This study examined the construct of work-nonwork boundary fit, or the congruence between an individual's work-nonwork boundary management preferences and the work-nonwork boundary management policies and practices supplied by their employer. The present study used boundary theory and person-environment (P-E) fit theory to propose that high levels of work-nonwork boundary fit would be beneficial to mental and physical health, both directly and indirectly via the dual mechanisms of conflict and enhancement. Survey methods and latent congruence modeling (LCM) were used to test these hypotheses, which were then supplemented by polynomial regression response surface mapping and qualitative analysis. Results showed that high levels of boundary fit were beneficial for mental health over time, both directly and indirectly via lowered work-to-nonwork conflict. There was no support for the mechanism of work-nonwork enhancement, although this may be due to range restrictions within the data, such that most of the participants experienced very high levels of work-nonwork enhancement. Contrary to hypotheses, high levels of boundary fit was found to be detrimental for physical health over time. Potential reasons for these differential effects are proposed, as are contributions to the literature, practical applications, and directions for future research.

The main goal of this thesis was to examine the effects of family-to-work conflict on safety performance. Data were collected from a sample of 134 employees, consisting primarily of construction workers. Results found that levels of conflict from the family role to the work role negatively affected participants' workplace cognitive failure, or cognitively based errors that occur during the performance of a task that the person is normally successful in executing. Workplace cognitive failure, in turn, was a significant predictor of levels ofsafety performance, both employees' compliance with safety procedures and the extent to which they participated in discretionary safety-related activities. Although family-to-work conflict did not significantly predict levels of safety performance, results suggest that it is a practical antecedent of workplace cognitive failure, which is an important predictor of safety behaviors. Future research should explore further antecedents to workplace cognitive failure.

The Group Process Questionnaire (GPQ), a 55-item rating scale, was developed by Richard Wollert in 1981 to assess perceptions of the frequency of processes occurring in self-help groups (SHGs). The GPQ was first employed by Wollert, Eakins, and Dixon (Note 1) as the primary data collection instrument in an ongoing investigation of urban SHGs. This investigation is one of a small number of empirical studies which have attempted to specify the range of SHG activities. Due to the relatively recent emergence of SHGs as topics of research, and the unique obstacles to research presented by the independent character of these groups, previous discussions of their methods of operation have been primarily theoretical and impressionistic in nature.

No description available.

This study investigated the effects that self-regulation prompts and goal orientation may exhibit on self-regulatory processes and subsequent learning. Specifically, a moderated mediation model was developed to explain how self-regulation prompts interact with prove performance goal orientation to affect two mediational processes, time on task and self-regulatory activity, and ultimately impact learning within a learner-controlled e-learning environment. To assess these hypotheses, an online Microsoft Excel instructional program was developed wherein 197 participants had control over when and where they completed training, the content they reviewed, the delivery medium (text-based or video-based), and the sequencing and pace at which they progressed through training. Participants in the experimental condition were periodically asked questions (i.e., self-regulation prompts) designed to encourage self-assessment of learning progress and strategies. All participants completed questionnaires before and after training. Findings did not support the hypothesized model. Implications and limitations as well as recommendations for future research will be discussed.

Given the substantial monetary and nonmonetary costs that both employees and organizations can incur as a result of perceived workplace discrimination, it is important to understand the outcomes of perceived workplace discrimination as well as what moderates the discrimination-outcome relationship. While other meta-analyses of perceived discrimination have been published, the current meta-analysis expands prior meta-analytic databases by 81%, increasing the stability of the estimated effects. In addition, several prior meta-analyses have not focused exclusively on workplace discrimination. Consequently, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide a comprehensive quantitative review of perceived workplace discrimination, its consequences, and potential moderators of these relationships. Results showed that perceived workplace discrimination was related to decreased job satisfaction, reduced organizational commitment, greater withdrawal, and more perceived organizational injustice. Further, perceived workplace discrimination was associated with decreased mental health and physical health, lower ratings of life satisfaction, and increased work stress. Moderator analyses provided some evidence that perceiving the general presence of discrimination in one's organization may be more detrimental than perceiving oneself to be personally targeted by discrimination at work. Additionally, moderator analyses provided some support that interpersonal discrimination may be more detrimental than formal discrimination for some outcomes and that there may be differences in the perceived workplace discrimination-outcome relationships across different countries. The implications for workplace discrimination research and practice are discussed.

Patient safety climate is defined as a holistic snapshot of enacted work environment practices and procedures related to patient safety, derived from shared perceptions of social and environmental work characteristics. While patient safety climate has been touted as a critical factor underlying safe patient care, our understanding of input factors influencing shared climate perceptions and, in turn, the effects of climate as a collective, group-level construct on important outcomes remains underdeveloped, both theoretically and empirically. Therefore, the current study examines (1) the antecedents that impact individual patient safety climate perceptions and (2) the relationships between hospital unit patient safety climate and two important unit level outcomes: patient willingness to recommend a facility to others and patient safety. This study also examines climate strength--the degree to which climate perceptions are shared--as a moderator of these relationships. While climate is conceptualized as a holistic description of the working environment, existing evidence has focused on relationships between the independent dimensions of patient safety climate and patient safety. No study to date has examined the configurations (i.e. patterns or profiles) among the multiple dimensions of patient safety climate or how these configurations are related to important employee and patient outcomes. This gap is redressed in the current study by examining patient safety climate in terms of three profile characteristics: (1) climate elevation (i.e., mean positive or negative valence across all dimensions), (2) climate variability (i.e., variance among dimensions), and (3) climate shape (i.e., the pattern of peaks and valleys among climate dimensions). Evidence from studies of general organizational climate suggests that the shape of the pattern among climate dimensions, the overall mean score across dimensions, and the degree to which dimension scores vary are predictive of employee attitudes, customer satisfaction, and organizational financial performance (Dickson et al., 2006; Joyce & Slocum, 1984; Jackofsky & Slocum, 1988; Gonzalez-Roma, Peiro, & Zornoza, 1999; Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Schulte et al., 2009). The current study, then, tests a theoretical model of patient safety climate examining the configural nature of the construct. An archival dataset collected from seven hospitals located in a metropolitan area of the southeastern United States was utilized to test study hypotheses. Data was collected from 3,149 individuals nested within 84 hospital units using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (Sorra & Nieva, 2004). Unit level patient safety and patient willingness to recommend was collected by the hospital risk management and nursing administration departments. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM7; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) was utilized to test hypotheses regarding antecedents of individual level perceptions of patient safety climate to account for the fact that individuals were nested within hospital units. Traditional multiple regression analyses were utilized to test unit level hypotheses examining the relationships between unit level patient safety climate and patient outcomes. Results indicated that unit membership was significantly related to individual climate perceptions--specifically, individual-level climate profile elevation. In turn, individual climate profile elevation and profile variability were related to employee willingness to recommend their organization to family and friends in need of care. At the unit level of analysis, climate profile variability was significantly related to patient willingness to recommend the organization to others, and climate shape was found to be related to patient safety. Furthermore, these results were not dependent on climate strength. The current study meaningfully contributes to the conceptual understanding of the patient safety climate construct by examining the degree to which configural aspects of the construct are predictive of important outcomes across multiple levels of analysis. In this way, it extends beyond existing studies of climate configurations to examine relationships at multiple levels of analysis and to also examine the moderating effects of climate strength. Practically, results provide insight into how the construct of patient safety climate can be used diagnostically and prescriptively to improve patient care and the working environment for providers. In addition to contributing to the theoretical understanding of the patient safety climate construct, this study also augments the evidence-base available to administrators, front-line providers, and regulators regarding how patient safety climate can be used to guide and align quality improvement efforts for greatest impact.

Trust is gaining attention for its benefits to both teams and organizations as a whole (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). The difficulty of building it in comparison to the ease of destroying it calls for a deeper understanding of trust, as well as its relationship with critical team outcomes (Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012). Unfortunately, current research has progressed in a disjointed manner that requires the integration of findings before a more parsimonious and descriptive understanding of trust at the team-level can be developed. Beyond this basic understanding, research is needed to explore the nature of trust in teams comprised of diverse members, as multi-national, multi-cultural, and interdisciplinary teams are increasingly characterizing the modern landscape. Thus, this article uses meta-analytic techniques to examine the extent to which mutual trust can serve as an underlying mechanism that drives the diversity-team performance relationship. First, surface-level and deep-level diversity characteristics varied in their impact on trust. Value diversity emerged as the most detrimental, along with the moderating effect of time. Second, 95 independent samples comprising 5,721 teams emphasized the importance of trust to team performance with a moderate and positive relationship. Third, mediation analyses answered recent calls (e.g., van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) to examine underlying mechanisms that can explain the diversity-outcomes relationship. This showed age, gender, value, and function diversity to be related to performance through mutual trust. Furthermore, this study explores whether contextual (e.g., team distribution) as well as measurement (e.g., referent) issues pose systematic differences in the diversity-trust and trust-performance relationships. Surprisingly, the construct of trust at the team-level proved to be generalizable across a number of unique conditions. In addition to this extensive quantitative review, implications and future research are discussed.

Across domains, organizations and society are facing a trust deficit (Twenge, Campbell, & Carter, 2014). This is problematic, as trust is important to a variety of critical organizational outcomes, such as perceived task performance, team satisfaction, relationship commitment, and stress mitigation (Costa, Roe, & Taillieu, 2001), and has been cited as a motivator for cooperation and knowledge transfer due to its capacity to reduce fear and risk of exploitation (Chen et al., 1998; Fleig-Palmer & Schoorman, 2011; Irwin & Berigan, 2013; Yamagishi & Sato, 1986), and a key component of collaboration. As organizations increasingly rely upon collaboration for achieving important outcomes, it is of critical importance that organizations understand how to not only develop interpersonal trust in collaborative partnerships to facilitate these positive outcomes, but also the way in which interpersonal trust is broken and can be repaired when problems inevitably arise. Though research has begun to investigate trust violation and trust repair, relatively little is known about trust development, violation, and repair as a process that unfolds over time. This is problematic, as cross-sectional studies fail to capture change, both in terms of how trust itself changes as well as how the effect of a violation or the utility of a repair strategy may be weaker or stronger in the long-term than the short-term. Thus, findings from a single point in time may result in different conclusions and recommendations than those that would result from long-term investigation. Therefore, this study examines how interpersonal trust patterns unfold within individuals, and how these patterns differ between individuals depending on the type of violation and the repair strategy employed. An experimental study using discontinuous growth modeling to examine intraindividual and interindividual differences in trust processes found that generally, trust was negatively impacted more after an intentional ("will do") violation as compared to a competence ("can do") violation, such that it had a greater impact on character assessments than a competence violation and also damaged perceptions of ability as much as a competence violation. These negative impacts carried over into trust restoration, which was significantly slower after an intentional violation than a competence violation. Furthermore, study findings suggest that after an intentional violation, trust restored more quickly when surveillance was implemented than when compensation was offered. Though the opposite did not hold true for a competence violation, the findings did approach significance. Drawing from these findings, implications and future research recommendations are discussed.

To date, the vast majority of research regarding personality in IO Psychology has relied on self-report assessments. Despite support for the utility of third-party assessments, IO Psychologists have only just begun extensive research in this area. Connelly and Ones (2010) conducted a meta-analysis that demonstrated that accuracy of third-party ratings improved as intimacy between the judge and the target grew. This remained true with the exception of predicting behavioral criteria, where non-intimates maintained superior predictability (Connelly & Ones, 2010). This was later contradicted by a recent investigation that found the best predictive validity for third-party assessments when they are taken from personal acquaintances as opposed to work colleagues (Connelly & Hulsheger, 2012). The current study is intended to investigate how the depth of the relationship and breadth of behavioral observations differentially moderate the relationship between third-party personality assessments and accuracy criteria (i.e., self-other overlap, discriminant validity and behavior). Results indicate that both depth and breadth impact accuracy criteria and they do so differentially based on trait visibility and evaluativeness. These findings will be discussed along with practical implications and limitations of the following research.