with their r eputations when the observers providing the reputational ratings were more intelligent. And Vogt and Colvin (2003) found identity reputation congruence to be higher when observers scored high on personality traits related to an interpersonal orientation (e .g., warm, outgoing, sympathetic). Moreover, Christiansen, Wolcott traits and behaviors, (b) whether a behavior is a function of a dispositional trait or situational factors, and (c) the natural covariation of traits in individuals. Observers scoring high on the Christiansen et al. measure of dispositional intelligence were found to be better judg es of personality (i.e., their reputation ratings converged to a higher contexts (Christiansen et al., 2005). In addition to the individual difference type attributes me ntioned above, researchers have investigated observer characteristics relating to their relationships

PAGE 38

38 with targets (e.g., length of relationship, type of relationship, etc.) as potential moderators of identity reputation congruence. Perhaps not surprisingl y, comparing newly acquainted individuals to long time friends (Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995), spouses (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000), parents (Funder et al., 1995), and coworkers (Norman & Goldberg, 1966) has shown that the more familiar the observer is with the target, the more likely his or her reputational rating will converge with the that even relative strangers can provide accurate observer assessments in te rms of convergence with target personality ratings (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992). For instance, Watson (1989) found evidence of identity reputation congruence between Moreover Schneider, Schimmack, Petrican, and Walker (2010) found evidence of a nonlinear relationship between the length of acquaintanceship and identity reputation congruence. In their study, Schneider and colleagues show congruence to initially increase as the target and observer become more acquainted with one another; however, these authors note that beyond three years of acquaintanceship, the relationship between time and congruence tends to plateau. Construct Validity of Identity and Reputation Funder and co lleagues have designed several empirical investigations aimed at comparing the construct validities of measures of identity and reputation (Funder & Colvin, 1991; Kolar, Funder, & Colvin, 1996; Spain, Eaton, & Funder, 2000). A prototypical study of this ty pe can be divided into three phases. First, a target provides a self assessment of his or her personality identity. Then, an observer with knowledge of

PAGE 39

39 reputation. Finally, th environment. Special attention is paid to measuring behaviors with a direct correspondence to the traits and items assessed by the particular personality measures. For instance, both the target and on (Kolar et al., 1996). In investigations of this type, construct validity is typically assessed by examining the correlations between the personality assessments (provided by targets and bjective judges). Several studies have shown that both personality identity and reputation predict substantial variation in the behaviors they were intended to capture (Funder & Colvin, 1991; Kolar et al., 1996). In terms of relative construct validity, Ko lar et al. (1996) found that reputational ratings provided by a single observer were slightly more valid than across observers produced substantial increases in construct validity. Predictive Validity of Identity and Reputation in the Workplace In the previous sections, I reviewed research examining the convergence of measures of personality identity and reputatio n as well as their construct validity in terms of predicting the specific behavioral tendencies for which they were intended. An additional form of validation involves examining the extent to which these ratings predict constructs within their nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Here, arguably no relationship has been afforded more attention than that between personality traits

PAGE 40

40 and job performance. In this section, I review the existing literature on identity and reputation ratings as predictors o f job performance and other workplace criteria. One of the first, and most commonly cited, investigations of the predictive validity of reputational ratings of personality in the workplace was carried out by Mount et al. (1994). In addition to administerin g personality self assessments to 105 sales personalities from customers, coworkers, and supervisors. Moreover, both supervisors and coworkers rated the overall job performance of each employee. In terms of the relative predictive validit ies of identity and reputation ratings, with the exception of e motional s tability, reputation ratings regardless of whether the observer was a customer, coworker, or supervisor were greater in m agnitude than identity ratings (neither self nor observer ratings of e motional s tability were significantly associated with performance). Mount et al. (1994) also examined the inc remental validities of ratings of identity self ratings of personality failed to account for significant variance in job performance beyond observer ratings, incremental validity was supported for observer ratings over self ratings. For instance, in terms of supervisor ratings of job performance, o bserver reported c onscientiousness, e xtraversion, and a greeableness accounted for an additional 24%, 11%, and 18% of variance beyond self ratings, respectively. A year after the investigation by Mount et al., Nilsen (1995) published a dissertation presenti ng the results of her investigation of personality and leadership performance. Personality identity ratings were supplied by 131 business executives

PAGE 41

41 subordinates. All raters a performance. Like Mount et al. (1994), Nilsen found evidence for the superiority of reputational ratings of personality in terms of predicting managerial performance. Across the 365 different personality trait criterion relationships, for 227 cases, observer ratings were significantly more valid than self ratings. In comparison, self ratings outperformed observer ratings in only five cases. In terms of incremental validity, observer ratings predicted sign ificant variance in performance beyond self ratings across four of the Big Five traits, with the lone exception being c onscientiousness. Thus even after controlling for personality identity, personality reputation was significantly related to job performan ce. Small and Diefendorff (2006) extended the criterion domain to include both in role and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) in their investigation of the predictive validities of personality identity and reputation. While they did not observe the same degree of widespread superiority of reputational ratings, Small and Diefendorff (2006) did find reputation ratings of c onscientiousness from supervisors and coworkers to be better predictors than identity ratings across both in role and OC B performance domains. Zimmerman, Triana, and Barrick (2010) utilized reference checklists to collect reputation ratings from applicants to a graduate business (MBA) program. R atings of conscientiousness and emotional stability provided by refe rences predicted work performance across a variety of different contexts (e.g., academic performance, job performance, and performance on team projects). In addition, reputational ratings of

PAGE 42

42 applicant personality captured incremental validity in performanc e ratings over and applicants. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of reputational ratings of personality as predictors of educational effectiveness. Fo r instance, Murray, Rushton, and to validly predict instructor ratings provided by students. Summarizing the teacher effectiveness literature, Feldman (1986) observed that both the number of significant traits as well as the strength s of their association s with the criteria increased when a reputational rating was examined (e.g., a student or colleague provided the rating of the dentity rating (e.g., a teacher provided a self assessment of personality). The military has also provided a forum for assessing identity vs. reputation personality issues. In his dissertation, Bradley (1997) collected self assessed personality ratings fr om 748 Canadian Forces officer candidates. During the officer selection process, reputational personality ratings were also collected from interviewers that personalit y ratings provided by reference writers (but not interviewer ratings or self ratings) significantly predicted who would successfully complete basic training. In addition, Bradley explored the role of rater acquaintanceship as a moderator of the validity of reputational ratings. Within both interviewer and reference writer samples, the extent to which the observer was acquainted with the target did not influence the degree of the relationship between reputational personality ratings and officer

PAGE 43

43 performance However, as Bradley suggested, this may have been due to the fact that there was very minimal variance in the degree of acquaintanceship within rater types (e.g., of the 494 interviewers, only three knew the applicant beforehand). In fact, the very findi ng that candidate references (who presumably had deeper acquaintanceship levels with the officers) provided personality ratings that were more valid predictors of performance than interviewers (who had, in almost all cases, just met the officers) presents indirect support that observer acquaintanceship can moderate the predictive validit ies of reputational ratings. Two studies explored personality identity and reputation ratings in the context of job interviews. Barrick, Patton, and Haugland (2000) found i ratings of personality to be better predictors of perceived applicant suitability than the assessed identity personality ratings. However, since the interviewers also provided the suitability ratings, it can be ar gued that same source biases inflated interviewer rating validities (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Barrick et al. (2000) also the applicant e motiona l s tability predicted interviewer ratings of applicant suitability over and above ratings of e motional s tability provided by both interviewers and the applicants themselves. Thus in this case, we not only see evidence that reputation ratings c an be more valid than identity ratings but also that reputation ratings from certain observers may be more valid than ratings from other observers (i.e., observer characteristics moderate the validity of personality reputation ratings).

PAGE 44

44 Motowidlo, Burnett Maczynski, et al. (1996), explored how verbal and nonverbal behaviors influence reputational ratings of personality. In their study, individuals were provided with either a written transcript or a video recording (without audio) of an interview session a nd ask xtraversion and c e xtraversion based on verbal performance ( r = .30). How ever, reputational e xtraversion ratings based on nonverbal behavior (i.e., video recordings) and reputational c onscientiousness ratings based on both transcripts and video recordings failed to significantly predict job performance. Investigators have also explored the relative predictive validit ies of identity and reputation personality ratings across related criteria such as subjective well being. For ratings of positive aff ectivity (an indicator of e xtraversion) and negative affectivity (an indicator of n euroticism) from a sample of psychology students. Four years later, the reputati onal ratings ( r = .47) were more strongly related to life satisfaction than identity ratings ( r = .30). However, the converse was true for negative affectivity where the magnitude of the predictive validity of identity ratings ( r = .43) outweighed that of reputational ratings ( r = .32). Connelly and Ones (2010) performed a meta analysis of the validity of reputational personality ratings as predictors of job performance and compared their findings to validity coefficients drawn from the Barrick et al. (20 01) meta analysis of personality

PAGE 45

45 consideration. First, their efforts highlight the large frequency discrepancy between studies investigating the validity of identity vs. repu tational personality ratings. Whereas Barrick et al. (2001) were able to identify 239 independent samples (total sample size = 48,100) in whi ch effect sizes for self rated c onscientiousness job performance relationships were reported, Connelly and Ones (20 10) were only able to uncover seven independent samples (total sample size = 1,190) in which c onscientiousness ratings were based on observer reports. Second, in terms of the relative predictive validity results, for each of the Big Five traits, validity c oefficients were greater for reputational measures of personality than for identity measures. For two of the traits, o penness and c onscientiousness, the 95% confidence intervals around the operational validity coefficients ( ov ; unreliability corrected in the criterion but not the predictor) for self and observer rated personality did not overlap. Comparing relative predictive validity results across traits, with the exception of o penness, the general pattern of effectivenes s was maintained across identity and reputation measures. That is, regardless of the rater, c onscientiousness ( ov[Self] = .20; ov[Observer] = .29) was the most valid personality trait and the predic tive validity coefficients for e motional s tability ( ov[ Self] = .11; ov[Observer] = .17), e xtraversion ( ov[Self] = .11; ov[Observer] = .11), and a greeableness ( ov[Self] = .11; ov[Observer] = .17) were fairly tightly clustered. However, whereas o penness was the poorest predictor of job performance where meas ures of identity were concerned ( ov[Self] = .04), this trait was the second highest predictor when reputational ratings were examined ( ov[Observer] = .22).

PAGE 46

46 Third, after corrections for unreliability in both the criterion and predictor, the magnitudes of the predictive validity estimates for four of the traits based on reputational ratings c onscientiousness, o penness, e motional s tability, and a greeableness were very high ( [Observer] = .55, .45, .37, and .31, respectively). In fact, this true score va lidity for c onscientiousness exceeds even that of general mental ability, the long standing gold standard in terms of personnel selection predictors (Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Summing up these findings, Connelly and Ones search relying on a single self rating of personality traits has far (p. 1114). Connelly and Ones (2010) also investigated the incremental validit ies o f identity and reputation ratings. Their results indicate that, with the exception of e xtraversion, reputational ratings of personality accounted for considerable variance in job performance beyond identity ratings. On the other hand, across all five perso nality traits, identity ratings explained little variance in the criterion beyond reputation ratings. In perhaps the most comprehensive investigation of the predictive validities of identity and reputation ratings to date, Oh, Wang, and Mount (2011) perfor med a meta operational validities of reputational ratings of personality were considerably hig her than identity ratings. In fact, gains in predictive validity from reputational ratings ranged from 29% for emotional stability ( ov[Self] = .14; ov[Observer] = .18) to 340% for openness ( ov[Self] = .05; ov[Observer] = .22). Moreover, reputational ratings captured significant

PAGE 47

47 variance in job performance over and above identity ratings, but the converse was not the case. Summar izing this literature review, several generalizations and observations warrant attention. First, consistent with the meta analytic findings of both Connelly and Ones (2010) and Oh et al. (2011), general support was found for the notion that reputation rati ngs better predict workplace outcomes than identity ratings. Nevertheless, not all findings were consistent across studies, as evidenced by a brief foray into the results pertaining to the incremental validity of reputation ratings over identity ratings. M ount et al. (1994) found support for the incremental validity of every trait except e motional s tability, Nilsen (1995) found support for every trait except c onscientiousness, and yet Small and Diefendorff (2006) found support for only two of the Big Five t raits ( e motional Stability and c onscientiousness). Absent direct explorations of the causes of relative (and incremental) predictive validity differences, it is diff icult to assess to what extent divergence s of results can be attributed to (a) differences in study designs or statistical analyses, (b) substantive moderators, or simply (c) sampling error. In regards to the exploration of moderators, as opposed to the previously discussed congruence and construct validity literatures, where moderators have be en a focus of investigation for some time, very few attempts have been made to explore moderating conditions of identity reputation predictive analysis, because of the relative paucity of studies inve s tigating the predictive validities of reputational ratings in the workplace, the authors were unable to explore potential moderators of their relative and

PAGE 48

48 relative stre ngth of other ratings for predicting behaviors demands further ratings and self ratings differentially relate to constructs across domains of psychology is among the most fascinating yet understudied questions in p (2011) conclude their meta analysis with a similar call to future research, stating: which characteristics of the the following chapters, I attempt to shine light on this issue by explicating the role that observer characteristics play on the predictive validit ies of reputational ratings.

PAGE 49

49 Figure 3 1. T he relationship between congruence, construct validity, and predictive validity

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS A ND HYPOTHESES In this chapter, I present a series of general research questions and specific hypotheses aimed at uncovering the factors influenc ing the relative predictive validities of personality identity and reputation in the workplace. These inquiries are grounded in Accuracy Model which outlines the necessary conditions for the accurate perception of personality; and (c) previous empirical work with regards to identity reputation congruence, construct validity, and predictive validity. Research Question 1: What are th e Predictive Validities of Personality Identity and Reputation across Workplace Criteria? Though previous research highlights the general convergence of identity and reputation personality ratings, (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Connolly et al., 2007), the degree of covariation between these two personality perspectives is far from unity. Thus, we can speculate that general patterns of relationships with workplace outcomes may hold across the different personality perspectives (due to convergence) and yet each per spective may be more or less valid in particular circumstances (due to of accurate and inaccurate personality judgments and can be used to predict when measures of reputa tion may be more valid predictors of workplace outcomes as compared to measures of identity and vice versa. For instance, one can identify several advantages of reputational ratings of personality, especially during the detection and utilization stages of RAM. In terms of detection, Kolar et al. (1996) argue that self raters can be poor judges of their own

PAGE 51

51 target is transmitting environment (Kolar et al., 1996; Spain et al., 2000). In regard they see themselves as an observer would (e.g., using mirrors or video recordings), they are more likely to make dispositional attributions for t heir behaviors (Duval & Wicklund, 1973; Storms, 1973). Moreover, in terms of utilization of personality information, researchers argue that self evaluation (i.e., identity formation) is an ego involving process (Allport, 1958; Greenwald, 1980). Impression management, self deception, and other acts of protecting by self presentation effects, in which individuals intentionally or unintentionally distort their identity impressions. Paulhus and colleagues (Paulhus, 1984; Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008) have gathered an impressive collection of literature showing how impre ssion management and self deception can bias identity ratings of personality. Also impacting the utilization stage of RAM, Harris and Shaubroeck (1988) point out that individuals tend to be more lenient with their self ratings as compared to ratings of oth ers. Rating leniency can lead to range restriction which will serve to attenuate the effect sizes of relationships between personality ratings and outcome criteria (Thornton, 1980).

PAGE 52

52 Whereas the predictive validity of reputational ratings of personality may be enhanced due to the fact that observers are better able to detect and utilize informational cues when forming personality evaluations, the opposite may hold true in terms of the relevance and availability phases of RAM. As previously stated, no observe r has shared every possible experience with the target (Spain et al., 2000). In addition, private affective and cognitive information is more readily available to self raters than others, who must infer this information from directly observable behaviors. Thus, in terms of the relevance and availability processes of RAM, self advantages in terms of access to more and better informational cues may enhance the predictive validities of identity ratings as compared to reputational ratings of personality Furthermore, the degree to which these advantages and disadvantages result in the divergence of relative predictive validities across personality perspectives is likely to be a function of characteristics of the observers as well as the relationships be tween target and observer raters. For instance, as will be argued under subsequent research questions, self cues are likely to be more pronounced when the degree of acquaintanceship with the observer is low. That is, as observers become more acquainted with targets, observers may gain access to relevant information not available to strangers. Likewise, observer rater advantages in terms of detection and utilization are likely to be m ore pronounced when the observer is thorough, deliberate, and attentive to detail (all of which are facets of trait c onscientiousness). Simply stated, I propose that several conditions moderate the relative predictive validit ies of measures of identity and reputation. Thus, I offer no specific hypotheses for this first research question. Instead, below, I present more

PAGE 53

53 detailed hypotheses exploring the role of observer characteristics on questions concerning the relative and incremental predictive validit ies of personality identity and reputation. Research Question 2: How do Characteristics of the Observer s Influence the Predictive Validities of Personality Reputation Ratings? p observers account for differences in the predictive validit ies of personality reputation ratings? However, the majority of these investigations rely on identity reputa tion personality rating congruence as the criterion (Letzring, 2008) which assumes that the the mark, observer characteri stics that increase consensus between reputation and identity ratings may, at the same time, undermine the predictive validit ies of the reputation ratings. In this study, I examine the impact of observer characteristics on workplace criteria validities; ar e personality reputational ratings from certain observer types more valid predictors of workplace outcomes? Below, drawing on the Realistic Accuracy Model, I argue that certain observer characteristics either influence (a) the environment through which ob server s interact with target s thereby impacting the availability of relevant personality cues or (b) the perceptual processes through which observer s accumulate dispositional cues and translate them into personality reputation evaluations (i.e., detection and utilization ). Furthermore, I expect systematic differences in the accuracy of personality reputation ratings due to certain observer characteristics to impact the predictive validit ies of these personality ratings.

PAGE 54

54 Observer Personality Impacts Acc ess to Target Personality Information In terms of the Realistic Accuracy Model, observers may influence the relevance themselves in more situations in which to observe the target. For instance, research consistently shows that extraverted individuals, characterized by their gregarious and social nature (Costa & McCrae, 1992), engage in more social interactions than introverted individuals (Berry & Hansen, 1996; Watson, Clark, McIntyre, & Hamaker, 1992). In addition, Levesque and Kenny (1993) showed that the amount of talking between individuals during social interactions was positively related to the extraversion of the members engaging in the interaction. Agreeable ind ividuals tend to be kind, pleasant, and helpfu l (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Like e xtraversion, observer a greeableness is related to the amount of time observers spend with others (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998). Whereas we may assume that extraverted individuals s eek out the company of others, it may be the case that others prefer to be in the company of agreeable individuals. In any case, increases in the frequency or duration of social interactions between targets an d observers (due to xtraversion and /or a greeableness) put such observers at an advantage in terms of informational availability when evaluating the personality of targets. In addition to impacting the quantity of interactions between targets and observers, observer traits can influence the quality of such interactions. When targets feel comfortable and at ease with interaction partners, they are more likely to express their true selves and reveal relevant informational cues (Funder, 1995; Letzring, 2008; Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969). In this regard, each of the Big Five traits has been shown

PAGE 55

55 to influence the quality of social interactions as well as informational disclosure during such interactions. For instance, Berry & Hansen (1996; 2000) found that individuals rated their interaction exper iences as more favorable when their partners were conscientious, extraverted, open to experiences, and agreeable. Likewise, Robins, Caspi, and Moffitt (2000) found that individuals rated the quality of their interaction higher when their partners were less str essed and aggressive (facets of e motional s tability). In terms of information disclosure, clinical studied have long recognized that patients are more likely to divulge meaningful information to doctors when the doctors are warm and compassionate (i.e. high in trait a greeableness; Carkhuff, 1969; Gurman, 1977; Halpern, 1977; Kramer, Rappaport, & Seidman, 1979; Rogers, 1958; Simonson, 1976). More recent studies have extended the domain of traits related to information disclosure to include c onscientious ness, o penness, and e xtraversion (Berry & Hansen, 1996; 2000; Skoe & Ksionzky, 1985). Moreover, in the context of the job interview, Carless and Imber (2007) showed that interviewer agreeableness is related to interviewee feelings of anxiety; interviewees feel less anxious (and likely willing to divulge more and more relevant information) when the interviewer is an agreeable individual. In sum, the Realistic Accuracy Model predicts that observers will be better raters of targets if the observers have in creased access to relevant information concerning the that the Big Five traits impact both the quantity and quality of social interactions. Summarizing the abovemention ed research, one would expect observers to provide more valid ratings of targets due to the greater availability of relevant target personality

PAGE 56

56 information when observers are conscientious, agreeable, emotionally stable, open to experiences, and extraverte d. Below, I argue that these same personality traits can also impact the latter stages of Funders RAM ( detection and utilization ). Observer Personality Impacts Processing of Target Personality Information only might some observer some raters might also be better at processing this information when forming a reputational rating of a target. In this section, I argue that o influence their detection and utilization we should expect observer personality characteristics to moderate the predictive validit ies of target reputation ratings. For instanc e, to the extent that conscientious observers are organized, dutiful, self disciplined, and deliberate in their actions, such individuals are more likely to successfully traverse through the perceptual stages of RAM, detecting more and more relevant inform ation and utilizing such information in an unbiased manner to form valid cues is being able to recall such cues from memory. Here, researchers have observed that consci entious individuals rate their memories of previous occurrences as being more vivid and coherent (Sutin, 2008) and are less likely to call to mind false memories during memory recall tasks (Porter, Birt, Yuille, & Lehman, 2000). Evidence also supports the notion that conscientious individuals approach assessment and evaluation tasks with higher levels of motivation (Salgado, Remeseiro, ost important area of all (p. 21). Furthermore, in the

PAGE 57

57 performance appraisal domain, previous research shows that conscientious observers provide more precise (i.e., less lenient) ratings and these ratings are subsequently more accurate (Bernardin, Tyler, & Villanova, 2009). openness to experience. As observers gain access to target relevant information, optimal processing of such information requires detecting new (and espe cially note that individuals who are open to new experiences excel at accommodati ng novel and counterfactual information and re evaluating their judgments based on new i s, re first available cues when making judgments. Once a judgment has been made, these (Kruglanski, 1996; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). Driscoll, Hamilton, and Sorrentino (1991) showed how differences in cognitive information and alter their existing judgme nts. In their research, participants were first additional statements concerning

PAGE 58

58 initial assessment of the target. Finally, participants were asked to recall as many of the ible. As expected, participants who scored high on uncertainty orientation (a trait conceptually similar to openness to experience; Hodson & Sorrentino, 1999; McCrae, 1996) were able to recall significantly more target behaviors that were incongruent with their initial perceptions than individuals who scored low on uncertainty orientation. Coupled with the previous research, this study suggests that open observers enjoy det ect and utilize a fuller set of personality information and to alter previous judgments based on new information. is agreeableness. Agreeable individuals tend to be sympathet ic, considerate, and trustful and thus discount negative information when evaluating others; the result of which is overly lenient ratings of targets (Bernardin, Villanova, & Cooke, 2000; Bernardin, Tyler, & Villanova, 2009; Kane, Bernardin, Villanova, & P eyrefitte, 1995). In terms of RAM, agreeable observers may either fail to detect information indicative of a utilize such informational cues when forming a personality judgment. As previously mentioned, rater leniency results in range restriction serving to attenuate the effect sizes of relationships between agreeable Some researchers contend that agreeable raters provide len ient ratings due to desires for social approval (Wilkowski, Robinson, & Meier, 2006) or conflict avoidance (Jensen Campbell, Knack, Waldrip, & Campbell, 2007). That is, raters fear that the

PAGE 59

59 ons, making for an uncomfortable situation. However, recent research suggests that even when observers provide anonymous ratings of targets, and there is no possible way that the targets will ill tend to be overly positive and lenient (Bernardin et al., 2009). The role of observer emotional stability in detecting and utilizing target personality cues is less clear. On the one hand, both depression and anxiety (facets of neuroticism or low emo tional stability) have been linked with decreased cognitive functioning (Gotlib & Joorman, 2010; Gu, Ge, Juang, & Luo, 2010; Hammar & Ardal, 2009). One explanation commonly offered for this phenomenon is that neurotic individuals tend to spend an inordinat e amount of time ruminating about their emotional instability (Roberts, Gilboa, & Gotlib, 1998) and the attentional focus allocated to the symptomology, antecedents, and consequences of their neuroticism depletes working memory resources that could otherwi se be used for higher level cognitive functioning (Rokke, Arnell, Koch, & Andrews, 2002). In terms of R AM, inward rumination may impair detect relevant informational cues being expressed by targets. Another explanation for findings regarding the decreased cognitive functioning of individuals with low emotional stability centers on individual differences in the ability to recall and utilize positive and negative valenced information when making judgments. In memory recall ta sks, neurotic individuals have an easier time recalling negative information than positive information (Matt, Vazquez, & Cambpell, 1992) and tend to interpret ambiguous information negatively (Mathews & MacLeod, 2005; Gu et al.,

PAGE 60

60 2010). One unique study hig hlights how differences in the detection and utilization of observer ratings. Unsal & Caliskur (2004) asked a sample of observers to examine a video of job candidates engag ing in an employment interview and then rate each videos, differences in candidate ratings are most likely attributed to differential processing of information rather than dif ferential access to information. Unsal & Caliskur (2004) observed that neurotic observers tended to fixate on ambiguous and negative information and consequently judge d qualified candidates significantly less favorably than their peers. Whereas the previou sly reviewed research suggests that individuals with low emotional stability might provide less valid reputational ratings, other research points to (Alloy & Abramson, 1979) neurotic individuals have been shown to exercise individuals tend to be overly optimistic in their worldviews and discount negative or incongruent information (Langer 1975; Strunk & Adler, 2009). For instance, when mothers tend to ignore negative child conduct. On the other hand, depressed mothers are more likely to detect and utiliz e this negative information; hence their evaluations of assessments (Lovejoy, 1991). An additional line of evidence stems from the negative affect literature. Here, stud ies have shown that i ndividuals experiencing bouts of

PAGE 61

61 negative moods and emotions tend to be more analytical and deliberate in their processing of information (Schwarz & Clore, 2003; von Helverson et al., 2011). Summarizing the above sections, I hypothes ize that each of the Big Five traits the quantity and quality of interactions with targets increasing the pool of relevant and available information from which obser reputations. In addition, four traits conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, and openness to experience impact how observers process such personality information. Whereas conscientiousn ess and openness to experience lead to observer processing advantages, agreeableness likely results in observer processing disadvantages; the results for emotional stability are mixed. Combining evidence across both sections leads to the hypotheses below. Two traits agreeableness and emotional stability are predicted to increase observer access to target information but decrease their effectiveness in processing this information. It is unclear what the overall effect on predictive validities will be fo r these traits. Thus for agreeableness and emotional stability, contrasting exploratory hypotheses are offered. For a summary of these hypotheses and expected relationships, see Table 4 1 Hypothesis 1: Observer conscientiousness moderates the predictive validity of predictors of workplace criteria when observer conscientiousness is high. Hypothesis 2 a : Observer agreeableness moderates the predictive validity of persona predictors of workplace criteria when observer agreeableness is high. Hypothesis 2 b : Observer agreeableness moderates the predictive validity of personality reputation such th less valid predictors of workplace criteria when observer agreeableness is high.

PAGE 62

62 Hypothesis 3 a : Observer e motional s tability moderates the predictive validity of personality reputation such that observer ratin more valid predictors of wo rkplace criteria when observer e motional s tability is high. Hypothesis 3 b : Observer e motional s tability moderates the predictive validity of personality reputation such that observer ratings of targe less valid predictors of wo rkplace criteria when observer e motional s tability is high. Hypothesis 4: Observer o penness to e xperience moderates the predictive validity of ation are more valid predictors of workplace criteria when observer o pennes s to e xperience is high. Hypothesis 5: Observer extraversion moderates the predictive validity of personality alid predictors of workplace criteria when observer extraversion is high. Research Question 3: How does the Relationship between Observers and Targets Influence the Predictive Validit ies of Personality Reputation Ratings? Above, I argue that when we consid er the predictive validit ies of reputational personality ratings, it is important to take into account the observers own personalit ies Two other moderators of observer ratings are considered below. First, I examine the role of observer target ac quaintanceship s in terms of both length and strength. Then, I consider the case for aggregating personality reputation ratings across multiple observers. the accuracy of personality assessment increases with greater access to relevant and available information. It is reasonable to assume that as the length of acquaintanceship increases, observers have more informational cues available from which to form a personality evaluation of the target. Moreover, one can expect the relevance of such informational cues to increase as individuals become more acquainted. Individual s are unlikely to share their deepest, darkest inner secrets with complete strangers. However, over time, these targets may begin to let their gua rds down by acting more in line with their true personality

PAGE 63

63 dispositions. In addition, as the length of acquaintanceship increases, raters presumably gain access to a greater variety of situations from which to observe target s This will allow observer s to parse out the extent to which targets behaviors are a reflection of the individual s underlying personality dispositions as opposed to that of environmental pressures to behave in a certain manner (Heider, 1958; Ross, 1977). In terms of detection and ut ilization research also indicates that the processes through which observers remember and perceive targets change over the course of acquaintanceship (Bond & Brockett, 1987; Bond & Sedikides, 1988; Kenny & Malloy, 1988; Malloy & Albright, 1990). For insta nce, according to what Bond and colleagues stereotypes and expectations s ratic behaviors which differentiate him or her from the social group from which the initial stereotypes are drawn (Malloy & Albright, 1990). Empirical evidence supports the notion that length of acquaintanceship influences the accuracy of observer persona lity reputation ratings. Experimental manipulations indicate that increasing both t he quality and/or quantity of dispositional cues increases observer accuracy (Letzring, Wells, & Funder, 2006). Furthermore, in terms of cross sectional (Watson et al., 2000 ) and longitudinal designs (Paulhus & Bruce, 1992), as well as lab (Borkenau, Mauer, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004) and field studies

PAGE 64

64 (Paulhus & Reynolds, 1995), identity reputation congruence has been shown to increase as the length of acquaintance ship increases. Thus I hypothesize that, as the length of acquaintanceship increases, the availability of relevant information to an observer increases. In addition, over time, observers become better at detecting and utilizing this information when evalu ating a RAM processes, I expect it to moderate the predictive validit ies of personality reputation ratings. Hypothesis 6 : e target moderates the reputation are better predictors of workplace criteria when length of acquaintanceship is high. In their meta analysis of identity and reputation pe rsonality ratings, Connelly and Ones (2010) identified several different sources of observer ratings including spouses, parents, friends, roommates, work colleagues, supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates. Comparing observer rater types, evidence consist ently suggests that as interpersonal distance decreases (i.e., the observer becomes closer on an interpersonal level to the target), target observer personality congruence increases. Significant rovided by spouses, ratings of personality identity than do reputational ratings from workplace acquaintances (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Funder et al., 1995; Watson et al., 2 000; Norman & Goldberg, 1966). As Connelly & Ones (2010) taxonomy of other raters suggests, at least three his or her significant others is generally greater than that with work acquaintances.

PAGE 65

65 Second, targets tend to share greater physical intimacy with significant others than work acquaintances. And finally, targets are more likely to disclose personal information with significant others than acquaintances at work (Connelly & Ones, 2010). From a Realistic Accuracy Model perspective, to the extent that different raters have different levels of access to different types of informational cues used to form personality reputations, we might expect the interpersonal dista nce between target s and observer s to moderate the relationship between personality reputation ratings and workplace criteria. That is, observers are likely to provide more valid ratings when they interact frequently and in close proximity and when they con sider their relationships with the target to be more intimate and personable. Whereas several researchers have compared observer rater groups (significant others vs. coworkers), evidence from the social network literature supports the notion that there is considerable variance in interpersonal distance within coworker networks (McPherson, Smith Lovin, & Cook, 2001). To the extent that interpersonal distance is related to access to relevant information and varies within coworker groups (where some coworkers have strong social bonds and others have weaker bonds), we might expect this construct to account for differences in observer rating validities. That is, as interpersonal distance between the coworker and the target decreases, the predictive validities of s are likely to increase. Hypothesis 7 : interpersonal distance with the target moderates the reputation are better predictors of workplace criteria when interpersonal distance is low

PAGE 66

66 Research Question 4: How does Aggregation across Observer Raters Influence the Predictive Validity of Personality Reputation Ratings? A major advantage of relying on observers for personality assess ment is that reputational ratings can be aggregated across multiple raters. From a psychometric perspective, reputational ratings generally become more reliable as the number of observers contributing to the aggregate increases This is important because u nreliability in a predictor will attenuate its relationship with an external criterion (Horowitz, Inouye, & Siegelman, 1979; Winer, 1962). Connelly and Ones (2010) meta analyzed the interrater reliabilit ies of personality reputation ratings and found them to be generally moderate in strength (between .39 and .51 across the Big Five traits) but lower than interrater reliabilities from related domains such as job performance ratings, interview ratings, and subjective ability ratings (Conway, Jako, & Goodman, 1995; Salgado & Moscoso, 1996; Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). As Connelly and of combining multiple raters to overcome rater idiosyncrasies that reduce interrat er In terms of the Realistic Accuracy Model, differences in availability relevance detection or utilization can all account for such rater idiosyncrasies. For instance, as argued in the previous section, raters of different typ es typically observer individuals in different contexts accounting for difference in informational availability and relevance Furthermore, research shows that even when raters have access to the same dispositional cues, differences in their detection and utilization of this information can

PAGE 67

67 ings of the same target order to maximize the potential predictive validity of observer rat idiosyncratic interpretational tendencies of single observers can cancel each other out, idiosyncrasies appear to be a double edged sword. On the one hand, g iven the fact that raters generally differ in terms of the pool of relevant available information from which to form their evaluations, aggregation across raters ensures that evaluations are drawn from a larger pool of dispositional information. On the ot her hand, aggregation alleviates the effects of idiosyncratic detection and utilization processes and increases the reliability of these ratings. Research from the congruence and construct validity literatures corroborate this advantage of multiple raters. Watson and Clark (1991) found that systematically increasing the number of observers contributing to the aggregate rating of personality reputation (in their case, from one to four raters) increased the magnitude of identity reputation congruence. In term s of predicting behavioral criteria, Kolar et al. (1996) accuracy of identity and reputation ratings increased significantly when reputation ratings were aggregated across just two observer raters. These authors conclude that reports but the consensus of judgment of the (p. 311).

PAGE 68

68 In their meta analysis, Oh et al. (2011) used the Spearman Brown formula to estimate the effect s of aggregating across multiple observer raters on personality reputation job performance relationships. Their findings sug gest that increasing the number of raters can have a considerable impact on predictive validities. In fact, averaging across the Big Five traits, operational validities increased by 20.7% when the number of observers providing the personality reputation ra tings increased from one to two. Likewise, increasing the number of raters from two to th ree produced an average of increase in predictive validities of 6.8% Thus, the results from Oh et al. (2011) highlight the significant, but diminishing returns of agg regating across multiple observer raters. However, it is important to point out that their validity estimates were based on statistical extrapolations and between study comparisons. I am aware of no primary studies that have directly addressed the impact o f the number of raters on the predictive validit ies of personality reputation ratings for workplace criteria. Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 8 : The number of observers providing the personality reputation rating moderates the predictive vali dity of personality reputation such that observer ratings of provide the ratings.

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 1. Hypothesized relationships Hypothesis Moderator RAM Process 1 Observer Cons cientiousness Rel (+) / Avail (+) / Det (+) / Util (+) 2 Observer Agreeableness Rel (+) / Avail (+)/ Det ( ) / Util ( ) 3 Observer Emotional Stability Rel (+) / Avail (+)/ Det (+/ ) / Util (+/ ) 4 Observer Openness to Experience Rel (+) / Avail (+) / De t (+) / Util (+) 5 Observer Extraversion Rel (+) / Avail (+) 6 Length of Acquaintanceship Rel (+) / Avail (+) / Det (+) / Util (+) 7 Interpersonal Distance Rel (+) / Avail (+) 8 Number of Observers Rel (+) / Avail (+) / Det (+) / Util (+) Notes. Rel=R elevance. Avail=Availability. Det=Detection. Util=Utilization

PAGE 70

70 CHAPTER 5 METHODS Procedure Focal participants were recruited through Craigslist (www.craigslist.org), an online community message board. Craigslist has been used successfully in the literatu re to recruit diverse samples meeting specific employment requirements (e.g., Rodell & Judge, 2009; Simon, Judge, & Halvorsen Ganepola, 2010) and studies comparing recruiting methodologies indicate that the quality of responses from participants recruited from Craigslist are comparable to those obtained through more traditional recruitment approaches (e.g., Alessi & Martin, 2010; Howell, Rodzon, Kurai, and Sanchez, 2010). A posting highlighting the general nature of the study and asking for volunteers was u ploaded to Craigslist communities in eight US cities: Atlanta, Austin, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis and Philadelphia (Appendix A) Though no monetary incentives were offered, all participants were told that they would receive detailed f eedback concerning their self ratings and how their scores compared to population norms at the completion of the study. Previous research suggests that offering feedback in exchange for survey participation has a significant positive impact on response rat es, response speeds, and response completeness (Powers & Alderman, 1982; Tyagi, 1989) and may even lead to higher response rates than offering small monetary incentives (Mitchell, 1998). two coworkers and one supervisor. In selecting an observer rater, the criteria were that the raters (a) worked in the same organization as the focal participant at the time of the study (b) agreed to participate in exchange for rating feedback; (c) had a valid email address; and

PAGE 71

71 attitudes, and behaviors at work. Once focal participants selected their observer raters and received permission to proceed from each rate r, these participants were directed to an online sign up sheet where they could submit contact information (in the form of names and email addresses) for each work colleague. After signing up, each focal participant and observer rater received an email su mmarizing the nature of the study and ensuring the confidentiality of all results. Embedded in the email was a link to the online survey. Upon completion of the study, each participant received personalized feedback detailing the types of measures containe d in the online survey, how the participants rated themselves on each measure, interpretations of their scores, and how their scores related to published norms. Sample Due to limitations in the sampling procedures, it was not possible to track the total nu mber of individuals who viewed the Craigslist message for a determination of an overall response rate. Nevertheless, a total of 274 focal participants responded to the online Craigslist posting and surveys were subsequently sent to 274 focal participants, 548 coworker observers, and 274 supervisor observers. Of the focal participants who initially responded to the posting, complete survey responses were collected from 234 participants (85.4%). In addition, completed surveys were collected from 250 coworkers and 184 supervisors representing response rates of 45.6% and 67.2%, respectively. The demographic characteristics of focal participants, coworkers, and supervisors are presented in Table 6 1. The average age of focal participants was 31.06 years ( SD = 11. 40). Coworkers were slightly older on average ( M =31.49 years, SD = 11.53) and supervisor raters were significantly older than both coworkers and focal participants

PAGE 72

72 ( M =38.57 years, SD =13.11). 62% of the focal target sample identified as female, compared to 74% of the coworkers and 73% of the supervisors. In terms of race, 68% of focal participants self 89% of supervisors. Measures Personality Personality identity and reputation ratings were assessed using the 44 item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), a commonly used personality inventory which has been shown to have acceptable psychometric properties and generalize across genders, cultures, and ethnic groups (Benet Martinez & J ohn, 1998; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). All raters provided self reports of their personality identities. In addition, observers (coworkers and supervisors) provided reputational personality ratings of the focal participants. In each case, raters assessed the extent to shift in the target of each item from the person providing the Conscientiousness. Nine items were used to assess conscientiousness. coded). In terms of self ratings (i.e., participants rating their own conscientiousness), coefficient alphas were .81, .87, and .68 for focal participants, coworker participants, and super visor participants, respectively. In addition, coefficient alphas for observer ratings (i.e., ratings of the focal

PAGE 73

73 respectively. Agreeableness. Nine items were used to assess agreeableness. Example items coded). In terms of self ratings, coefficient alphas were .71, .73, and .70, for foc al targets, coworkers, and supervisors, were .80 and .90 for coworkers and supervisors, respectively. Emotional stability. Eight items were used to assess emotional stability. Example coded). In terms of self ratings, coefficient alphas were .61, .70, and .81 for focal targets, coworkers, and supervisors respectively. Coefficient coworkers and supervisors, respectively. Openness to experience. Ten items were used to assess openness to experience. Example items incl coded). In terms of self ratings, coefficient alphas were .81, .89, and .82 for focal targets, coworkers, and supervisors, respectively. Coe openness were .90 and .89 for coworkers and supervisors, respectively. Extraversion. Eight items were used to assess extraversion. Example items coded). Coefficient alphas for self rated extraversion were .81, .86,

PAGE 74

74 and .78 for focal targets, coworkers, and supervisors, respectively. In terms of observer oefficient alphas were .87 for both coworkers and supervisors. Job Outcomes Focal participants were evaluated by each rater across two broad workplace outcomes item in role behavior s cale was used to assess task performance. Example items (reverse coded). Observe task performance. Coefficient alphas for coworker ratings of task performance were .87, compared to 89 for supervisor ratings. In addition, focal participants provided self item organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI) scale was used to assess observer ratings of the extent to which the focal targets engaged in citizenship behaviors at work Exampl more po sitive ratings of citizenship behaviors. Coefficient alphas were high across all .92).

PAGE 75

75 (reverse rvers rated focal higher scores reflected more positive ratings of job satisfaction. Coefficient alphas were .75, .78, and .86 for focal targets, coworkers, and supe rvisors, respectively. Acquaintanceship and Control Variables Each observer rater assessed the strength of their acquaintanceship with their focal target u sing an ad hoc six item scale The items assessed the frequency and duration of interactions as well as physical and emotional distance between the observer rater and the focal target. Moreover, raters were asked to indicate their overall length of acquaintanceship. The complete scale, along with descriptive statistics, is included in Appendix B An overa ll strength of acquaintanceship variable was calculated by first standardizing responses to each item and then aggregating across all five items. In addition to the variables referenced above, each participant was asked to indicate their age, gender, race, and highest education level attained.

PAGE 76

76 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS Table 6 1 presents means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for ratings provided by focal targets, coworkers, and supervisors. The top section of the table displays descriptive data concernin how each rater group rated themselves) and the bottom section presents information concerning reputation ratings (i.e., how each rater group rated their focal targets). One way analysis of variance t ests were performed to compare personality identity ratings across the different rater groups. These tests indicated significant mean differences for each of the Big Five traits: conscientiousness F (2,665) = 11.09, p < .01; agreeableness F (2,665) = 8. 31, p < .01; emotional stability F (2,664) = 32.15, p < .01; openness F (2,665) = 14.66, p < .01; and extraversion F (2,665) = 7.93, p < .01. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed the nature of these differences. In particular compared to the other rater group ratings, focal targets rated themselves significantly lower in conscientiousness whereas supervisors rated themselves significantly higher in openness and lower in agreeableness, emotional stability, and extraversion. All other identity comparisons were statistically insignificant. Paired sample s t tests also revealed identity and reputation ratings. Consistent with the identity identity comparisons presented above, supervisors rated themselves as more con scientious ( t [183] = 5.76, p < .01) and more open to experiences ( t [183] = 7.05, p < .01), but less emotionally stable ( t [183] = 5.76, p < .01) and less extraverted ( t [183] = 5.27, p < .01) than they rated their focal individuals. In addition, coworkers rated their focal targets as being less

PAGE 77

77 conscientious ( t [249] = 2.19, p < .05) and less open to experiences ( t [249] = 3.13, p < .01) than themselves. rformance and satisfaction. For all three workplace outcomes, one way analyses of variance tests indicated significant rater group differences: task performance F (2,665) = 3.34, p < .05; citizenship behavior F (2,665) = 4.26, p < .05; and job satisfacti on F (2,665) = 12.82, p < .01. In terms of task performance, post hoc lower than the focal targets rated themselves. Furthermore, coworkers rated their focal target Finally, whereas supervisors rated focal targets as being more satisfied than targets rated themselves, coworkers rated focal targets as being less satisfied. Table 6 2 p identity reputation congruence, 9 of the 10 correlations between self ratings and observer ratings of the same personality trait were statistically significant at the p < .05 level (the lone exception being the correlation between target and coworker ratings of r = .12; p < .10). Consistent with the Connelly et al. (2007) meta analysis of congruence, correlations between self ratings and observer ratings were highest for extraversion ( r average = .40) and openness ( r average = .32) and lowest for emotional stability ( r average = .16) and agreeableness ( r average = .2 1 ). Comparing different trait by rater combinations, correlations between different r average = .29) were slightly higher than correlations

PAGE 78

78 r average = .26) a nd s ubstantially r average = .10). reputational ratings than between identity reputation ratings. The average c orrelation was ( r average ratings and r average = .28). Comparing coworke rs to supervisors, ratings ( r average r average = .26). Table 6 s of the focal ratings and supervisor ratings were significantly related to self ratings ( r = .18 and r = .23 for coworkers and supervisors, respectively). Likewise, ratings from both observer groups significantly predicted self ratings of citizenship behaviors ( r = .35 and r = .16 for coworkers and supervisors, respectively). Finally, for job satisfaction, both observer ratings ( r = .18 an d r =.23 for coworkers and supervisors, respectively). As with personality ratings, congruence was higher between different observers ( r average = .29) than between self and observer raters ( r average = .22). Table 6 4 provides evidence concerning the predic tive validit ies of identity and reputation ratings. Across all traits and raters, personality was a stronger predictor of citizenship behaviors ( r average = .25) than task performance ( r average = .22) and job satisfaction ( r average = .13). Moreover, of the Big Five traits, conscientiousness was the best predictor of task performance ( r average = .40), citizenship behaviors ( r average = .36),

PAGE 79

79 and job satisfaction ( r average = .19). Regarding the performance criteria, agreeableness (task performance: r average = 25; citizenship behaviors: r average = .32) and openness (task performance: r average = .22; citizenship behaviors: r average = .27) were also moderately strong predictors whereas predictive validities were weaker for extraversion (task performance: r average = .15; citizenship behaviors: r average = .22) and emotional stability (task performance: r average = .09; citizenship behaviors: r average = .09). Aside from conscientiousness, personality traits were weak predictors of job satisfaction. For the remaining fo ur trait s predictive validities ranged from r average = .10 for openness to r average = .14 for extraversion. As might be expected, predictive validities were significantly higher when the same ity and the outcome criteria. For instance, across all personality traits, the average predictive validity for task performance was r average = .16 when different raters provided the predictor and outcome ratings and r average = .35 when the same raters prov ided both ratings (an increase of nearly 120%). Likewise, predictive validities increased 122% (from r average = .18 to r average = .40) for citizenship behaviors and 156% (from r average = .09 to r average = .23) for job satisfaction when ratings came from th e same source. To alleviate concerns that validities are biased by same source inflation, in the hypothesis tests to follow, the ultimate criterion under investigation is provided by a different rater source than that providing the evaluation of the focal following the analytical approach set by Mount et al. (1994), unless otherwise noted, personality and supervisors serve as the source of the workplace criteria.

PAGE 80

80 Comparing the Predictive and Incremental Validities of Identity and Reputation Ratings Previous meta analytic findings suggest that reputation ratings should be more valid predictors of workplace outcomes than identit y ratings (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Oh et al., 2011). Consistent with these meta analyses, across all criteria and traits, supervisor rated criteria were slightly better predicted by coworker ratings of personality ( r average = .19) than self ratings ( r averag e = .17). However, advantages of reputational ratings were not universal. In fact, when comparing the same trait across both personality perspectives, the magnitude s of reputation ratings w ere stronger than their corresponding identity ratings in eight ca ses whereas the reverse was true in six cases (and in one case, magnitudes were identical). A deeper examination of identity and reputation predictive validities reveals that for some traits in particular, conscientiousness and openness reputation rat ings were consistently more valid regardless of the criteria. On the other hand, for emotional stability, across all three criteria, identity ratings outperformed reputational ratings in terms of predictive validity. Finally, for the traits of agreeablenes s and extraversion, advantages of one personality perspective over the other depended on the specific criterion. For instance, self rated agreeableness was a more valid predictor of citizenship behaviors whereas observer rated agreeableness was a more vali d predictor of task performance. In order to assess whether reputation ratings of personality capture incremental variance in workplace outcomes beyond identity ratings, I conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses. In each analysis, I first re gressed the criterion on the identity personality ratings. Then, I regressed the criterion on both identity and

PAGE 81

81 reputation ratings. Finally, to assess the converse whether identity ratings captured incremental validity I repeated these hierarchical reg ressions, this time entering reputation ratings before identity ratings. In all analyses, I controlled for the target It must be noted here that in these analyses (and the hierarchical regression analyses to f ollow), there were cases where two different coworker observers were rating the same focal target. Since removing non independence in the datasets (by randomly selecting one coworker rating when two ratings were present) did not affect the patterns of resu lts, all analyses are based on the full set of coworker ratings. Table 6 5 presents the results of these analyses. The set of control variables explained 20% ( p < .01) of the varianc e in task performance ( Step 1). More specifically, supervisor rated task p erformance was higher for focal targets who were older ( B = .17, p < .05), more educated ( B = 3 1, p < .01), and female ( B = 2 1, p < .01). Target race ( B = .13, ns ) was not a significant predictor of task performance evaluations. Comparing the blocks of identity and reputation ratings (Steps 2 and 3), identity ratings captured an additional 8% of variance in task performance ( p < .05) whereas reputation ratings explained 11% of the variance beyond the control variables ( p < .01). These increase can be at tributed primarily to self rated and coworker rated conscientiousness, which were the only valid predictors in each set ( B identity = .21, p < .05; B reputation = .26, p < .01). In terms of incremental validity, both rating sources accounted for a significan t amount of variance in task performance over the other. More specifically, coworker ratings of the focal target accounted for an additional 10% of variance in task

PAGE 82

82 performance over self ratings ( p < .01) and self ratings accounted for an additional 7% of variance in task performance over coworker ratings ( p < .05). Turning to supervisor rated citizenship behaviors, both identity ratings ( 2 = .07, p < .05) and reputation ratings ( 2 = .11, p < .01) captured a significant amount of variance over the set of control variables. However, whereas reputation ratings were able to account for additional variance beyond identity ratings ( 2 = .08, p < .05), identity ratings did not account for incremental variance over reputation ratings ( 2 = .05, ns ). Finally, regarding supervisor rated job satisfaction, the amount of variance explained by the set of control variables was only marginally significant ( R 2 = .06, p < .10). Furthermore, adding personality to the models, identity ratings ( R 2 = .14, p < .05) accounte d for more variance in job satisfaction than reputation ratings ( R 2 = .11, p < .10). On the other hand, both rating sources captured significant incremental validity over the other. In sum, the analyses of incremental validities suggest that both identity (self) and reputation (coworker) personality ratings can provide important and unique information concerning workplace outcomes. However, their overall utilities may be a function of the particular criteria in question. For the performance criteria, the s et of reputation ratings were stronger predictors whereas the identity ratings accounted for more variance in the satisfaction criteria. In the next section, I assess the role of observer characteristics in the validity of reputation ratings.

PAGE 83

83 Exploring Obs erver Personality Characteristics as Moderators of Personality Reputation Ratings According to Hypotheses 1 5, the predictive validities of reputational ratings depend on the characteristics of the observers providing the personality ratings. More specific ally, certain observer personality traits may either enhance or inhibit an step approach was used to test these hypotheses. First, hierarchical regression analyses modeled whether rated workplace outcomes (Tables 6 6 through 6 20). In Step 1 of each analysis, I regressed the outcome of interest on a block of control variables (target age, gender, education, and race). In Step 2, the rated) personality trait under examination is added to the analyses. the of variance accounted for ( 2 ) between Steps 3 and 4, one can determine wh ether the The second analytical approach involved graphing the data in order to assist interpretation of the nature of significant moderating relationships. Figures 6 1 through 6 15 compare the zero order correlations between personality ratings and outcome ratings across different rater groups More specifically, coworkers were trisected into high, mid, and low groups based on their personalities. Then, the correlation between rated work outcomes are plotted. For

PAGE 84

84 the sake of comparison, each plot also includes correlations between the criterion and both rati ngs and overall observer ratings (aggregated across the three observer groups) as baselines. Below, I discuss the results of each analysis, clustered by workplace outcome. Task Performance Tables 6 6 through 6 10 present the analyses regressing task perfor mance on observer ratings and characteristics. Before testing specific hypotheses, three general observations warrant attention. First, as previously mentioned, the block of control variables (Step 1) accounted for a significant amount of variance in task performance ( 2 = .20, p < .01). Second, the main effects of observer personality traits (Step 2) did coefficient for observer extraversion was marginally significant; B = .13, p < .10; R 2 = .02, p < .10). Third, in the independent trait analyses (Steps 3a 3e), observer ratings of target conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness all significantly predicted target task performance. On the other hand, when all observer ratings were m odeled simultaneously (Step 3f), only the observer ratings of target conscientiousness were significant predictors. According to Hypothesis 1, higher when observers are conscientious. Consistent with this hypothesis, observer conscientiousness interacted with three observer provided reputation ratings: conscientiousness (Step 4a: B = .17, p < .01; 2 = .05, p < .01), openness to experience (Step 4d: B = .18, p < .01; 2 = .05, p < .01), and extraversion (Step 4e: B = .13, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05). Furthermore, when the Big Five ratings and interactions were entered simultaneously (Step 4f), the

PAGE 85

85 block of interaction terms accounted for a sign ificant increase in variance explained ( 2 = .06, p < .05). Figure 6 1 presents a graphical depiction of these results. Across all Big Five conscientious observers and lowest for the group of least conscientious observers. In addition, consistent with the hierarchical regression analyses, the biggest discrepancies between observer r openness, and extraversion. Figure 6 ratings and overall observe r ratings were generally marginal, targets were much better raters than the least conscientious observers and much worse raters than the most conscientious observers. Contrasting hypotheses were offered concerning the moderating impact of observer agreeabl eness. Hypothesis 2a predicts that agreeable observers will provide more valid personality ratings whereas Hypothesis 2b suggests that predictive validit ies will be higher when raters are less agreeable. The regression analyses failed to support either Hyp otheses 2a or 2b. Observer agreeableness did not significantly interact with any of the observer 6 7). However, as evident in Figure 6 2, predictive validities tended to be highest for disagreeable observ ers, followed by self raters, and finally observers in the high and mid agreeableness groups.

PAGE 86

86 Hypotheses 3a and 3b pertain to the moderating role of observer emotional stability. As evidenced in Table 6 s to rate B = .14, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05), but interactions were insignificant for the remaining four observer trait ratings. As displayed in Figure 6 er groups were observers who were low in emotional stability, followed by self raters, observers who were average in terms of emotional stability, and finally observers who scored in the upper tertile on emotional stability. Thus partial support was obtain ed for Hypothesis 3b and no support was obtained for Hypothesis 3a. According to Hypothesis 4, the relationship between observer ratings and target performance should be stronger when observers are open to experiences. Table 6 9 presents the results for th ese analyses. Consistent with this hypothesis (and identical to the results pertaining to observer conscientiousness), observer openness interacted with three observer provided ratings of the target: conscientiousness (Step 4a: B = .14, p < .01; 2 = .04, p < .01), openness to experience (Step 4d: B = .12, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05), and extraversion (Step 4e: B = .14, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05). As shown in Figure 6 4, observers in the upper tertile on openness provided much more valid ratings of tas k performance than observers in the lowest tertile, especially observer raters were considered collectively, there were only marginal differences between the predictive vali dities of identity ratings and reputation ratings. However, when a distinction was drawn between observers based on their openness to ratings were considerably higher than the group of low

PAGE 87

87 openness observers and considerably lower than the group of high openness observers. Finally, Hypothesis 5 pertains to the moderating role of observer extraversion. Regression analyses are presented in Table 6 10. Mirroring the role of emotional stability, observer extraversion was a significant moderator of one Big Five trait: target extraversion (Step 4e: B = .15, p < .01; 2 = .04, p < .01). Figure 6 5 provides further ratings, predictive validities of reputation ratings were s ubstantially higher than identity ratings when the observers were extraverted whereas identity ratings were s ubstantially more valid than reputation ratings when the observers were introverted. Citizenship Behavior Tables 6 11 through 6 15 and Figures 6 6 through 6 10 present parallel analyses to those detailed abo ve, with the only exception being that the criterion of interest in as in the case of task performance, the control variables explained a significant amount of varia R 2 = .15, p < .01). More specifically, older targets ( B = .23, p < .01) and female targets ( B = .21, p < .01) tended to be rated higher in citizenship behaviors. The relationship between target education and ci tizenship behaviors was only marginally significant ( B = .14, p < .10) and target race was not a significant predictor ( B = .08, ns ). Consistent with the analysis of task performance, observer personality was not a significant predictor of target citizen ship behaviors (Step 2). On the other hand, Targets who were rated by coworkers higher on conscientiousness (Step 3a),

PAGE 88

88 agreeableness (Step 3b), emotional stability (Step 3c), and openness (Step 3d) also tended to be rated by supervisors as engaging in more citizenship behaviors. The lone exception here was target extraversion (Step 3e), which was not significantly related to citizenship behavior. However, when all ob server ratings were modeled simultaneously (Step 3f), only target conscientious was significant. In support of Hypothesis 1, observer conscientiousness moderated relationships between two different observer ratings: target conscientiousness (Step 4a: B = 18, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05) and target openness to experience (Step 4d: B = .19, p < .05; 2 = .04, p < .05). Results are displayed in Table 6 11. Furthermore, as displayed in Figure 5 ra larger for observers who were in the upper tertile of conscientiousness than those in t he reputation ratings were marginal, in the cases of target conscientiousness and openness, predictive validities of reputational ratings were substantially larger tha n identity ratings when observers were conscientious but substantially smaller when observers scored low in conscientiousness. In the case of observer agreeableness, it was previously reported that though a general trend in the graphical data in support of Hypotheses 2b was apparent, the results from the regression analyses were insignificant. Turning to citizenship behaviors, the graphical trend in Figure 6 7 is still in support of Hypotheses 2b. Predictive validities were considerably higher when observer s were relatively disagreeable. This time,

PAGE 89

89 however, at least one moderator analysis was statistically significant. As evidenced in Table 6 12, observer agreeableness interacted with observer ratings of target openness to experience (Step 4d: B = .22, p < .01; 2 = .04, p < .01). Table 6 13 provides evidence in support of Hypothesis 3b. Observer emotional stability moderated the relationships between target citizenship ratings and (a) observer conscientiousness (Step 4a: B = .16, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05); (b) observer openness (Step 4d: B = .23, p < .01; 2 = .05, p < .01); and (c) observer extraversion (Step 4e: B = .20, p < .01; 2 = .04, p < .01). Moreover, when modeling all of the interactions simultaneously (Step 4f), adding the set of observer mod eration effects increased the amount of variance explained by 28% from R 2 = .25 to R 2 = .32 ( 2 = .07, p < .05). As displayed in Figure 6 8, regardless of what trait is being rated, predictive validities were lowest for the most emotionally stable group o f observer raters. Likewise, when evaluating targets on openness to experience and extraversion, ratings, the advantages of reputational ratings were most pronounced when observers scored low in emotional stability. On the other h and, self ratings outperformed reputation ratings across these same two relationships when the ratings came from observers who scored high in emotional stability. Though considerable support for Hypothesis 4 was presented during the task performance analy ses, less evidence in support is available here. According to the analyses displayed in Table 6 14, observer openness did not significantly moderate any of the relationships between observer personality ratings and citizenship behaviors. On the other hand, the general trend of data presented in Figure 6 9 is consistent with Hypothesis 4 (as well as the task performance data): predictive validities were highest

PAGE 90

90 conscientiousness, op enness, and extraversion. Finally, no evidence was found in support of Hypothesis 5. The interactions between observer reputational ratings and observer extraversion were insignificant across e ach of the Big Five traits ( Table 6 15). Furthermore, no major trends in predictive validities are evident in Figure 6 10. Job Satisfaction Overall, evidence in support for Hypotheses 1 5 was much weaker for the job satisfaction criterion than either performance criteria. In fact, of the 25 interactions modeled (five observer traits x five observer ratings), only three were significant. In support of Hypotheses 3b, observer emotional stability interacted with observer ratings of target openness (Table 6 18; Step 4d: B = .15, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05). As shown in F igure 6 ratings. However, the predictive validities for the group of observers scoring low in agreeableness Table 6 19 and Figure 6 14 provide support for Hypothesis 4. Observer openness moderated the relationship between observer ratings of target openness and supervisor ratings of target job satisfaction (Step 4d: B = .15, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05). More specifically, predictive validities were highest when observers were above average in terms of openness to experience and lowest when observers were below average. Finally, Table 6 20 and Figure 6 15 provide support for Hypothesis 5. Observer extraversion significantly moderated the relationship between reputational ratings of target agreeableness and job satisfaction (Step 4b: B = .16, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05).

PAGE 91

91 As predicted, extraverted observers provided the most valid ratings of target agreeableness. Interestingly however, even the least extraverted observers provided ratings. Exploring Target Observer Acquaintanceship as a Moderator of Personality Reputation Rat ings According to Hypotheses 6 and 7, as observers become more acquainted with the ir targets, the predictive validities of their reputational ratings should increase. The same analytical strategy applied above was used to test these hypotheses. However, in stead of modeling observer personality traits as the moderating variables, here I focus on two variables reflecting the quantity and quality of target observer acquaintanceship: length of acquaintanceship and interpersonal distance. More specifically, Hypo thesis 6 predicts that as length of acquaintanceship increases, so too do the predictive validities of observer reputational ratings. Hypothesis 7 predicts that these predictive validities will increase as interpersonal distance decreases (i.e., targets an d observers become Tables 6 21 through 6 26 present the analyses across task performance, citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction criteria. Neither length of acquaintanceship (Table 6 21) nor interpersonal distance ( Table 6 22) moderated relationships between addition, neither acquaintanceship variable had a significant impact on the job satisfaction outcome (Tables 6 25 and 6 26 for length of acquaintanceship and interpersonal distance, respectively). However, as evidenced in Table 6 23, significant interactions were observed concerning the citizenship behavior criterion. Length of o rate targets on each of the Big Five

PAGE 92

92 traits: conscientiousness (Step 4a: B = .16, p < .01; 2 = .05, p < .01); agreeableness (Step 4b: B = .18, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05); emotional stability (Step 4c: B = .19, p < .05; 2 = .04, p < .05); openness (Step 4d: B = .20, p < .01; 2 = .04, p < .01); and extraversion(Step 4e: B = .13, p < .10; R 2 = .02, p < .10). On the other hand, interpersonal distance (Table 6 24) did not significantly moderate any observer ratings. Figures 6 16 through 6 21 represent these relationships graphically. As expected, and in support of Hypothesis 6, observers who knew the targets for a longer period of time generally provided more valid reputational ratings than other observers when the criterion was citizenship behavior (Figure 6 18). However, an interesting pattern emerged from these analyses. One would expect, b ased on Hypothesis 6, that the strongest predictive validities would occur for the group of raters that knew their focal targets for the longest period of time, followed by the group that had average length acquaintanceships, and finally, the group that kn ew their focal targets for the least amount of time. However, across the 15 observations (5 personality traits x 3 criteria), in 11 cases, the mid level acquaintanceship group had the lowest predictive validities. Likewise, contrary to Hypothesis 7, the mi d tertile group in terms of interpersonal distance had lower predictive validities than the group with the most interpersonal distance in 7 of the 15 cases. These findings suggest that the impact of observer acquaintanceship variables may be more complic ated than the linear patterns predicted. In order to further examine this notion, I undertook several exploratory analyses of the curvilinear effects of acquaintanceship. Here, I augmented the analyses in Tables 6 21 through 6 26 by adding second order acq uaintanceship variables and modeling three way interactions

PAGE 93

93 between these higher order predictors and the observer rating variables (Tables 6 27 through 6 32). Evidence for non linear relationships was explored by examining the significance of the three wa y interaction terms and the change in variance explained ( 2 ) after adding the block of three way interaction variables Most notably, whereas interpersonal distance did not significantly moderate any of the relationships with criteria in the linear analyses, the nonlinear analysis uncovered two significant mode ration relationships; target coworker interpersonal distance moderated the relationships between supervisor rated citizenship behavior and observer rated conscientiousness (Table 6 30; Step 5a: B = .11, p < .05; 2 = .02, p < .05) and extraversion (Table 6 30; Step 5e: B = .12, p < .05; 2 = .03, p < .05). In both cases, as shown in Figure 6 19, predictive validities were highest when observers were very close to the targets they were rating (low interpersonal distance). Moreover, when observers did not s hare strong interpersonal relationships with targets (high interpersonal distance), their reputational and targets were neither very close nor very distant on an interp ersonal level (mid interpersonal distance), predictive validities were the lowest. Exploring the Role of Aggregating Observers on Personality Reputation Ratings Previously, I compared the predictive and incremental validities of identity and reputation rat ings. In this section, I examine the impact of aggregating across multiple observer raters on these validities. In particular, there were 106 cases where supervisor rated criteria were available and in which two coworkers provided reputational personality ratings for the same focal target. For these cases, the with the supervisor outcome ratings. Table 6 33 presents these aggregate reputational

PAGE 94

94 rating correlations alongsid ratings and ratings based on a single observer. When ratings were based on a single observer, the average correlation across all traits and criteria was r average = .19 (as opposed to r average ratings). When ratin gs were aggregated across multiple observer raters, this average increased to r average = .21. In fact, of the 15 correlation comparisons (5 personality traits x 3 outcomes), the correlations based on a single observer exceeded the correlations based on two observers only three times. On the other hand, the results of aggregation were not consistent across traits or criteria. In terms of criteria, aggregating across observers increased the predictive validities of personality ratings, on average, for task p erformance (by 16%) and citizenship behaviors (by 8%) but decreased the predictive validities for job satisfaction (by 31%). Concerning differences across traits, aggregation had the largest effect on the predictive validities of emotional stability, extra version, and conscientiousness (increases of 22%, 16%, and 8% over correlations based on single raters, respectively) but no observable effects on agreeableness or openness to experience Thus partial support was found for Hypothesis 8. Table 6 34 presents a re examination of incremental validity analyses, this time using the aggregate coworker ratings. When ratings were based on a single observer (recall Table 6 5), both identity and reputation ratings predicted unique variance in supervisor rated task per formance. On the other hand, when observer ratings were aggregated across two observers, identity ratings no longer captured significant variance in task performance above the observer aggregated reputation ratings ( 2 =

PAGE 95

95 .08, p < .10). Reputation ratings based on multiple observers did, however, capture incremental validity over identity ratings ( 2 = .15, p < .01). In addition, consistent with the analyses based on a single observer rater, identity ratings did not capture significant incremental validity in citizenship behaviors over aggregate reputation ratings ( 2 = .04, ns ) though these reputation ratings did predict citizenship behaviors above and beyond identity ratings ( 2 = .10, p < .05). However, aggregating observer reputational ratings had a deleterious effect on incremental validity concerning the job satisfaction criterion. When based on a single observer, both identity and reputation ratings captured unique variance in supervisor rated job satisfaction. On the other hand, when observer rati ngs were aggregated, identity ratings captured incremental variance ( 2 = .13, p < .05) but reputation ratings did not ( 2 = .08, ns ). It must be noted though, that the magnitude of the effect s of reputational ratings was identical in both the single rater and aggregated rater conditions; the main difference between the t wo conditions being the decreased sample size in the aggregate rater condition, which decreased the power to detect significant results.

PAGE 96

96 Table 6 1. Descriptive statistics: Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities Focal Targets ( N = 234) Coworkers ( N = 250) Supervisors ( N = 184) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Self Ratings Conscientiousness 5.75 .76 .81 5.96 .74 .87 6.03 .50 .68 Agreeableness 5.72 .75 .71 5.80 .71 .73 5.55 .76 .70 Emotional Stability 4.83 .81 .61 4.90 .90 .70 4.23 1.21 .81 Openness 5.20 .90 .81 5.25 1.01 .89 5.60 .78 .82 Extraversion 5.04 1.06 .81 5.13 1.18 .86 4.75 .92 .78 Age 31.06 11. 40 -31. 49 11. 53 -38.57 13.11 -Gender .62 .49 -.7 4 .4 4 -. 73 45 -Race .6 8 47 -.71 46 -.89 .3 1 -Ratings of F ocal Target Conscientiousness ---5.77 .89 .87 5.64 .94 .89 Agreeableness ---5.72 .85 .80 5.59 1.05 .90 Emotional Stability ---4.75 .83 .72 4.78 .94 .76 Openness ---4.92 .97 .90 5.08 .86 .89 Extraversion ---5.09 1.12 .87 5.24 1.11 .87 Task Performance 6.22 .71 .81 6.08 .80 .87 6.05 .78 .89 Citizenship Behavior 5.85 .92 .86 5.57 1.02 .90 5.68 1.02 .92 Job Satisfaction 5.72 1.06 .75 5.45 1.13 .78 5.96 .92 .86 Note. lphas.

PAGE 97

97 Table 6 2 Personality intercorrelations: Ratings of focal targets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Conscientiousness (self a ) -2. Agreeableness (self) .45** -3. Emotional Stability (self) .23** .28** -4. Openness (self) .30** .18** .19* -5. Extraversion (self) .34** .29** .09 .33** -6. Conscientiousness (cowork b ) .21* .20* .06 .15 .09 -7. Agreeableness (cowork) .06 .18 .04 .12 .01 .41** -8. Emotional Stability (cowork) .07 .08 .12 .01 .04 .17* .30** -9. Openness (cowork) .21 .27** .08 .30** .24** .47** .33** .07 -10. Extraversion (cowork) .18 .27** .06 .21 .47** .26** .24** .10 .49** -11. Conscientiousness (super c ) .40** .21* .23* .15 .11 .41** .15* .10 .20* .12 12. Agreeableness (super) .11 .24* .14 .12 .12 .34** .40** .13 .22 .05 13. Emotional Stability (super) .04 .05 .19 .02 .07 .06 .16 .21* .01 .01 14. Openness (super) .13 .07 .10 .35** .18 .06 .04 .08 .17 .20* 15. Extraversion (super) .19 .02 .08 .15 .32** .04 .01 .05 .04 .31** Note. N = 160 250 ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. a ratings. b c Super =

PAGE 98

98 Table 6 2 Continued 11 12 13 14 15 1. Conscientiousness (self a ) 2. Agreeableness (self) 3. Emotional Stability (self) 4. Extraversion (self) 5. Openness (self) 6. Conscientiousness (cowork b ) 7. Agreeableness (cowork) 8. Emotional Stability (cowork) 9. Openness (cowork) 10. Extraversion (cowo rk) 11. Conscientiousness (super c ) -12. Agreeableness (super) 47** -13. Emotional Stability (super) .15* 33** -14. Openness (super) .39** .22** 07 -15. Extraversion (super) .21** .09 .25** .1 3 -Note. N = 160 250 ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. a ratings. b Cowork = c Super = supervisor ratings of the focal target.

PAGE 99

99 Table 6 3 Workplace outcome intercorrelations: Ratings of focal targets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Task Perfor mance (self a ) -2. Citizenship Behavior (self) .38** -3. Job Satisfaction (self) .17 .26** -4. Task Performance (cowork b ) .18* .08 .11 -5. Citizenship Behavior (cowork) .20* .35** .09 .54** -6. Job Satisfaction (cowork) .07 .03 .18* .22** .27** -7. Task Performance (super c ) .23* .21* .21 .29** .32** .17 -8. Citizenship Behavior (super) .20* .16 .10 .28** .30** .25* .67** -9. Job Satisfaction (super) .03 .17 .23* .06 .09 .28** .26** .35** -Note. N = 160 250 ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. a ratings. b c

PAGE 100

100 Table 6 4 and workplace outcomes Task Performance Citizenship Behavior Job Satisfaction Self Cow Sup Self Cow Sup Self Cow Sup Conscientiousness Self .35** .20** .40** .42** .28** .32** .29** .09 .02 Coworker .23** .67** .40** .16* .57** .38* .11 .31** .15 Supervisor .21** .36** .76** .16* .30** .68** .20* .20** .38** Agreeableness Self .26** .14* .25** .42** .28** .31** .14 .08 .11 Coworker .09 .42** .27** .15* .48** .26** .00 .30** .07 Supervisor .09 .24* .52** 13 .28** .59** .17* .21** .22** Emotional Stability Self .23** .02 .20** .17* .00 .20* .04 .09 .12 Coworker .14* .17 .07 .04 .09 .18* .05 .42** .04 Supervisor .05 .03 .24** .02 .02 .22** .11 .13 .26** Openness to Experience Self .19* .05 .29** .34** .14* .23** .00 .08 .07 Coworker .23** .35** .32** .28** .60** .28** .15* .22* .12 Supervisor .16* .04 .48** .18* .06 .36** .16* .10 .13 Extraversion Self .09 .16* .16* .35** .14* .14 .26** .0 7 .07 Coworker .15* .25** .11 .26** .40** .17* .17** .31** .08 Supervisor .19* .06 .21** .16* .06 .27** .05 .01 .22** Note. N = 160 250 ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 101

101 Table 6 5 Incremental validity of identity and reputation personality ratings Task Performance Citizenship Behavior Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Control Variables Target Age .17* .07 .15 .06 .23** .16 .20* .14 Target Gender .21** .14 .12 .06 .21* .19* .14 .12 Target Education .31** 25** .29** .25** .14 .07 .10 .06 Target Race .13 .06 .12 .05 .08 .04 .07 .02 Focal Individual Ratings Conscientiousness .21* .22* .04 .06 Agreeableness .03 .03 .16 .10 Emotional Stability .11 .11 .10 .11 Openness to Experience .12 .07 .11 .07 Extraversion .02 .04 .02 .03 Coworker Ratings Conscientiousness .26** .23** .22* .19* Agreeableness .12 .14 .07 .07 Emotional Stability .01 .00 .11 .11 Openness to Experience .09 .08 .08 .07 Extraversion .10 .14 .00 .04 R 2 .20** .28** .31** .38** .15** .22** .25** .30** 2 (from null model) .08* .11** .15** .07* .11** 2 (to full model) .10** .07* .08* .05 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. Workplac e outcomes provided by supervisors

PAGE 102

102 Table 6 5 Continued Job Satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Control Variables Target Age .11 .12 .11 .13 Target Gender .13 .14 .21* .23* Target Education .15 .12 .20* .17 Target Race .15 .23* .15 .25** Focal Individual Ratings Conscientiousness .08 .10 Agreeableness .22* .30** Emotional Stability .22* .28** Openness to Experience .15 .22* Extraversion .15 .10 Coworker Ratings Conscientiousness .13 .11 Agreeableness .01 .05 Emotional Stability .02 .04 Openness to Experience .13 .22* Extraversion .06 .07 R 2 .06 .14* .11 .22** 2 (from null model) .06 .08* .05 2 (to full model) .08* .11** Note. N = 146 147 Standardi zed regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors

PAGE 103

103 Table 6 6 Coworker conscientiousness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .17* .16* .14 .16* .15 .17* .16* .15 Target Gender .21** .20* .12 .18* .21** .17* .20* .12 Target Education .31** .31** .30** .30** .30** .25** .31** .29** Target Race .13 .13 .12 .14 .12 .13 .13 .12 Block 2: Observer Personality Conscientiousness (OC) .11 .02 .07 .11 .08 .11 .00 Block 3: Observer Rating s a Conscientiousness (TC) .31** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .20** .12 Emotional Stability (TES) .07 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .18* .09 Extraversion (TE) .00 .10 Block 4: Interactions OC x TC OC x TA OC x TES OC x TO OC x TE R 2 .20** .22** .29** .25** .22** .24** .22** .31** 2 .20** .01 .08** .04** .01 .03* .00 .10** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squa red multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 104

104 Table 6 6 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .14* .16* .15 .17* .15 .15* Target Gender .11 .17* .21* .19* .24** .15 Target Education .27** .31** .31** .24** .27** .24** Target Race .12 .14 .12 .16* .12 .12 Block 2: Obse rver Personality Conscientiousness (OC) .07 .07 .11 .11 .12 .04 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .29** .26** Agreeableness (TA) .21** .08 Emotional Stability (TES) .08 .02 Openness to Experience (TO) .14 .08 Extraversion (TE) .01 .09 Block 4: Interactions OC x TC .17** .08 OC x TA .06 .04 OC x TES .02 .02 OC x TO .18** .08 OC x TE .13* .07 R 2 .34** .26** .22** .30** .20** .37** 2 .05** .01 .00 .05** .03* .06* Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 105

105 Table 6 7 Coworker agreeableness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .17* .17* .15 .17* .17* .18* .17* .15 Target Gender .21** .21** .12 .17* .22** .17* .21* .11 Target Education .31** .31** .31** .31** .31** .25** .31** .30** Target Race .13 .13 .12 .13 .12 .13 .13 .1 2 Block 2: Observer Personality Agreeableness (OA) .03 .02 .12 .02 .01 .03 .08 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .32** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .28** .17 Emotional Stability (TES) .07 .02 Openness to Experience (TO) .20* .08 Extraversion (TE) .01 .09 Block 4: Interactions OA x TC OA x TA OA x TES OA x TO OA x TE R 2 .20** .20** .29** .26** .21** .24** .20** .32** 2 .20** .00 .09** .05** .00 .03* .00 .11** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 ities. Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 106

106 Table 6 7 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .14 .17* .17* .17* .18* .17* Target Gender .11 .17* .22* .17* .22** .11 Target Education .32** .31** .31** .26** .32** .31** Target Race .11 .14 .12 .13 .13 .12 Block 2: Observer Personality Agreeableness (OA) .03 .12 .02 .01 .01 .11 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Consci entiousness (TC) .32** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .27** .16 Emotional Stability (TES) .06 .03 Openness to Experience (TO) .22** .11 Extraversion (TE) .00 .10 Block 4: Interactions OA x TC .08 .08 OA x TA .0 0 .00 OA x TES .02 .07 OA x TO .08 .02 OA x TE .05 .09 R 2 .30** .26** .21** .24** .21** .34** 2 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01 .02 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 107

107 Table 6 8 Coworker emotional stability as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .17* .17* .14 .17* .17* .18* .18* .15 Target Gender .21** .21** .12 .18* .22* .17* .21* .12 Target Education .31** .31** .31** .29** .30** .25** .31* .29** Target Race .13 .12 .12 .13 .12 .12 .12 .12 Block 2: Observer Personality Emotional Stability (OES) .01 .01 .03 .03 .01 .01 .01 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .32** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .22** .12 Emotional Stability ( TES) .08 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .20* .09 Extraversion (TE) .01 .10 Block 4: Interactions OES x TC OES x TA OES x TES OES x TO OES x TE R 2 .20** .20** .29** .25** .21** .24** .20** .31** 2 .20** .00 .09** .05** .01 .03* .00 .11** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 represents coworker ratings of their focal target Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 108

108 Table 6 8 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .15* .17* .16* .17* .20* .16* Target Gender .1 0 .19* .23** .16* .19* .10 Target Education .31** .30** .30** .25** .29** .29** Target Race .12 .13 .12 .12 .10 .09 Block 2: Observer Personality Emotional Stability (OES) .01 .03 .02 .02 .02 .03 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .32** .26** Agreeableness (TA) .22** .10 Emotional Stability (TES) .06 .03 Openness to Experience (TO) .21** .09 Extraversion (TE) .00 .10 Block 4: Interactions OES x TC .06 .0 5 OES x TA .04 .09 OES x TES .04 .03 OES x TO .08 .03 OES x TE .14* .11 R 2 .30** .25** .21** .25** .23** .35** 2 .01 .00 .00 .01 .03* .04 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supe rvisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 109

109 Table 6 9 Coworker openness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Contro l Variables Target Age .17* .18* .15* .17* .17* .18* .18* .15 Target Gender .21** .21** .12 .18* .22** .18* .21** .12 Target Education .31** .30** .30** .29** .30** .25** .30** .29** Target Race .13 .13 .12 .14 .13 .13 .13 .12 Block 2: Observer Personality Openness (OO) .11 .04 .06 .10 .04 .11 .02 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .31** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .20** .12 Emotional Stability (TES) .06 .01 Ope nness to Experience (TO) .18* .08 Extraversion (TE) .02 .10 Block 4: Interactions OO x TC OO x TA OO x TES OO x TO OO x TE R 2 .20** .21** .29** .25** .22** .24** .21* .31** 2 .20** .01 .08** .04** .00 .02* .00 .10** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 110

110 Table 6 9 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .16* .18* .18* .20* .19* .16* Target Gender .14 .18* .21** .18* .22** .14 Target Education .26** .30** .30** .23** .26** .24** Target Race .13 .15 .14 .15 .13 .12 Block 2: Observer Personality Openness (OO) .08 .07 .10 .05 .13 .07 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) 30** .27** Agreeableness (TA) .20** .10 Emotional Stability (TES) .06 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .14 .03 Extraversion (TE) .03 .10 Block 4: Interactions OO x TC .14** .11 OO x TA .05 .04 OO x TES .04 .00 OO x TO .12* .02 OO x TE .14* .07 R 2 .33** .25** .22** .27** .25** .35** 2 .04** .00 .00 .03* .03* .04 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by s upervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 111

111 Table 6 10 Coworker extraversion as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1 : Control Variables Target Age .17* .18* .15* .17* .18* .18* .18* .15* Target Gender .21** .21** .12 .18* .22** .18* .22** .12 Target Education .31** .29** .29** .29** .29** .25** .29** .29** Target Race .13 .14 .12 .14 .13 .13 .14 .12 Block 2: Observer Personality Extraversion (OE) .13 .07 .08 .13 .07 .14 .05 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .30** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .19* .12 Emotional Stability (TES) .06 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .17 .08 Extraversion (TE) .03 .11 Block 4: Interactions OE x TC OE x TA OE x TES OE x TO OE x TE R 2 .20** .22** .30** .25* .22** .24** .22** .32** 2 .20** .02 .08** .03* .00 .02 .00 .10** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 lities. Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 112

112 Table 6 10 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .15* .18* .18* .19* .20* .16* Target Gender .12 .18* .2 2** .18* .22** .13 Target Education .30** .27** .29** .23** .23** .24** Target Race .12 .12 .13 .13 .12 .11 Block 2: Observer Personality Extraversion (OE) .06 .09 .13 .09 .17* .06 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Consci entiousness (TC) .31** .21* Agreeableness (TA) .20** .16 Emotional Stability (TES) .06 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .15 .07 Extraversion (TE) .03 .09 Block 4: Interactions OE x TC .02 .09 OE x TA .07 .01 OE x TES .00 .02 OE x TO .05 .00 OE x TE .15** .16* R 2 .30** .26** .22** .24** .26** .36** 2 .00 .01 .00 .00 .04** .04 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by sup ervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 113

113 Table 6 11 Coworker conscientiousness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .23** .23** .22** .23** .21** .25** .24** .22** Target Gender .21** .22* .12 .19* .24** .18* .20* .13 Target Education .14 .14 .13 .13 .13 .07 .12 .10 Target Race .08 .08 .07 .09 .07 .08 .09 .07 Block 2: Observer Personality Conscientiousness (OC) .02 .11 .07 .02 .06 .03 .13 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .34** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .22** .09 Emotional Stability ( TES) .19* .10 Openness to Experience (TO) .23** .09 Extraversion (TE) .11 .00 Block 4: Interactions OC x TC OC x TA OC x TES OC x TO OC x TE R 2 .15** .15** .24** .19** .18** .19** .16** .27** 2 .15** .00 .09** .04** .03* .04** .01 .12 ** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 personalities. Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 114

114 Table 6 11 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .22** .23** .21* .25** .24** .22** Target Gender .12 .18* .24** .19* .22* .16 Target Education .11 .13 .13 .06 .10 .05 Target Race .07 .09 .07 .10 .08 .07 Block 2: Observer Personality Conscientiousness (OC) .07 .07 .02 .04 .02 .10 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .32** .26** Agreeableness (TA) .23** .03 Emotional Stability (TES) .18* .10 Openness to Experience (TO) .20* .10 Extraversion (TE) .11 .01 Block 4: Interactions OC x TC .18* .11 OC x TA .03 .09 OC x TES .01 .04 OC x TO .19* .07 OC x TE .09 .08 R 2 .27** .19** .18** .23** .17** .31** 2 .03* .00 .00 .04* .01 .04 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by sup ervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 115

115 Table 6 12 Coworker agreeableness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Bloc k 1: Control Variables Target Age .23** .23** .20** .23** .21* .24** .23** .20* Target Gender .21** .21* .13 .18* .23** .17* .20* .14 Target Education .14 .12 .12 .13 .12 .06 .11 .10 Target Race .08 .08 .07 .09 .07 .08 .09 .07 Block 2: Observer Personality Agreeableness (OA) .10 .06 .01 .08 .08 .08 .02 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .29** .22* Agreeableness (TA) .21* .06 Emotional Stability (TES) .17* .11 Openness to Experience (TO) .21* .09 Extraversion (TE) .09 .00 Block 4: Interactions OA x TC OA x TA OA x TES OA x TO OA x TE R 2 .15** .16** .23** .19** .19** .19** .1 6** .25** 2 .15** .01 .08** .03* .03* .04* .00 .10** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplac e outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 116

116 Table 6 12 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .20* .23** .21* .21** .24** .19* Target Gender .11 .19* .23** .17* .20* .13 Target Education .14 .13 .12 .08 .12 .11 Target Race .06 .09 .07 .09 .09 .07 Block 2: Observer Personality Agreeableness (OA) .05 .01 .08 .09 .07 .03 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .29** .22* Agreeableness (TA) .21* .03 Emotional Stability (TES) .17* .10 Openness to Experience (TO) .26** .15 Extraversion (TE) .08 .02 Block 4: Interactions OA x TC .12 .06 OA x TA .01 .01 OA x TES .02 .0 6 OA x TO .22** .17 OA x TE .05 .04 R 2 .25** .19** .19** .23** .17** .29** 2 .01 .00 .00 .04** .00 .04 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by sup ervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 117

117 Table 6 13 Coworker emotional stability as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .23** .23** .20* .23** .21** .24** .24** .20* Target Gender .21** .21* .12 .18* .24** .17* .19* .14 Target Education .14 .14 .14 .13 .13 .08 .12 .10 Target Race .08 .08 .08 .09 .07 .08 .09 .07 Block 2: Observer Personality Emotional Stability (OES) .03 .04 .01 .02 .03 .03 .01 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .31** .22* Agreeableness (TA) .21** .07 Emotional Stability (TES) .19* .11 Openness to Experience (TO) .22** .09 Extraversion (TE) .11 .00 Block 4: Interactions OES x TC OES x TA OES x TES OES x TO OES x TE R 2 .15** .15** .23** .19** .18** .19** .16** .25** 2 .15** .00 .08** .04** .03* .04** .01 .11** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 personalities. Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 118

118 Table 6 13 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .22** .23** .21** .22** .27** .21* Target Gender .09 .18* .32** .15 .17* .10 Target Education .14 .13 .13 .08 .09 .12 Target Race .08 .09 .07 .08 .07 .05 Block 2: Observer Personality Emotional Stability (OES) .05 .01 .02 .09 .06 .07 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .30** .24* Agreeableness (TA) .21** .03 Emotional Stability (TES) .19* .13 Openness to Experience (TO) .25** .11 Extraversion (TE) .10 .02 Block 4: Interactions OES x TC .16* .07 OES x TA .01 .12 OES x TES .02 .04 OES x TO .23** .18 OES x TE .20** .09 R 2 .26** .19** .18** .24** .20** .32** 2 .03* .00 .00 .05** .04** .07* Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 119

119 T able 6 14 Coworker openness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .23** .24** .21** .23** .22** .24** .24** .20* Target Gender .21** .21** .13 .19* .23** .18* .20* .14 Target Education .14 .12 .12 .12 .12 .07 .11 .10 Target Race .08 .09 .07 .09 .07 .08 .09 .07 Block 2: Observer Personality Opennes s (OO) .11 .05 .07 .10 .03 .09 .01 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .29** .22* Agreeableness (TA) .19* .07 Emotional Stability (TES) .18* .11 Openn ess to Experience (TO) .20* .08 Extraversion (TE) .09 .00 Block 4: Interactions OO x TC OO x TA OO x TES OO x TO OO x TE R 2 .15** .16** .23** .19** .19** .19** .17** .2 5** 2 .15** .01 .07** .03* .03* .03* .01 .10** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outc omes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 120

120 Table 6 14 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .22** .24** .22** .25** .25** .21* Target Gender .13 .19* .23** .18* .20* .14 Target Education .10 .12 .12 .05 .09 .08 Target Race .08 .10 .08 .09 .09 .08 Block 2: Observer Personality Openn ess (OO) .07 .07 .10 .04 .10 .03 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .29** .21* Agr eeableness (TA) .19* .06 Emotional Stability (TES) .18* .11 Openness to Experience (TO) .17 .06 Extraversion (TE) .08 .00 Block 4: Interactions OO x TC .08 .01 OO x TA .05 .03 OO x TES .03 .01 OO x TO .11 .07 OO x TE .09 .04 R 2 .24** .19** .19** .20** .17** .27** 2 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01 .01 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 121

121 Table 6 15 Coworker extraversion as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1 : Control Variables Target Age .23** .24** .21** .23** .22** .25** .25** .20* Target Gender .21** .21** .13 .19* .23** .18* .20* .14 Target Education .14 .11 .11 .11 .11 .06 .10 .10 Target Race .08 .08 .08 .10 .08 .09 .09 .07 Block 2: Observer Personality Extraversion (OE) .16 .09 .11 .14 .09 .13 .06 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .28** .21* Agreeableness (TA) .18* .06 Emotional Stability (TES) .17* .11 Openness to Experience (TO) .18* .07 Extraversion (TE) .07 .01 Block 4: Interactions OE x TC OE x TA OE x TES OE x TO OE x TE R 2 .15** .17** .24** .20** .20** .19** .1 7** .26** 2 .15** .02 .07** .03* .03* .02* .00 .09** Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workpla ce outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 122

122 Table 6 15 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .21** .24** .22** .24** .25** .22** Target Gender .13 .18* .23** .18* .20* .14 Target Education .12 .09 .11 .08 .07 .08 Target Race .08 .08 .08 .09 .09 .15 Block 2: Observer Personality Extraversion (OE) .09 .11 .14 .08 .15 .05 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .28** .18 Agreeableness (TA) .19* .10 Emotional Stability (TES) .17* .13 Openness to Experience (TO) .19* .07 Extraversion (TE) .07 .02 Block 4: Interactions OE x TC .05 .09 OE x TA .08 .09 OE x TES .02 01 OE x TO .04 .06 OE x TE .08 .11 R 2 .24** .20** .20** .20** .18** .28** 2 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .02 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 123

123 Table 6 16 Coworker conscientiousness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .11 .11 .09 .11 .10 .12 .12 .11 Target Gender .13 .14 .19* .15 .13 .17* .16 .21* Target Education .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 .21* .17 .20* Target Race .15 .15 .15 .14 .15 .15 .14 .15 Block 2: Observer Personality Conscientiousness (OC) .06 .00 .04 .06 .02 .04 .01 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .19* .14 Agreeableness (TA) .07 .01 Emotional Stability (TES) .02 02 Openness to Experience (TO) .20* .13 Extraversion (TE) .13 .06 Block 4: Interactions OC x TC OC x TA OC x TES OC x TO OC x TE R 2 .06 .06 .09* .07 .06 .10* .08 .11 2 .06 .00 .03* .01 .00 .03* .02 .05 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes pro vided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 124

124 Table 6 16 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .10 .10 .09 .12 .11 .11 Target Gender .19* .15 .14 .16 .15 .18 Target Educa tion .15 .15 .15 .21* .18* .17 Target Race .15 .14 .15 .13 .14 .11 Block 2: Observer Personality Conscientiousness (OC) .00 .04 .06 .03 .05 .02 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .19* .13 Ag reeableness (TA) .08 .00 Emotional Stability (TES) .04 .02 Openness to Experience (TO) .19* .09 Extraversion (TE) .12 .05 Block 4: Interactions OC x TC .01 .16 OC x TA .04 .04 OC x TES .07 .09 OC x TO .11 .25* OC x TE .05 .02 R 2 .09 .07 .07 .11* .08 .15 2 .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .04 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 125

125 Table 6 17 Coworker agreeableness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: C ontrol Variables Target Age .11 .12 .10 .12 .11 .13 .13 .12 Target Gender .13 .13 .20* .16 .13 .17* .16 .22* Target Education .15 .13 .13 .13 .13 .20* .16 .17 Target Race .15 .15 .16 .15 .15 .15 .14 .14 B lock 2: Observer Personality Agreeableness (OA) .13 .16* .24* .13 .15 .16* .24* Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .22* .13 Agreeableness (TA) .21* .13 Emotional Stability (TES) .04 .03 Openness to Experience (TO) .22* .17* .09 Extraversion (TE) .10 Block 4: Interactions OA x TC OA x TA OA x TES OA x TO OA x TE R 2 .06 .08* .12** .11* .08 .12** 10* .15* 2 .06 .02 .04* .03* .00 .04* .03* .07* Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace ou tcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 126

126 Table 6 17 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .11 .12 .12 .11 .13 .11 Target Gender .18* .16 .13 .17* .15 .20* T arget Education .15 .13 .13 .19* .15 .18* Target Race .15 .15 .15 .15 .14 .13 Block 2: Observer Personality Agreeableness (OA) .15 .23* .13 .15 .17* .21* Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .23* .16 Agreeableness (TA) .22* .11 Emotional Stability (TES) .04 .05 Openness to Experience (TO) .25* .13 Extraversion (TE) .16 .08 Block 4: Interactions OA x TC .12 .20* OA x TA .02 .03 OA x TES .03 .03 OA x TO .11 .18 OA x TE .04 .06 R 2 .13** .11* .09 .13** .10* .20* 2 .02 .00 .00 .01 .00 .05 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 127

127 Table 6 18 Coworker emotional stability as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Bloc k 1: Control Variables Target Age .11 .13 .11 .13 .12 .13 .13 .12 Target Gender .13 .12 .18 .13 .11 .16 .14 .19* Target Education .15 .18* .18* .19* .18* .24** .20* .23* Target Race .15 .17* .18* .17 .18* .17* .17 .17* Block 2: Observer Personality Emotional Stability (OES) .14 .13 .15 .16 .14 .14 .14 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .19* .11 Agreeableness (TA) .10 .00 Emotional Stability (TE S) .06 .05 Openness to Experience (TO) .21* .13 Extraversion (TE) .13 .01 Block 4: Interactions OES x TC OES x TA OES x TES OES x TO OES x TE R 2 .06 .08* .11* 09* .08 .11** .09* .13* 2 .06 .02 .03* .01 .00 .04* .02 .05 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 128

128 Table 6 18 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .10 .12 .11 .12 .13 .06 Target Gender .16 .13 .11 .18* .14 .19* Target Education .18* .17 .19* .24** .20* .20* Target Race .18* .17* .18* .18* .16 .17* Block 2: Observer Personality Emotional Stability (OES) .13 .16 .15 .10 .14 .06 Block 3: Observer Ratings a C onscientiousness (TC) .19* .16 Agreeableness (TA) .10 .03 Emotional Stability (TES) .04 .05 Openness to Experience (TO) .23** .13 Extraversion (TE) .13 .01 Block 4: Interactions OES x TC .06 .17 OES x TA .08 .07 OES x TES .05 .01 OES x TO .15* .28** OES x TE .01 .07 R 2 .11* .09 .09 .14** .09 .20* 2 .01 .01 .01 .03* .00 .07* Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by sup ervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 129

129 Table 6 19 Coworker openness as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Cont rol Variables Target Age .11 .12 .11 .12 .12 .13 .13 .12 Target Gender .13 .14 .18* .14 .13 .16 .15 .20* Target Education .15 .17* .17* .17* .17* .21* .18* .20* Target Race .15 .14 .15 .14 .14 .14 .13 .14 Block 2: Observer Personality Openness (OO) .17* .14 .16 .17* .11 .15 .10 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .16 .13 Agreeableness (TA) .05 .02 Emotional Stability (TES) .01 .05 Openness to Experience (TO) .16 .09 Extraversion (TE) .09 .02 Block 4: Interactions OO x TC OO x TA OO x TES OO x TO OO x TE R 2 .06 .09* .11* .09* .09* .11* .10* .12 2 .06 .03* .02 .00 .00 .02 .01 .03 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provi ded by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 130

130 Table 6 19 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .11 .11 .12 .14 .14 .12 Target Gender .18* .14 .14 .16 .15 .20* Target Educat ion .18* .18* .17* .23** .21* .25** Target Race .14 .15 .13 .12 .13 .15 Block 2: Observer Personality Openness (OO) .15 .16 .17* .13 .17* .10 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .16 .11 Agreea bleness (TA) .05 .03 Emotional Stability (TES) .01 .05 Openness to Experience (TO) .11 .08 Extraversion (TE) .08 .02 Block 4: Interactions OO x TC .06 .06 OO x TA .07 .19* OO x TES .03 .03 OO x TO 15* .23* OO x TE .15 .04 R 2 .12* .10* .09 .14** .12* .19* 2 .00 .01 .00 .03* .02 .07 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by su pervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 131

131 Table 6 20 Coworker extraversion as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .11 .12 .10 .11 .12 .12 .12 .11 Target Gender .13 .13 .19* .14 .13 .17* .16 .21* Target Education .15 .16 .15 .16 .16 .21* .17* .19* Target Race .15 .14 .15 .14 .14 .15 .14 .15 Block 2: Observer Personality Extraversion (OE) .05 .01 .04 .05 .03 .02 .04 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .19* .14 Agreeableness (TA) .07 .00 Emotional Stability (TES) .02 .02 Openn ess to Experience (TO) .22* .14 Extraversion (TE) .13 .06 Block 4: Interactions OE x TC OE x TA OE x TES OE x TO OE x TE R 2 .06 .06 .09* .07 .06 .10* .08 .11 2 .06 .00 .03* .01 .00 .04* .01 .05 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provid ed by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 132

132 Table 6 20 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .10 .12 .10 .12 .13 .11 Target Gender .19* .16 .12 .18* .15 .22* Target Educati on .17 .19* .16 .20* .22* .23* Target Race .15 .18* .15 .15 .15 .19* Block 2: Observer Personality Extraversion (OE) .03 .04 .06 .04 .04 .05 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .19* .10 Agre eableness (TA) .09 .06 Emotional Stability (TES) .03 .00 Openness to Experience (TO) .23* .15 Extraversion (TE) .13 .11 Block 4: Interactions OE x TC .08 .02 OE x TA .16* .11 OE x TES .08 .07 OE x TO 03 .14 OE x TE .13 .12 R 2 .10* .10* .07 .10* .10* .17 2 .01 .03* .01 .00 .03 .05 Note. N = 146 147 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by sup ervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 133

133 Table 6 21 Length of acquaintanceship as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Bloc k 1: Control Variables Target Age .17* .22* .17 .21* .21* .22* .22* .16 Target Gender .21** .21* .12 .18* .22** .17* .20* .12 Target Education .31** .32** .31** .31** .32** .26** .32** .30** Target Race .13 .13 .12 .14 .13 .13 .13 .1 2 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .10 .05 .09 .10 .09 .10 .04 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .31** .25** Agreeableness (TA) .21** .12 Emotional Stabi lity (TES) .07 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .20* .09 Extraversion (TE) .03 .10 Block 4: Interactions LA x TC LA x TA LA x TES LA x TO LA x TE R 2 .20** .21** .29** .25** .22** .24** .21** .31** 2 .20** .01 .08** .04** .01 .03* .00 .10** Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 represents coworker ratings of their focal targe Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 134

134 Table 6 21 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .18* .21* .21* .24** .22* .17 Target Gender .11 .17* .21* .17* .20* .11 Target Education .32** .32** .34** .28** .33** .32** Target Race .12 .14 .13 .13 .13 .15 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .03 .09 .10 .08 .11 .02 Block 3: Observe r Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .30** .24* Agreeableness (TA) .21** .15 Emotional Stability (TES) .07 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .18* .07 Extraversion (TE) .03 .12 Block 4: Interactions LA x TC .04 .06 LA x TA .06 .00 LA x TES .05 .07 LA x TO .07 .03 LA x TE .04 .11 R 2 .30** .26** .22** .25** .21** .33** 2 .01 .00 .01 .01 .00 .02 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 135

135 Table 6 22 Interpersonal distance as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated task performance Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: C ontrol Variables Target Age .17* .15 .12 .15 .14 .17* .14 .12 Target Gender .21** .20* .11 .17* .20* .17* .20* .11 Target Education .31** .29** .29** .29** .28** .24** .29** .28** Target Race .13 .11 .11 .13 .11 .12 .11 .11 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Interpersonal Distance (ID) .10 .08 .06 .10 .05 .11 .08 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .31** .26** Agreeableness (TA) .20** .11 Emotional Stability (TES) .07 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .19* .08 Extraversion (TE) .02 .12 Block 4: Interactions ID x TC ID x TA ID x TES ID x TO ID x TE R 2 .20** .21** .30** .25** .22** 24** .21** .32** 2 .20** .01 .09** .04** .01 .03* .00 .11** Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 W orkplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 136

136 Table 6 22 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .13 .16 .14 .17* .15 .14 Target Gender .11 .17* .20* .17* .20* .11 Target Education .29** .29** .28** .24** .29** .27** Target Race .11 .13 .11 .12 .11 .10 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Interpersonal Distance (ID) .08 .05 .10 .05 .11 .05 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .31** .24** Agreeableness (TA) .21** .12 Emotional Stability (TES) .07 .00 Openness to Experience (TO) .18* .09 Extraversion (TE) .02 .12 Block 4: Interactions ID x TC .00 .08 ID x TA .05 .09 ID x TES .04 .04 ID x TO .02 .04 ID x TE .03 .02 R 2 .30** .25** .22** .24** .21** .33** 2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 137

137 Table 6 23 Length of acquaintanceship as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Bl ock 1: Control Variables Target Age .23** .31** .26** .30** .29** .31** .32** .27** Target Gender .21** .21* .13 .18* .23** .17* .19* .14 Target Education .14 .16 .15 .15 .16 .09 .14 .12 Target Race .08 .09 .08 .10 .08 .09 .10 .08 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .16 .12 .16 .17* .16 .18* .14 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .29** .19* Agreeableness (TA) .20* .06 Emotional Stab ility (TES) .19* .12 Openness to Experience (TO) .22** .08 Extraversion (TE) .14 .03 Block 4: Interactions LA x TC LA x TA LA x TES LA x TO LA x TE R 2 .15** .17 ** .24** .21** .20** .21** .19** .27** 2 .15** .02 .07** .04** .04* .04** .02 .10** Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 represents coworker ratings of their focal Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 138

138 Table 6 23 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .29** .31** .30** .34** .34** .28** Ta rget Gender .10 .17* .21** .16 .17* .12 Target Education .18* .17* .19* .14 .15 .17* Target Race .08 .09 .09 .09 .08 .12 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .08 .18* .18* .13 .21* .04 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .25** .15 Agreeableness (TA) .20* .11 Emotional Stability (TES) .19* .13 Openness to Experience (TO) .18* .06 Extraversion (TE) .13 .02 Block 4: Interactions LA x TC 16** .17 LA x TA .18* .06 LA x TES .19* .16 LA x TO .20** .05 LA x TE .13 .25* R 2 .29** .23** .24** .25** .20 .34** 2 .05** .03** .04* .04** .02 .07* Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 139

139 Table 6 24 Interpersonal distance as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated citizenship behavior Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3 f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .23** .22* .19* .22** .20* .24** .23** .20* Target Gender .21** .21* .12 .18* .23** .17* .19* .14 Target Education .14 .12 .12 .12 .12 .07 .11 .10 Target Race .08 .07 .07 .09 .06 .08 .08 .07 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Interpersonal Distance (ID) .06 .04 .02 .06 .00 .03 .01 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .30** .22* Agreeableness (TA) .20* .07 Emotional Stability (TES) .18 .11 Openness to Experience (TO) .22* .08 Extraversion (TE) .10 .00 Block 4: Interactions ID x TC ID x TA ID x TES ID x TO ID x TE R 2 .15** .15** .23** .19** .18** .19** .16** .25** 2 .15** .00 .08** .04* .03* .04* .01 .11** Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 140

140 Table 6 24 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .21* .24** .20* .25** .23** .23** Target Gender .12 .18* .23** .17* .19* .13 Target Education .13 .12 .12 .07 .11 .11 Target Race .09 .09 .06 .09 .08 .08 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Interpersonal Distance (ID) .04 .01 .06 .00 .03 .01 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .30** .21* Agreeableness (TA) .21* .08 Emotional Stability (TES) .18* .12 Openness to Experience (TO) .21* .07 Extraversion (TE) .10 .01 Block 4: Interactions ID x TC .09 .03 ID x TA .10 .08 ID x TES .03 .02 ID x TO .05 .07 ID x TE .01 .05 R 2 .24** .20** .18** .19** .16** .27** 2 .01 .01 .00 .00 .00 .01 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 141

141 Table 6 25 Length of acquaintanceship as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .11 .13 .10 .13 .13 .14 .15 .13 Target Gender .13 .13 .19* .14 .13 .17 .16 .21* Target Education .15 .14 .15 .14 .14 .20* .16 .19* Target Race .15 .15 .15 .14 .15 .15 .14 .15 Bl ock 2: Acquaintanceship Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .04 .01 .04 .04 .04 .07 .03 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .19* .13 Agreeableness (TA) .08 .01 Emotional Stability (TES) .03 .02 Openness to Experience (TO) .21* .13 Extraversion (TE) .14 .06 Block 4: Interactions LA x TC LA x TA LA x TES LA x TO LA x TE R 2 .06 .06 .09* .07 .06 .10* .08 .11 2 .06 .00 .03* .01 .00 .04* .02 .05 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 142

142 Table 6 25 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .10 .13 .13 .14 .15 .11 Target Gender .19* .15 .14 .17 .16 .19 Target E ducation .15 .14 .13 .21* .16 .18 Target Race .15 .15 .14 .15 .14 .13 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .02 .05 .05 .04 .07 .05 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .20* .11 Agreeableness (TA) .08 .03 Emotional Stability (TES) .02 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) .21* .12 Extraversion (TE) .14 .04 Block 4: Interactions LA x TC .02 .07 LA x TA .06 .09 LA x TES .08 .14 LA x TO .01 .00 LA x TE .00 .08 R 2 .09 .07 .07 .10 .08 .13 2 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .02 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by super visors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 143

143 Table 6 26 Interpersonal distance as a moderator of the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor rated job satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3a Step3b Step3c Step3d Step3e Step3f Block 1: C ontrol Variables Target Age .11 .13 .11 .13 .12 .15 .15 .15 Target Gender .13 .13 .18* .14 .12 .16 .15 .20* Target Education .15 .13 .13 .13 .13 .19* .15 .18 Target Race .15 .14 .15 .14 .14 .13 .13 .13 Block 2 : Acquaintanceship Interpersonal Distance (ID) .05 .06 .07 .05 .11 .09 .12 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .20* .12 Agreeableness (TA) .09 .01 Emotional Stability (TES) .03 .03 Op enness to Experience (TO) .24** .15 Extraversion (TE) .16 .08 Block 4: Interactions ID x TC ID x TA ID x TES ID x TO ID x TE R 2 .06 .06 .10* .07 .06 .11* .08 .12 2 .06 .00 .04* .01 .00 .05** .02 .06 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes prov ided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 144

144 Table 6 26 Continued Step4a Step4b Step4c Step4d Step4e Step4f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .12 .15 .13 .13 .15 .15 Target Gender .18* .14 .12 .16 .15 .20* Target Educat ion .13 .13 .13 .19* .15 .18* Target Race .14 .14 .15 .14 .13 .15 Block 2: Acquaintanceship Interpersonal Distance (ID) .06 .09 .05 .10 .09 .14 Block 3: Observer Ratings a Conscientiousness (TC) .20* .11 A greeableness (TA) .10 .01 Emotional Stability (TES) .01 .03 Openness to Experience (TO) .26** .21 Extraversion (TE) .16 .06 Block 4: Interactions ID x TC .05 .01 ID x TA .15 .15 ID x TES .11 .08 ID x T O .07 .08 ID x TE .02 .03 R 2 .10* .09 .08 .11* .08 .17 2 .00 .02 .02 .01 .00 .05 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Block 3 Workplace outcomes provided by supe rvisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 145

145 Table 6 27 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of length of acquaintanceship on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of task performance Step4g Step4h Step4 i Step4j Step4k Step4l Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .18* .21* .21* .24** .22* .17 Target Gender .11 .17* .21* .17* .19* .11 Target Education .32** .32** .33** .28** .33** .32** Target Race .12 .13 .13 .13 .13 .15 Block 2: Fir st Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .30** .24* Agreeableness (TA) a .22** .14 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .07 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) a .19* .08 Extraversion (TE) a .02 .12 Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .0 5 .01 .05 .12 .03 .01 Block 3: 2 way Interactions LA x TC .05 .06 LA x TA .05 .00 LA x TES .05 .07 LA x TO .08 .04 LA x TE .03 .11 LA x LA .01 .03 .01 .01 .02 .00 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions LA x LA x TC LA x LA x TA LA x LA x TES LA x LA x TO LA x LA x TE R 2 .30** .26** .22** .25** .22** .33** 2 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations ar e presented above. a Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 146

146 Table 6 27 Continued Step5a Step5b Step4c Step5d Step5e Step5f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .18* .21* .21* .24** .22* .17 Target Gender .11 .18* .21* .17* .19* .12 Target Education .32** .31** .33** .28** .33** .30** Target Race .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .15 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .34** .26* Agreeableness (TA) a .26** .14 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .07 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) a .20* .20 Extraversion (TE) a .01 .16 Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .03 .05 .05 .11 .03 .04 Block 3: 2 way Interactions LA x TC .18 .14 LA x TA .16 .04 LA x TES .04 .13 LA x TO .12 .23 LA x TE .05 .18 LA x LA .01 .04 .01 .00 .01 .06 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions LA x LA x TC .03 .00 LA x LA x TA .04 .04 LA x LA x TES .00 .02 LA x LA x TO .01 .15 LA x LA x TE .02 .07 R 2 .31** .27** .22** .25** .22** .35** 2 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .02 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Coworker Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 147

147 Table 6 28 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of interpersonal distance on the relationship between co worker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of task performance Step4g Step4h Step4i Step4j Step4k Step4l Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .13 .16 .13 .17* .14 .13 Target Gender .10 .17* .20* .17* .20* .11 Target Education .29** .29** .28** .24** .28** .27** Target Race .11 .12 .11 .12 .11 .09 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .32** .24* Agreeableness (TA) a .21** .13 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .07 .00 Openness to Experience (TO) a .18* .09 Extraversion (TE) a .02 .13 Interpersonal Distance (ID) .06 .06 .11 .05 .12 .07 Block 3: 2 way Interactions ID x TC .00 .08 ID x TA .05 .09 ID x TES .04 .04 ID x TO .03 .05 ID x TE .04 .02 ID x ID .02 .01 .00 .00 .01 .02 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions ID x ID x TC ID x ID x TA ID x ID x TES ID x ID x TO ID x ID x TE R 2 .30** .25** .22** .24** .21** .33** 2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 Note. N = 141 14 4 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 148

148 Table 6 28 Continued S tep5a Step5b Step4c Step5d Step5e Step5f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .14 .15 .14 .17 .11 .12 Target Gender .10 .16* .20* .17* .21* .11 Target Education .29** .30** .29** .25** .29** .29** Target Race .11 .12 .11 .13 .12 .10 B lock 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .24** .21 Agreeableness (TA) a .15 .09 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .10 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) a .12 .08 Extraversion (TE) a .14 .21 Interpersonal Distance (ID) .04 .05 .10 .02 .09 .02 Block 3: 2 way Interactions ID x TC .02 .07 ID x TA .02 .07 ID x TES .03 .00 ID x TO .03 .03 ID x TE .03 .03 ID x ID .02 .02 .00 .00 .01 .03 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions ID x ID x TC .06 .01 ID x ID x TA .05 .04 ID x ID x TES .01 .02 ID x ID x TO .05 .01 ID x ID x TE .08 .05 R 2 .31** .26** .22** .25** .23** .35** 2 .01 .01 .00 .01 .02 .02 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficie nts and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Coworker Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 149

149 Table 6 29 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effec ts of length of acquaintanceship on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of citizenship behavior Step4g Step4h Step4i Step4j Step4k Step4l Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .29** .30** .29** .34** .32** 28** Target Gender .09 .15 .20* .15 .16 .12 Target Education .17* .16* .18* .13 .15 .17* Target Race .08 .08 .08 .09 .08 .12 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .25** .15 Agreeableness (TA) a .21** .12 Emot ional Stability (TES ) a .17* .13 Openness to Experience (TO) a .17* .05 Extraversion (TE) a .11 .03 Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .02 .13 .02 .01 .05 .02 Block 3: 2 way Interactions LA x TC .14* .16 LA x TA .13 .07 LA x T ES .15 .16 LA x TO .16 .04 LA x TE .08 .25* LA x LA .04 .11* .07 .04 .09 .02 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions LA x LA x TC LA x LA x TA LA x LA x TES LA x LA x TO LA x LA x TE R 2 .30** .26** .25** .25** .22** .34** 2 .06** .06** .05* .05* .04* .07* Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 150

150 Table 6 29 Continued Step5a Step5b Step4c Step5d Step5e Step5f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .29** .30** .29** .33** .30** .27** Target Gender .09 .15 .19* .14 .14 .16 Target Education .17* .15 .18* 14 .17* .11 Target Race .08 .08 .08 .09 .09 .10 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .25** .06 Agreeableness (TA) a .24** .28* Emotional Stability (TES ) a .16 .22* Openness to Experience (TO) a .14 .21 E xtraversion (TE) a .00 .20 Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .02 .16 .02 .04 .05 .07 Block 3: 2 way Interactions LA x TC .15 .03 LA x TA .22 .34 LA x TES .10 .30 LA x TO .06 .33 LA x TE .25 .53** LA x LA .04 .12* .07 .02 .06 .10 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions LA x LA x TC .00 .06 LA x LA x TA .04 .25* LA x LA x TES .01 .09 LA x LA x TO .04 .20 LA x LA x TE .09* .29* R 2 .30** .27** .25** .26** .25** .39** 2 .00 .00 .00 .01 .03* .05 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Coworker Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 151

151 Table 6 30 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of interpersonal distance on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of citizenship behavior Step4g Step4h Step4i Step4j Step4k Step 4l Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .18* .18* .15 .21* .18* .19* Target Gender .13 .19* .23** .19* .21* .15 Target Education .09 .08 .08 .03 .08 .06 Target Race .08 .07 .05 .08 .07 .07 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscien tiousness (TC) a .29** .18 Agreeableness (TA) a .21** .10 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .18* .13 Openness to Experience (TO) a .18* .07 Extraversion (TE) a .08 .02 Interpersonal Distance (ID) .13 .12 .15 .11 .14 .10 Block 3: 2 way In teractions ID x TC .12 .01 ID x TA .13 .13 ID x TES .01 .02 ID x TO .11 .13 ID x TE .05 .04 ID x ID .10 .13* .11 .13* .11 .14* Block 4 : 3 way Interactions ID x ID x TC ID x ID x TA ID x ID x TES ID x ID x TO ID x ID x TE R 2 .25** .22** .20** .21** .18** .29** 2 .02 .03 .02 .03 .02 .04 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Coworker rat Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 152

152 Table 6 30 Continued Step5a Step5b Step4c Step5d Step5e Step5f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .19* .19* .16 .20* .1 5 .17 Target Gender .13 .19* .23** .19* .21* .15 Target Education .09 .08 .09 .04 .08 .04 Target Race .09 .08 .05 .09 .08 .08 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .18 .05 Agreeableness (TA) a .22* .16 Emotion al Stability (TES ) a .22* .14 Openness to Experience (TO) a .12 .15 Extraversion (TE) a .07 .18 Interpersonal Distance (ID) .10 .12 .15 .07 .10 .07 Block 3: 2 way Interactions ID x TC .08 .02 ID x TA .14 .21 ID x TES .04 .03 ID x TO .04 .11 ID x TE .07 .16 ID x ID .10 .13* .11 .13* .11 .10 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions ID x ID x TC .11* .13 ID x ID x TA .02 .08 ID x ID x TES .03 .00 ID x ID x TO .07 .06 ID x ID x TE .12* .13 R 2 .28** .22** .20** .22** .21** .34** 2 .02* .00 .00 .01 .03* .05 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Coworker ties. Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 153

153 Table 6 31 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of length of acquaintanceship on the relationship between coworker reputation ratings and supervisor ratings of job satisfaction Step4g Step4h Step4i Step4j Step4k Step4l Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .10 .13 .14 .15 .16 .12 Target Gender .18* .14 .13 .17 .16 .19 Target Education .15 .14 .12 .20* .16 .18 Target Race .15 .15 .14 .14 .14 .13 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .20* .12 Agreeableness (TA) a .08 .02 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .03 .01 Openness to Experience (TO) a .22* .13 Extraversion (TE) a .15 .04 Length of A cquaintanceship (LA) .08 .11 .17 .17 .17 .16 Block 3: 2 way Interactions LA x TC .01 .05 LA x TA .07 .08 LA x TES .10 .13 LA x TO .03 .01 LA x TE .02 .09 LA x LA .02 .02 .04 .04 .03 .04 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions LA x LA x TC LA x LA x TA LA x LA x TES LA x LA x TO LA x LA x TE R 2 .10 .07 .07 .10 .08 .13 2 .00 .01 .01 .01 .00 .02 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple c orrelations are presented above. a Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 154

154 Table 6 31 Continued Step5a Step5b Step4c Step5d Step5e Step5f Block 1: Control Var iables Target Age .10 .13 .14 .14 .14 .11 Target Gender .19* .13 .13 .17 .16 .16 Target Education .15 .14 .12 .20* .15 .23* Target Race .16 .15 .14 .14 .13 .17 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .15 .04 Agreeableness (TA) a .12 .19 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .03 .06 Openness to Experience (TO) a .20* .29 Extraversion (TE) a .10 .09 Length of Acquaintanceship (LA) .11 .07 .17 .19 .16 .08 Block 3: 2 way Interactions LA x TC .18 .35 LA x TA .19 .40 LA x TES .08 .13 LA x TO .02 .28 LA x TE .14 .27 LA x LA .05 .00 .04 .05 .04 .01 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions LA x LA x TC .04 .12 LA x LA x TA .04 .21 LA x LA x TES 01 .01 LA x LA x TO .02 .20 LA x LA x TE .04 .16 R 2 .11 .08 .07 .10 .09 .18 2 .01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .05 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Coworker r Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 155

155 Table 6 32 Exploratory analysis of the curvilinear effects of interpersonal distance on the relationship between coworker reput ation ratings and supervisor ratings of job satisfaction Step4g Step4h Step4i Step4j Step4k Step4l Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .14 .16 .15 .15 .18 .18 Target Gender .19* .14 .12 .17 .16 .21* Target Education .12 .12 .12 .17 .13 .15 Target Race .13 .14 .14 .14 .12 .14 Block 2: First Order Variables Conscientiousness (TC) a .21* .13 Agreeableness (TA) a .10 .00 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .01 .04 Openness to Experience (TO) a .27** .22 Extra version (TE) a .18 .08 Interpersonal Distance (ID) .10 .10 .09 .17 .16 .21 Block 3: 2 way Interactions ID x TC .04 .01 ID x TA .14 .12 ID x TES .11 .10 ID x TO .10 .12 ID x TE .04 .04 ID x ID .04 .01 .05 .0 7 .06 .09 Block 4 : 3 way Interactions ID x ID x TC ID x ID x TA ID x ID x TES ID x ID x TO ID x ID x TE R 2 .10 .09 .08 .12* .09 .18 2 .01 .02 .02 .01 .01 .06 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regres sion coefficients and squared multiple correlations are presented above. a Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 156

156 Table 6 32 Continued Step5a Step5b Step4c St ep5d Step5e Step5f Block 1: Control Variables Target Age .14 .16 .15 .16 .16 .16 Target Gender .19* .14 .12 .17 .16 .21* Target Education .12 .14 .12 .17 .13 .21* Target Race .13 .13 .14 .14 .12 .15 Block 2: First Order Variabl es Conscientiousness (TC) a .21 .01 Agreeableness (TA) a .18 .13 Emotional Stability (TES ) a .01 .04 Openness to Experience (TO) a .28* .32* Extraversion (TE) a .13 .03 Interpersonal Distance (ID) .10 .08 .09 .16 .17 .19 Block 3: 2 way Interactions ID x TC .04 .03 ID x TA .19* .25* ID x TES .11 .09 ID x TO .10 .13 ID x TE .08 .12 ID x ID .04 .03 .05 .07 .06 .15* Block 4 : 3 way Interactions ID x ID x TC .00 .13 ID x ID x TA .07 .16* ID x ID x TES .01 .02 ID x ID x TO .01 .09 ID x ID x TE .04 .09 R 2 .10 .10 .08 .12* .09 .23* 2 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .05 Note. N = 141 144 Standardized regression coefficients and squared multiple corre lations are presented above. a Coworker Workplace outcomes provided by supervisors ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10.

PAGE 157

157 Table 6 33 rated work place outcomes Task Performance Citizenship Behavior Job Satisfaction Conscientiousness Self .40** .32** .02 Coworker .40** .38** .15 Coworker Agg .48** .45** .08 Agreeableness Self .25 .31** .11 Coworker .27** .26** .07 Coworker Agg .30** .23* .07 Emotional Stability Self .20* .20* .12 Coworker .07 .18 .04 Coworker Agg .10 .19 .08 Openness to Experience Self .29** .23 .07 Coworker .32** .28** .12 Coworker Agg .38** .30 ** .04 Extraversion Self .16 .14 .07 Coworker .11 .17 .08 Coworker Agg .14 .2 1 .08 Note. N = 106 173 ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. Coworker (Cow) Agg = Correlations based on aggregating coworker ratings across targets.

PAGE 158

158 Ta ble 6 34 Incremental validity of identity and reputation personality ratings: Aggregating coworker ratings Task Performance Citizenship Behavior Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Control Variables Target Age .17 .07 .12 .04 .23* .16 .18 .12 Target Gender .21* .14 .08 .03 .21* .19 .10 .09 Target Education .31** .25* .26* .23* .14 .07 .08 .05 Target Race .13 .06 .10 .04 .08 .04 .05 .00 Focal Individual Ratings Conscientiousness .21 .22 .04 .07 Agreeableness .03 .04 .16 .10 Emotional Stability .11 .14 .11 .12 Openness to Experience .12 .03 .11 .04 Extraversion .02 .09 .02 .03 Coworker Ratings Conscientiousness .32** .29** .31* .28* Agreeableness .12 .17 .02 .00 Emotional Stability .03 .04 .13 .13 Openness to Experience .13 .13 .07 .07 Extraversion .16 .23 .01 .04 R 2 .20** .28** .36** .43** .15** .22* .27** .32** 2 (from null model) .08 .15** .07 .13* 2 (to full model) .15** .08 .10 .04 Note. N = 106 ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. Workplace outcomes were provided by supervisors Coworker ratings were aggregated across both coworker observers.

PAGE 159

159 Table 6 34 Continued Job Satisfaction Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Control Variables Target Age .11 .12 .10 .11 Target Gender .13 .14 .20 .25 Target Education .15 .12 .20 .20 Target Race .15 .23 .16 .29* Focal Individual Rati ngs Conscientiousness .08 .11 Agreeableness .22 .31* Emotional Stability .22 .32* Openness to Experience .15 .27* Extraversion .15 .09 Coworker Ratings Conscientiousness .11 .09 Agreeableness .02 .04 Emotional St ability .03 .00 Openness to Experience .07 .25 Extraversion .09 .11 R 2 .06 .14 .09 .22 2 (from null model) .08 .03 2 (to full model) .08 .13* Note. N = 106 ** p < .01. p < .05. p < .10. Workplace outcomes were provided by s upervisors Coworker ratings were aggregated across both coworker observers.

PAGE 160

160 Figure 6 1. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer conscientiousness: Task performance

PAGE 161

161 Figure 6 2. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer agreeableness: Task performance

PAGE 162

162 Figure 6 3. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer emotional stability: Task p erformance

PAGE 163

163 Figure 6 4. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer openness: Task performance

PAGE 164

164 Figure 6 5. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of o bserver extraversion: Task performance

PAGE 165

165 Figure 6 6. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer conscientiousness: Citizenship behavior

PAGE 166

166 Figure 6 7. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer agreeableness: Citizenship behavior

PAGE 167

167 Figure 6 8. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer emotional stability: Citizenship behavior

PAGE 168

168 Figure 6 9. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer openness: Citizenship behavior

PAGE 169

169 Figure 6 10. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer extraversion: Citizenship behavior

PAGE 170

170 Figure 6 11. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer conscientiousness: Job satisfaction

PAGE 171

171 Figure 6 12. Predictive validity of personality ratin gs as a function of observer agreeableness: Job satisfaction

PAGE 172

172 Figure 6 13. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer emotional stability: Job satisfaction

PAGE 173

173 Figure 6 14. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer openness: Job satisfaction

PAGE 174

174 Figure 6 15. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of observer extraversion: Job satisfaction

PAGE 175

175 Figure 6 16. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of length of acquaintanceship: Task performance

PAGE 176

176 Figure 6 17. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of interpersonal distance: Task performance

PAGE 177

177 Figure 6 18. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of length of acquaintanceship: Citizenship behavior

PAGE 178

178 Figure 6 19. Predictive validity of persona lity ratings as a function of interpersonal distance: Citizenship behavior

PAGE 179

179 Figure 6 20. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of length of acquaintanceship: Job satisfaction

PAGE 180

180 Figure 6 21. Predictive validity of personality ratings as a function of interpersonal distance: Job satisfaction

PAGE 181

181 CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION Summary of Results Over the decades, attitudes towards the utility of personality testing in the workplace have waxed and waned. Currently, researchers have reached a standoff with some contending that the predictive validities of personality ratings are too low to be of consequence and others arguing that, under the right circumstances, personality testing can be as valu able as any other personnel selection tool (Morgeson et al., 2007; Ones et al., 2007). However, both proponents and opponents seem to agree that too much of what we think we know about the predictive validity of personality ratings comes from a single sour ce self report assessments. This is unfortunate because self report assessments capture just one their identities. Furthermore, several known biases and sources of error can lead to incongruities between indivi attenuating the predictive validities of these self report personality assessments. a viable a lternative that overcomes many of the limitations of self report assessments. In fact, recent literature reviews suggest that predictive validities of observer reports exceed those of self reports (Connelly & Ones, 20 10 ; Connolly et al., 20 07 ; Oh et al., 2 011) Furthermore, while observer reports have been shown to capture unique variance in workplace outcomes beyond self reports, the converse has not always been the case. The major goal of this dissertation was to explore the nature of these reputational r atings. In particular, I sought to identify the conditions that might enhance

PAGE 182

182 Tables 7 1 and 7 2 summarize the se findings The general results of this study were consistent with previo us reports : in terms of predicting workplace outcomes, ratings. However, two important conclusions can be drawn. First, the advantage s of reputational ratings were not ubiquitous across different traits and criteria. Examining the patterns of relative and incremental predictive validities, it becomes apparent that trait/criterion observability may be an important boundary condition for reputational ratings superiority. That is, when observers are tasked with rating tendencies that do not easily manifest themselves behavioral ly the predictive validities of observer ratings decrease. For instance, traits such as conscientiousness and extr aversion have been shown to reflect mostly behavioral tendencies while emotional stability and agreeableness reflect affective and cognitive tendencies (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenove r, & Dienstbier, 2002). In this current dissertation the predictive validities for observer ratings of target extraversion hand, for emotional stability and agreeableness, the advantages of reputational ratings were either diminished (as with ag reeableness) or nonexistent (as with emotional stability). Likewise, compared to self ratings, observer ratings were generally much better predictors of behavioral workplace outcomes task performance and citizenship behaviors. On the other hand, identit y ratings captured more variance in the cognitive affective outcome ( job satisfaction ) This important caveat that observability moderates the relative advantages of reputational ratings

PAGE 183

183 RAM in that targets have a unique adv antage in terms of access to their private, affective and cognitive information while other raters must infer this information from directly observable behaviors. Secondly, the advantages of reputational ratings were not ubiquitous across raters. That is, characteristics of the observers and characteristics of the relationships between observers and targets both influenced the predictive validities of observer ratings. Below, I discuss findings related to each of these characteristics Observer Per sonality Dispelling the assumption that all observers provide equally valid personality ratings, I found several moderators of the predictive validity of reputation ratings. In general, the best observers tended to be conscientious and open to new experien ces. In addition, excessive emotional stability proved to be a detriment, rather than a benefit, to raters. Less important were observer agreeableness and extraversion; though in some cases, observers who were too introverted or too agreeable provided less valid personality ratings. Not only did these observer personality characteristics influence the predictive validities of observer ratings but they also influenced the relative predictive validities of self vs. observer ratings. That is, in certain cases (for instance, when observers were low in conscientiousness or openness), reputational ratings were substantially worse than identity ratings. On the other hand, when observer conscientiousness or openness were high, their ratings were substantially bette ratings. However, there were a few conditions where observer personality seemed to play a much less significant role. For instance, and agreeableness, or when the criterion was job satisfac tion, there were few

PAGE 184

184 one explanation for this is that these cases reflect instances where evidence available to observer raters may be minimal. E t solve a case if no clues are left behind. Target Observer Acquaintanceship A second characteristic of good observer raters was that they tended to have stronger ties with the targets they were rating. Predictive validities were generally highest for the group of raters who had been acquainted with their targets for the longest period of time. In addition, the best observers tended to have closer relationships with their targets on both physical and emotional levels. Interestingly, the results of explor atory analyses suggest that target observer acquaintanceship may have a nonlinear impact on observer ratings. The lowest predictive validities were found not for the observer groups that had the weakest acquaintanceship ties with their targets (i.e., relat ively short lengths of acquaintanceship and high interpersonal distance levels) but the groups that had mid level acquaintanceship ties. A few explanations may be offered for this preliminary finding. First, it may be the case that targets engage in highe r levels of self monitoring and impression management around individuals with whom they are moderately acquainted. That is, targets are most likely to let their guards down with both (a) close acquaintances and (b) relative strangers. This can allow these observers greater access to relevant personality information from which to form their impressions. Second, it may be that observers rely on different processes to detect and utilize significant information at different levels of acquaintanceship. For insta nce, relative strangers may rely heavily on stereotypes, which in certain circumstances, may lead to accurate evaluations (Lee, Jussim, &

PAGE 185

185 McCauley, 1995). As observers become acquainted with the targets, they substitute their stereotypes with evaluations b ased on gathered cues ( Bond & Brockett, 1987; Bond & Sedikides, 1988 ). However, whereas strong acquaintances have a greater opportunity to gather strong compelling evidence, such observed evidence may be poor or lacking in the case of moderately acquainted observers. A third explanation for this finding points tow ards the presence of unmeasured, third variables. Since exploring nonlinear effects was outside the scope of this dissertation, it may be the case that there are certain qualitative differences bet ween high mid and low acquaintanceship observer groups that were not captured by the administered questionnaires. Aggregating Observers In a call for more emphasis on personality reputation research, Hofstee (1994) there are many others who know enough about me to provide a more reliable average judgment. Thus, other things being equal, I am Likewise, using the Spearman Brown formula to extrapolate the eff ects of aggregating observer raters, Oh et al. (2011) suggested that reputation ratings based on multiple observers can be significantly larger than ratings based on a single (self or observer) rater. However, I am aware of no study that systematically exa mined these relationships in the context of workplace criteria. Therefore, the final goal of this dissertation was to explore the effects of aggregating across coworkers on the predictive and incremental validities of personality ratings. Consistent with findings from Oh et al., when two personality ratings were 11% higher than similar ratings coming from just one coworker

PAGE 186

186 observer (and 24% hig ratings). Mor eover, whereas identity ratings captured incremental variance in performance outcomes above and beyond reputation ratings based on a single observer, these identity ratings failed to account for unique variance when repu tation ratings were based on multiple observers. Theoretical and Practical Implications The results of this dissertation suggest several important theoretical and practical implications. Most notably, the research presented above emphasizes the need for mo re complex theoretical models concerning the impact of alternative personality perspectives on predictive validities of workplace outcomes. While current research streams promote the use of observer raters as a means of increasing predictive validities, th is dissertatio n highlights the importance of understanding the processes through which self and observer raters accumulate personality relevant cues and then Accuracy Mod el is especially informative. Drawing on this model, it is clear that widespread generalizations concerning the relative superiority of identity or reputation ratings conceal significant personality evaluation intricacies. Considerable variance exists bet ween observers in terms of both their access to relevant information from which to form personality impressions and their capacity to detect and utilize this information. Simply put, maximizing the predictive validity of personality ratings requires more t han just selecting between self and observer raters but considering which characteristics are most relevant for a specific circumstance and then choosing raters to take advantage of these characteristics. In (i.e., observers who are conscientious, open, extraverted, low in agreeableness, and low in emotional stability; observers who

PAGE 187

187 have known the focal target for a long time and interact with the target on a close level, both physically and emotionally), pred ictive validities of personality ratings can be especially strong On the other hand, simply defaulting to observer raters might have deleterious effects on predictive validities if these characteristics are not present in the group of observers. This find ing also leads to several significant practical management implications. First, piggybacking previous appeals, this dissertation highlights the potential to increase the utility of personality ratings by drawing on observers and specifically, focal targe ts coworkers as source s of personality information. Admittedly, in m any cases, this is easier said than done. For instance, in employee selection contexts, rker from a previous employment setting raises cer tain legal and ethical issues ( Edwards & Kleiner, 2002 ) and may be monetarily prohibitive. On the other hand, researchers have successfully used reference checklists and other means to overcome these obstacles, with promising results ( Zimmerman et al., 201 0 ). In addition, coworker ratings do lend themselves to several non hiring contexts; coworker ratings can be used to impact performance evaluations as well as to make promotion and job placement decisions or to determine training and development needs. In either case, a second practical implication is that, when decision makers do rely on observer ratings, they need to pay special attention to the sources of the se ratings. When rating sources are within the control of management, this dissertation offers se veral recommendations for selecting the best observers for specific rating tasks. If managers lack discretionary control over selecting observer raters, managers should

PAGE 188

188 target. Moreover, when possible, aggregating across multiple observer raters is one way to overcome individual rater idiosyncrasies and increase the utility of these reputational ratings. Finally it would behoove managers to consider the underlying proces ses that account for the relative advantages of observer raters. These processes could then be used to (a) develop programs designed to train raters to provide more valid ratings or to (b) modify the environment in such a way that makes effective rating a natural process. For instance, though it might be difficult to train observers to become less emotionally stable or more open to experiences, by understanding how these traits lead to more valid ratings, one could guide raters in ways that allow them to de velop strategies for say, temper ing their ove rly optimistic outlooks and accounting for information incongruent with preconceived notions during rating exercises. Modifying the environment could entail matters such as changes to the physical environment t hat decrease interpersonal distance (i.e., locating observers closer to the individuals they are evaluating, increasing the amount of phone or email communication between observers and targets, etc.) or simply changes that give observers greater access to (i.e., creating open floor plans or replacing walls with transparent structures ) Limitations and Future Research Directions This dissertation is not without its limitations and a careful consideration of these limitations can help guide future research directions. Perhaps most significantly, this was but one study with one small sample of individuals. Though steps were taken to ensure the generalizability of the sample (e.g., posting recruiting messages in several

PAGE 189

189 locations across the co ntinental United States), the sampling methodology restricted participation to individuals who (a) had access to a computer with internet connectivity and (b) had the time and motivation to self select into the study. It is unclear whether these participan ts and/or their responses would have been affected had more traditional recruitment m ethods or incentives been used. A second limitation is that, a s is common in studies assessing reputational ratings, focal targets selected their own observer raters. On t he one hand, this is consistent with common selection processes where individuals choose who will provide th e organization with references and letters of recommendation on their behalf On the other hand, since the observers chosen by targets are more like ly to hold the targets in positive regard, the sample of observer raters may not be representative of the overall sample of target acquaintances. In this regard, if the ranges of observer ratings are restricted, the findings in this study may represent con servative estimates of true relationships. Future research should consider alternative means of choosing observer raters. Future research would also stand to benefit from extending the participant pool to include individuals from regions outside the US Mo reover, i n terms of the sample size, it must be noted that though the pattern of results were overwhelmingly consistent with hypotheses (predictive validities were in the hypothesized direction in 83% of the cases investigated), regression analyses produce d significant interaction effects in only 24% of these instances. I ncreasing sample sizes may be one way to ensure sufficient power to detect significant interactions in future studies

PAGE 190

190 In addition, both the predictor and criterion domains could be extende d to increase the scope of this study. Though job performance and satisfaction are two of the most researched organizational outcomes, personality ratings have been linked to other criteria including leadership, motivation, engagement, commitment, absentee ism, and workplace deviance. In terms of performance criteria, it should be noted that only subjective measures of performance were examined in this dissertation. Since these subjective performance evaluations are essentially ratings of con textualized repu tational tendencies, it is not surprising that observer personality ratings were strongly correlated with the performance criteria. The question remains whether the same pattern of results would be uncovered if objective performance criteria were examined. Moreover, current research suggests that narrow ly defined personality facets may, in some cases, wield higher explanatory power than their broad factor counterparts (Dudley Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006 ). Future research should determine whether thes e relationships generalize to reputational personality ratings and whether the moderating roles of observer characteristics apply to narrow personality facets. I t may be the case that rating individuals on narrow personality traits involves much less idios yncratic interpretations of ambiguous behaviors on the part of observers. In this case, observer personality moderators may have less of an impact on reputation ratings of narrow personality traits. It must also be mentioned that though the focus of this d issertation was on predictive validities, a concurrent research design was employed in which there was no significant lag between the collection of predictors and outcomes. In addition, steps taken to reduce common method biases (e.g., using supervisor rat ings for outcome

PAGE 191

191 variables and using coworkers and target ratings for predictor variables ) were warranted given the strong evidence of same source inflation. However, these steps may have threatened the validities of some of the inferences drawn from this dissertation For and cognitions as well as the individual, and so outcomes such as target job satisfaction may best be assessed through self ratings rather than super visor ratings (Frese & Zapf, 1988). An alternative rese arch design would be to measure predictors and outcomes at different times and then compare the impact of identity and reputation ratings across rated job satisfaction. Another limitation concerns the operationalization of observer personality. The gist of this dissertation is that the source of the personality ratings matter, which was evident in the pattern of results concerning the focal target s. On the other hand, only one rating sourc e was collected for observer raters ; ies w ere based on their own self ratings. Since reputational ratings were generally shown to have higher predictive validities than identity ratings, future research might consider collecting reputa tional ratings for observer personalities as well. As an alternative, one might aggregate across identity and reputation ratings or base the rating source on the particular trait. On a related note, the findings concerning observer personality moderators m ight be extended to self raters as well. That is, rather than assessing to what extent ate themselves. In this regar In

PAGE 192

192 some cases, the observer rater hypotheses extend easily to self raters. For instance, for the same reasons we might expect conscientious individuals to provide more valid ratings of targets (e.g., more systematic processi ng; better memory recall, etc.) we might also expect conscientious targets to do a better job of rating themselves. On the other hand, other hypotheses may not generalize to target se lf ratings. For instance, directed ruminations might impede their abilities to rate others, Certain target characteristics might impact observer ratings as well. As an example, observers might have a harder time rating targets who do not behave consistently across different settings (Cheek, 1982). Or, if targets engage in high levels of self monitoring and impression management, observer ratings may be contex t specific. As another example, extraverted targets might put themselves in more access to relevant information. Hence not only might target characteristics impact the ratings but they may also impact the predictive Several research extensions can also be applied to the analys e s of acquaintanceship and aggregation First, preliminary results indicated the presence of curvilinear relationships between acquaintanceship ties and observer predictive validities. Future research might benefit from more in depth, a priori investigations of these curvilinear effects. In addition, previous rese arch suggests that acquaintanceship effects may plateau; after a certain length of acquaintanceship, knowing somebody for a

PAGE 193

193 al., 2010). Of course, it is possible that curvilinear relationships may exist for observer personality traits as well. For instance, in several cases, it was observed that predictive validities were highest fr om observers who were neither too introverted nor too extraverted. In terms of observer a ggregation, the current dissertation examined the impact of increasing the number of observers for a given target from one to two. Future studied might examine the impact of aggregating across three or more observers. Though the Oh et al. (2011) meta analy sis reported the diminishing returns of adding additional raters to the aggregate, it is unclear at what point the benefits of adding observers is outweighed by the costs. In addition, building on the finding that observer characteristics matter, future re search should explore best practices for choosing the right observers each other? Should observers rate targets in isolation or discuss their evaluations and come to a conse nsus on ratings? In these cases, the correct balance of reducing idiosyncratic rating tendencies and increasing the pool of relevant target information needs to be achieved. This issue of balancing observer traits across observers can also be extended to w ithin observer matters. Because of sample size limitations it was deemed inappropriate to test higher order interactions between observer personality traits. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that personality traits do commonly interact wi th each other and so, for predictive purposes, considering traits in isolation may not be as effective as considering higher order trait constellations or holistic personality profiles ( Judge & Erez, 2007; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005) For

PAGE 194

1 94 example, it may be the case that conscientious observers are not as effective unless they are also extraverted, or that agreeable observers may be just as effective as disagreeable observers as long as the disagreeable observers are also open to experiences. Futur e research would stand to benefit from examinations of these kinds. Finally, the underlying processes responsible for differences in observer ratings deserve further attention. Researchers might consider laboratory studies designed to parse out the effects of the different stage s of RAM. Are certain processes more important than others? Do processing advantages in one stage offset disadvantages in other stages? Are there other processes responsible for the rater differences observed? Here, integrating resea rch on gossip and interpersonal communication might offer fruitful avenues of future research. For instance, how does second hand information rough this incoming information accurately? Conclusion Not only do r eputational perspectives offer more nuanced approach es to understanding the role of personality in the workplace but, for practical purposes, predictive validities can often be increased by relying on observers as the sources of personality ratings. On the other hand, it is too simplistic to assume that all observers provide equally valid ratings of targets or that observer ratings are universally superior to self ratings. In this regard, theoretical advancements are needed to understand the conditions that enhance or diminish the validity of reputational ratings. Drawing on his dissertation lays a foundation by exploring how issues concerning the number of observers, the personalities of the observers, and the

PAGE 195

195 degree of acquaintanceship between observers and targets impact the capacity of observer ratings to predict workplace outcomes.

PAGE 196

196 Table 7 1 Summary of results: Cases where observer personality impa cted the predictive validity of observer ratings H1 C H2a A H2b A H3a ES H3 b ES H4 O H5 E H6 LOA H7 ID Task Performance Rating of Focal Target Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness Extraversion * Citizenship Behavior Rating of Focal Target Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness * Extraversion Job Satisfaction Rating of Focal Target Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness Extraversion Note. = Predictive validities of observer groups differed in the hypothesized direction (Figures 5 1 through 5 21). = Hierarchical regression analyses uncovered statistically significant inte raction effects (Tables 5 6 through 5 26).

PAGE 197

197 Table 7 2 Summary of results: Cases where observer personality impacted the superiority of reputation vs. identity ratings H1 C H2a A H2b A H3a ES H3 b ES H4 O H5 E H6 LOA H7 ID Task Performance Rating of Fo cal Target Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness Extraversion Citizenship Behavior Rating of Focal Target Co nscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness Extraversion Job Satisfaction Rating of Focal Target Conscientiousness Agreeableness Emotional Stability Openness Extraversion Note. = Instances where the superiority of identity (self ratings) or reputation (observer ratings) personality rat standings on the hypothesized characteristics.

PAGE 198

198 APPENDIX A RECRUITMENT MESSAGE Online Personali t y Survey Volunteers (Denver) I am collecting data as part of my dissertation from the University of Florida and I am lookin g for teams of coworkers and supervisors to complete a brief online personality survey. In exchange, participants will receive detailed feedback concerning how they scored on the validated personality measures and how their scores compare to population nor ms. This is a great opportunity to learn about yourself and your fellow workers. Below, I detail more information about the survey and project and include a link to an online sign up sheet. Thank you very much. Ryan Klinger The purpose of this research project is to examine how accurate people are at rating other people's personalities and whether these ratings can be valuable to organizations. If you are interested in participating, I'm looking for teams of "coworkers/workplace acquaintances" to each f ill out a brief online survey. The survey takes about 10 20 minutes to complete. Here's a brief overview of how the process works: First, you create your own work team yourself and three others and fill out an online form with their contact informati on (see below for a link to this form). Next, I email everybody in the work team a link to the online survey. Then, everybody completes the survey. That's it! When you've collected the names and email addresses for your work team, please click on this li nk or copy and paste it into your web browser: (Online Survey Link).

PAGE 199

199 APPENDIX B INTERPERSONAL DISTAN CE SURVEY Coworker ( N = 250 ) Supervisor ( N = 184 ) Items Mean SD Mean SD 1. Please enter a number corresponding to how many minutes a day on average, you spend with each person. 103.17 144.52 98.46 116.52 2. Please enter a number corresponding to how many phone calls you exchange with each person during a typical work week. 2.18 4.52 2.53 4.33 3. Please enter a number corresponding to how many emails you exch ange with each person during a typical work week. 8.03 4.52 6.07 5.38 4. How close, in distance, do you work with this person? This person is working with me: ( reverse coded) (1) in the same office (2) in the office next door (3) a few offices down the hall (4) in the same building, but on a different floor (5) in a different building 2.43 (1) 43% (2) 17% (3) 15% (4) 2% (5) 23% 1.59 2.43 (1) 20% (2) 33% (3) 38% (4) 1% (5) 8% 1.07 5. This person working with me is: ( reverse coded ) (1) a very close friend (2) a close friend (3) a friend (4) an acquaintance (5) I do not know this person ver y well 2.42 (1) 18% (2) 17% (3) 38% (4) 23% (5) 4% 1.07 2.97 (1) 15% (2) 13% (3) 35% (4) 36% (5) 2% 1.08 6. How long have you known this person? ( in years ) 2.68 3.81 2.62 4.88 Note. SD = Standard deviation.

PAGE 200

200 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, H. F. (1927). The good judge of personality. The Journa l of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 22 172 181. Alessi, E. J., & Martin, J. I. (2010). Conducting an internet based survey: Benefits, pitfalls, and lessons learned. Social Work Research, 34 122 128. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological in terpretation. New York, NY: Holt. Allport, G. W. (1958). What units shall we employ? In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Assessment of human motives (pp. 238 260). New York, NY: Reinhart. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and no ndepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108 441 485. Ambady, N. & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 11 1 256 274. Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 1531 1544. Atwater, L., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self and foll ower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48 35 59. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44 1 26. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, person ality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18 359 372. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Internatio nal Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 9 30. Barrick, M. R., Patton, G. K., & Haugland, S. N. (2000). Accuracy of interviewer judgments of job applicant personality traits. Personnel Psychology, 53 925 951. Benet Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cincos Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 729 750. Bernardin, H. J., Tyler, C. L., & Villanova, P. (2009). Rating level an d accuracy as a function of rater personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 299 310.

PAGE 201

201 Bernardin, H. J., Villanova, P., & Cooke, D. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychol ogy 85, 232 236. Berry D. S., & Hansen J. S. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect, and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 796 809. Berry D. S., & Hansen J. S. (2000). Personality, nonverbal behavior, and interact ion quality in female dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 278 292. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta analysis. Journal of A pplied Psychology, 92 410 424. Block, J. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic shift or improving the quality of research? In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psycho logy (pp. 37 64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bond, C. F., Jr., & Brockett, D. R. (1987). A social context personality index theory of memory for acquaintances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 1110 1121. Bond, C. F., Jr., & Sedikides, C. (198 8). The recapitulation hypothesis in person retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24 195 221. Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 599 614. Bradley, J. P. (1997). Predicting basic military officer training performance with three types of personality measures: Self reports, interviewer ratings and reference ratings. (Doctoral dissertatio n). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (ATT NQ28477) Cammann, C., Fishman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Ass essing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices New York: John Wiley. Carkhuff R. R. (1969) Helping and human relations: A primer for lay and professional helpers (Vol. 1). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Carless S. A. & Imber A. (2007) The influence of perceived interviewer and job and organizational characteristics on applicant attraction and job choice intentions: The role of applicant anxiety. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15 359 371.

PAGE 202

202 Cheek, J. M. (1982). Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer rating study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 1254 1269. Christiansen, N. D., Wolcott Burnam, S., Janovics, J. E., Burns, G. N., & Quirk, S. W. (20 05). The good judge revisited: Individual differences in the accuracy of personality judgments. Human Performance, 18 123 149. Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136 1092 1122. Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta analytic review. International Journal of Selection a nd Assessment, 15 110 117. Conrad, H. S. (1932). The validity of personality ratings of preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 23 671 680. Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta analysis of interrater and internal con sistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 565 579. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Charles Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NE O PI R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52 281 302. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41 417 440. Driscoll, D. M., Hamilton, D. L., & Sorrentino R. M. (1991) Uncertainty orientation and recall of person descriptive information. P ersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 494 500. Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 40 57. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1973). Effects of objective self awareness on attribution of causality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9 17 31.

PAGE 203

203 Edwards, R. M., & Kl einer, B. H. (2002). Conducting effective and legally safe background and reference checks. Managerial Law, 44 136 150. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere Publishing. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On Predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1097 1126. Feldman, K. A. (1986). The perceived instructional effectiveness of college teachers as related to their p ersonality and attitudinal characteristics: A review and synthesis. Research in Higher Education, 24, 139 213. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Flink, C. & Park, B. (1991). Increasing consensu s in trait judgments through outcome dependency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27 453 467. Forehand, G. A., & von Haller Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62 361 382. Fr ese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs. subjective measurement of stress at work and the question of longitudinal studies. In C.L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 375 411). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Funder, D. C. (1980). On seeing ourselves as others see us: Self other agreement and discrepancy in personality ratings. Journal of Personality, 48 473 493. Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating t he accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101 75 90. Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102 652 670. Funder, D. C. (2001). Accuracy in personality judgment: Research an d theory concerning an obvious question. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace: Decade of behavior (pp. 121 140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1991). Explorations in behavioral consistency: Properties of persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 773 794. judgments of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johns on, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617 647). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

PAGE 204

204 Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintances hip. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 656 672. Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 26 461 477. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY : Doubleday/Anchor Books. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48 26 34. Gotlib, I. H., & Joorman, J. (2010). Cognition and depression: Current status and future directions. Annual Review of Clinic al Psychology, 6 285 312. Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35 603 618. Gu, R., Ge, Y., Jiang, Y., & Luo, Y. (2010). Anxiety and outcome evaluation: The good, the bad, and the ambiguous. Biological Psychology, 85 200 206. Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18 135 164. Gurman, A. S. (1977). Therapist and patient factors influencing the patien of facilitative therapeutic conditions. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 40 218 231. Halpern, T. P. (1977). Degree of client disclosure as a function of past disclosure, counselor disclosure, and counselor facil itativeness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24 41 47. Hammar, A., & Ardal, G. (2009). Cognitive functioning in major depression A Summary. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 18 217 225. Harris, M. H. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta analysis of self s upervisor, self peer, and peer supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41 43 62. Hase, H. D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1967). Comparative validity of different strategies of constructing personality inventory scales. Psychological Bulletin, 67 231 248. Hasto rf, A. H., Schneider, D. J., & Polefka, J. (1970). Person perception. Reading, MA; Addison Wesley. Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 507 547). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 205

205 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Heller, D., Watson, D., Komar, J., Min, J., & Perunovic, W. Q. E. (2007). Contextualized personalit y: Traditional and new assessment procedures. Journal of Personality, 75 1229 1253. Hodson G., & Sorrentino R. M. (1999) Uncertainty orientation and the Big Five personality structure. Journal of Research in Psychology, 33 253 261. Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality? European Journal of Personality, 8 149 162. Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2 nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 873 919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163 179). New York NY: Guillford. Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New wine for old whiners. Human Performance, 18 331 341. Hogan, R., DeSoto, C. B., & Solano, C. (1977). Traits, tests, and personality research. American Psychologist, 32 255 264. Howell, R. T., Rodzon, K. S., Kurai, M., and Sanchez, A. H. (2010). A validation of well being and happiness surveys for administration via the internet. Behavior Research Methods, 42 775 784. Horowitz, L. M., Inouy, D., & Siegelman, E. Y. (1979). On aver increase their correlation with an external criterion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47 453 458. Jensen Campbell, L. A., Knack, J. M., Waldrip, A. M., & Campbell, S. D. (2007). Do Big Five personality traits assoc iated with self control influence the regulation of anger and aggression? Journal of Research in Personality, 41 403 424. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory: Versions 4a and 54 Berkeley, CA: University of Californ ia, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Perv in (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114 158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

PAGE 206

206 John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and t he unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61 521 551. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: The ory and research (2 nd ed., pp. 102 138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York, NY: General Learning Press. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilie s, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A quantitative and qualitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 765 780. Judge, T. A., & Erez, A. (2007). Interaction and intersection: The constellation of emotional stability and extr aversion in predicting performance. Personnel Psychology, 60 573 596. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 530 541. Kane, J. S., Bernard in, H. J., Villanova, P., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). The stability of rater leniency: Three studies. Academy of Management Journal 38 1036 1051. Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Partner effects in social interaction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12 34 57. Kenrick, D. T., & Stringfield, D. O. (1980). Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophic boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. Psychological Review, 87 88 104. Kinch, J. W. (1963) A formalized theory of the self concept. The American Journal of Sociology, 68 481 486. Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64 311 337. Kramer J. A., Rappaport, J., & Seidman, E. (1979). Contribution of personal characteristics and interview training to the effectiveness of college student mental health workers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26 344 351. Kruglanski A. W. ( 1996) Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford Pres.

PAGE 207

207 Kruglanski A. W., & Webster D. M. (1996) Motivated closing of the min Psychological Review, 103 263 283. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 311 328. Lee, Y. T., Jussim, L. J., & McCauley, C. R. ( 1995). Stereotype accuracy: Toward appr eciating group differences Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Letzring, T. D. (2008). The good judge of personality: Characteristics, behaviors, and observer accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality, 42 914 932. Letzring, T. D., Well s, S. M., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Information quantity and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 111 123. Levesque, M. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of behavioral predictions at zero acquaintance: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 1178 1187. Lippa, R. A., & Dietz, J. K. (2000). The relation of gender, personality, and intelligence from brief video segments. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24 25 43. Lovejoy, M. C. (1991). Maternal depression: Effect on social cognition and behavior in patient child interaction. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19 693 706. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 616 628. Malloy, T. E., & Albright, L. (1990). Interpersonal perception in a social context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 419 428. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Marsh, H. W., Barnes, J., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Self other agreement on multidimensional self concept ratings: Factor analysis and multitrait multimethod analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 1360 1377. Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1 167 195. Matt, G. E., Vazquez, C., & Campbell, W. K. (1992) Mood congr uent recall of affectively toned stimuli: a meta analytic review. Clinical Psychological Review, 12 227 255. McCrae R. R. (1996) Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120 323 337.

PAGE 208

208 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Di fferent points of view: Self reports and ratings in the assessment of personality. In J. P. Forgas & M. J. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 429 439). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2 nd ed., pp. 139 153). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chic ago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36 121 140. Milgrim, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18 57 76. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment New York, NY: Wiley. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80 252 283. Mi schel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333 352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mischel, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person situation debate. American Psychologist, 34 740 754. Mitchell, V. W. (1998). Improving mail survey responses from UK academics: Some empirical findings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23 59 7 0. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60 683 729. Motowidlo, S. J., Burnett, J., Maczynski J., Witkowski, S., Wojtachnio, A., & Chelpa, S. (1996). Predicting managerial job performance from personality ratings based on a structured interview: An international replication. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27 139 151. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R. & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 272 280. of personality perform better as p redictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18 343 357.

PAGE 209

209 Murray, H. G., Rushton, J. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (1990). Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 42 2 50 261. Nilsen, D. (1995). An investigation of the relationship between personality and leadership performance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (ATT 9612998) perceptions, peer perceptions, and expected peer perceptions of personality attributes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14 417 443. Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, rates, and randomness in personality structure Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 681 691. a reason for low rating behavior, self peer, and peer peer correlations? Social and Behavioral Personality 17 17 28. Oh I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the Five Factor Model of personality traits: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 762 773. Olson J. M., & Zanna M. O. (1993) Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44 117 154. Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60 995 1027. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilch ert, S. (2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18 389 404. Patterson, M. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York, NY: Springer Verlag. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two component mo dels of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 598 609. Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 816 824. Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 307 317.

PAGE 210

210 Paulhus, D. L., & Reynolds, S. (1995). Enhancing target variance in personality impressions: Highlighting the person in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 1233 1242. Paulhus, D. L., & Trapnell, P. D. (2008). Self presentation of personality: An agency communion framework. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3 rd ed., pp. 492 517). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Paunonen, S. V. (1989). Consensus in personality judgments: Moderating effects of target rater acquaintanceship and beh avior observability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 823 833. reports, peer ratings and construct validity. European Journal of Personality, 24 189 206. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (198 6). Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 531 544. Porter, S., Birt, A. R., Yuille, J. C., & Lehman D. R. (2000) Negotiating false memories: Interviewer and rememberer characteristics relate to memory distortion. Psychological Science, 11 507 510. Powers, D. E., & Alderman, D. L. (1982) Feedback as an incentive for responding to a mail questionnaire. Research in Higher Education, 17 207 211. Pytlik Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented by the Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 847 858. Roberts, B. W. (200 6). Personality development and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27 1 40. Roberts, B. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). Personality development and the person situation Psychological Inquiry, 12 104 109. Roberts, B. W., & Caspi, A. (2003). The cumulative continuity model of personality development: Striking a balance between continuity and change in personality traits across the life course. In R. M. Staudinger & U. Lindenberger (Eds.), Understanding human development: Lifespan psychology in exchange with other disciplines (pp. 183 214). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Roberts, B. W., & Donahue, E. M. (1994). One personality, multiple selves: Integrating personality and social roles. Journa l of Personality, 62 199 218.

PAGE 211

211 Roberts, J. E., Gilboa, E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1998). Ruminative response style and vulnerability to episodes of dysphoria: Gender, neuroticism, and episode duration. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22 401 423. Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt T. E. (2000) Two personalities, one relationship: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 251 259. mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 1438 1451. Rogers C. R. (1958) The characteristics of a hel ping relationship. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 37 6 16. Rokke, P. D., Arnell, K. M., Koch, M. D., & Andrews, J. T. (2002), Dual task attention deficits in dysphoric mood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111 370 379. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psych ologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173 220). New York, NY: Academic Press. Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (1996). Meta analysis of interrater reliability of job performance ratings in validity studies of personnel selection. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83 1195 1201. Salgado, J. F., Remeseiro, C., & Iglesias, M. (1996). Personality and test taking motivation. Psicothema, 8 553 562. Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Predictors used in personnel selection: An overview of constructs, methods, and techniques. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psych ology (pp. 165 199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., M. (1995) The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality an d Social Psychology, 68 544 555. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124 262 274. Schmitt, N. (2004). Beyond the Big Five: Increases in understanding and practical utility. Human Performance, 17 347 357.

PAGE 212

212 Schneider, L., Schimmack, U., Petrican, R., & Walker, S. (2010). Acquaintanceship length as a moderator of self informant agreement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44 146 150. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14 296 303. Scott, W. A., & Johnson, R. C. (1972). Comparative validities of direct and indirect personality test s. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38 301 318. Shrauger, J. S., & Shoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86 549 573. Shweder, R. A. (1975). How relev ant is an individual difference theory of personality? Journal of Personality, 43 455 484. Simon, L. S., Judge, T. A., & Halvorsen Ganepola, M. D. K. (2010). In good company? A multi study, multi level investigation of the effects of coworker relationship s on employee well being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76 534 545. Simonson N. R. (1976) The impact of therapist disclosure on patient disclosure. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23 3 6. Skoe E. E., & Ksionzky S. (1985) Target personality charac teristics and self disclosure: An exploratory study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41 14 21. Small, E. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2006). The impact of contextual self ratings and observer ratings of personality on the personality performance relationship Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 297 320. Spain, J. S., Eaton, L. G., & Funder, D. C. (2000). Perspectives on personality: The relative accuracy of self versus others for the prediction of emotion and behavior. Journal of Personality, 68 837 86 7. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27 165 175. Strunk, D. R., & Adler, A. (2009). Cognitive biases in three prediction tasks: A tes t of the cognitive model of depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47 34 40. Stryker, S. (2007). Identity theory and personality theory: Mutual relevance. Journal of Personality, 75 1083 1102. Sutin A. R. (2008) Autobiographical memory as a dynami c process: Autobiographical memory mediates basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations. Journal of Research in Personality, 42 1060 1066.

PAGE 213

213 Taft R. (1955) The ability to judge people. Psychological Bulletin, 52 1 23. Thorne, A. (1989). Conditional p atterns, transference, and the coherence of personality across time. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 149 159). New York, NY: Springer Verlag. Thornton, G. C. III. (1980). Psychometric pro perties of self appraisals of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33 263 271. Tice, D. M. (1992). Self concept change and self presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 435 451. T yagi, P. K. (1989). The effects of appeals, anonymity, and feedback on mail survey response patterns for salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17 235 241. plication outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1313 1318. Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 281 300. Vernon, P. E. (1933). S ome characteristics of the good judge of personality. Journal of Social Psychology, 4 42 57. Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 557 574. Vogt, D. S., & Colvin, R. (2003). Interpersonal orientation and the accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of Personality, 71 267 295. Von Helversen, B., Wilke, A., Johnson, T., Schmid, G., & Klapp, B. (2011). Performance benefits of depression: Sequential decision making in a healthy sample and a clinically depressed sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120 962 968. Warr, P., & Bourne, A. (1999). Factors influencing two types of congruence in multirater judgments. Human Performance, 12 183 210. a surprising convergence with self report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 120 128. Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1991). Self versus peer ratings of specific emotional traits: Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 927 940.

PAGE 214

214 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker S. (1992) Affect, personality, and social activity. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 63 1011 1025. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self and partner ratings. Journal of Pers onality, 68 413 449. Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (2006). Agreeableness and the prolonged spatial processing of anti social and prosocial information. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 1152 1168. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in role behaviors. Journal of Man agement, 17 601 617. Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two tradit ions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105 230 250. Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 59 63. Yeung, K. T., & Martin, J. L. (2003). The look ing glass self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social Forces, 81 843 879. Zimmerman, R. D., Triana, M. C., & Barrick, M. R. (2010). Predictive criterion related validity of observer ratings of personality and job related competencies using multiple ra ters and multiple performance criteria. Human Performance, 23 361 378.

PAGE 215

215 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ryan Klinger r eceived his Ph.D. from the Department of Management at the in the summer of 2012 He received a Ba chelor of Science in psychology from the University of Florida in 2004 and a Master of Science in business administration with a concentration in management in 2006. Ryan is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Old Dominion U differences, employee selection, and job satisfaction.