Application: Personality Assessment & Aggression Bing et al. (2007) Jrnl Applied Psych article: –Compares self-reports of aggression & an implicit measure Conditional Reasoning Test (CRT) – likelihood you’ll consider a behavior reasonable depends your inclination to engage in that behavior Uses ‘justification mechanisms’ or biases that aggressive people may have (hostile attribution bias, derogation of target, etc.)

Bing et al. (cont.) Their typology: 4 groups based on explicit & implicit ratings – –1) Manifest aggressives – self-perception & conditional reasoning congruent  aggressive Cognitively prepared to be aggressive and view their own aggression as justifiable –2) Prosocials – view self as nonaggressive & conditional reasoning is nonaggressive Avoid engaging in aggression

–3) Latent aggressives – view self as nonaggressive, but cognitively ready to be aggressive (justification in place) Likely to retaliate but try to maintain inaccurate self-perception (passive-aggressive) –4) Overcompensating prosocials – view self as aggressive but have cognition to reason as prosocial (controlling) Overly self-critical of own intentions; very high self- monitors

Bing et al. Samples & Results Sample 1- lab experiment w/students –Intentionally frustrated then given chance to lie –Results? Correlation betw implicit & explicit measures? Correlation betw implicit measure & actual lying? Correlation bet explicit measure & actual lying?

(cont.) Sample 2 – univ students & traffic violations (as aggressive behavior?) –Traffic violation obtained via univ. records, not self-report –Results: Correlation betw implicit & explicit measures? Who engaged in most aggression (traffic tickets)? Overcompensating prosocials?

Sample 3 – org setting Hospital employees –Self reports (explicit) of aggression –Coworker reports of deviant work behaviors –Org records of complaints filed against org Correlation of implicit & explicit measures? Who was least deviant? Implications for selection?

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

Influence of Emotions Emotion – overt reactions that express feelings. 4 properties: –1. Emotions have an object – related to event –2. Six universal categories of emotions: what are they? –3. Expression is universal –4. Cultural influence on emotion display

Brief History of Emotions in OB For years, org research dominated by rational-cognitive models –Motivation theories –Job satisfaction evaluations –Simon (1976) viewed emotional aspects of org behavior as ‘irrational’ Recent interest in moods & emotions –Stimulated by social psy (Isen – early 90’s) –Current view ?

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

Org Control of Emotions Orgs often assume that rationality must be preserved & emotions controlled –Ashforth & Humphrey (’95) – 4 types of org control behaviors for emotion regulation: 1. Neutralizing – 2. Buffering – 3. Prescribing – 4. Normalizing – Sept 11 th examples from Driver (2003) study

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

Managing Emotion In addition to research on emot intell, new research on emotional dissonance: –Situation where you’re required to display emotions on the job inconsistent with your true emotions –Can occur in at least 3 ways: how? –Due to expectations of your role –Cognitive & physiological effort involved is referred to as ‘emotional labor’ –Related to stress

(cont.) In emot labor area, Morris & Feldman distinguish: – ‘surface acting’ – ‘deep acting ‘ –Some researchers suggest coping w/this by depersonalizing the situation Cultural differences in emotional labor? Differential effects of SA & DA on burnout