Predictors of cheating behavior at a university: A lesson from the psychology of work

The present study investigated students' behavior across academic departments to establish how personality, demographic, educational, attitudinal, and climate (both psychological and departmental) predicted self-reported cheating behavior at a university, Participants were 107 students from a variety of academic disciplines, The results explain 50.5% of the variability in self-reported cheating behavior in terms of demographic (male, school education qualifications), departmental climate, and individual differences (Lie and Neuroticism scales), We concluded that an expanded theoretical perspective (utilizing a wide range of person and situation variables) explained more variability than would otherwise be explained from any single perspective, and that findings from the literature of integrity at work generalize to educational settings. Finally, we discuss the limitations and implications of this research.

Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated

In the first of two articles presenting the case for emotional intelligence in a point/counterpoint exchange, we present a brief summary of research in the field, and rebut arguments against the construct presented in this issue.We identify three streams of research: (1) a four-branch abilities test based on the model of emotional intelligence defined in Mayer and Salovey (1997); (2) self-report instruments based on the Mayer–Salovey model; and (3) commercially available tests that go beyond the Mayer–Salovey definition. In response to the criticisms of the construct, we argue that the protagonists have not distinguished adequately between the streams, and have inappropriately characterized emotional intelligence as a variant of social intelligence. More significantly, two of the critical authors assert incorrectly that emotional intelligence research is driven by a utopian political agenda, rather than scientific interest. We argue, on the contrary, that emotional intelligence research is grounded in recent scientific advances in the study of emotion; specifically regarding the role emotion plays in organizational behavior. We conclude that emotional intelligence is attracting deserved continuing research interest as an individual difference variable in organizational behavior related to the way members perceive, understand, and manage their emotions.

The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior

In this second counterpoint article, we refute the claims of Landy, Locke, and Conte, and make the more specific case for our perspective, which is that ability-based models of emotional intelligence have value to add in the domain of organizational psychology. In this article, we address remaining issues, such as general concerns about the tenor and tone of the debates on this topic, a tendency for detractors to collapse across emotional intelligence models when reviewing the evidence and making judgments, and subsequent penchant to thereby discount all models, including the ability-based one, as lacking validity. We specifically refute the following three claims from our critics with the most recent empirically based evidence: (1) emotional intelligence is dominated by opportunistic academics-turned-consultants who have amassed much fame and fortune based on a concept that is shabby science at best; (2) the measurement of emotional intelligence is grounded in unstable, psychometrically flawed instruments, which have not demonstrated appropriate discriminant and predictive validity to warrant/justify their use; and (3) there is weak empirical evidence that emotional intelligence is related to anything of importance in organizations. We thus end with an overview of the empirical evidence supporting the role of emotional intelligence in organizational and social behavior.

Diversity and Emotion: The New Frontiers in Organizational Behavior Research

This article provides a review of recent developments in two topical areas of research in contemporary organizational behavior: diversity and emotions. In the section called “Diversity,”we trace the history of diversity research, explore the definitions and paradigms used in treatments of diversity, and signal new areas of interest. We conclude that organizational behavior in the 21st century is evolving to embrace a more eclectic and holistic view of humans at work. In the section called “Emotions,” we turn our attention to recent developments in the study of emotions in organizations. We identify four major topics: mood theory, emotional labor, affective events theory (AET), and emotional intelligence, and argue that developments in the four domains have significant implications for organizational research, and the progression of the study of organizational behavior. As with the study of diversity, the topic of emotions in the workplace is shaping up as one of the principal areas of development in management thought and practice for the next decade. Finally, we discuss in our conclusion how these two areas are being conceptually integrated, and the implications for management scholarship and research in the contemporary world.

Stereotypic explanatory bias: Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination

Two experiments examined whether a measure of implicit stereotyping based on the tendency to explain Black stereotype-incongruent events more often than Black stereotype-congruent events (Stereotypic Explanatory Bias or SEB) is predictive of behavior toward a partner in an interracial interaction. In Experiment I SEB predicted White males' choice to ask stereotypic questions of a Black female (but not a White male or White female) in an interview. In Experiment 2 the type of explanation (internal or external attribution) made for stereotype-inconsistency was examined. Results showed that White participants who made internal attributions for Black stereotype-incongruent behavior were rated more positively and those who made external attributions were rated more negatively by a Black male confederate. These results point to the potential of implicit stereotyping as an important predictor of behavior in an interracial interaction. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Social structure in migrating humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Although largely solitary, humpback whales exhibit a number of behaviours where individuals co-operate with one another, for example during bubble net feeding. Such cases could be due to reciprocal altruism brought on by exceptional circumstances, for example the presence of abundant shoaling fish. An alternative explanation is that these behaviours have evolved through kin selection. With little restriction to either communication or movement, diffuse groups of relatives could maintain some form of social organization without the need to travel in tight-nit units. To try to distinguish between these hypotheses, we took advantage of the fact that migrating humpback whales often swim together in small groups. If kin selection is important in humpback whale biology, these groups should be enriched for relatives. Consequently, we analysed biopsy samples from 57 groups of humpback whales migrating off Eastern Australia in 1992. A total of 142 whales were screened for eight microsatellite markers. Mitochondrial DNA sequences (371 bp) were also used to verify and assist kinship identification. Our data add support to the notion that mothers travel with their offspring for the first year of the calf's life. However, beyond the presence of mother-calf/yearling pairs, no obvious relatedness pattern was found among whales sampled either in the same pod or on the same day. Levels of relatedness did not vary between migratory phases (towards or away from the breeding ground), nor between the two sexes considered either overall or in the north or south migrations separately. These findings suggest that, if any social organization does exist, it is formed transiently when needed rather than being a constant feature of the population, and hence is more likely based on reciprocal altruism than kin selection.