Browsing by Author "Parker, Debra K."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item The effects of realistic job previews on coping(1997) Parker, Debra K.; Dipboye, Robert L.The effect of receipt of a realistic job preview (RJP) on employees' coping skills was explored. The RJP lowered employees' expectations, but did not result in better met expectations for those in the treatment group, in comparison to those in the control group, who did not receive an RJP. The RJP interacted with employees' tenure in affecting social coping; for the treatment group, as tenure increased, social coping decreased. In contrast, for the control group, social coping remained the same across months of tenure. Finally, the RJP interacted with negative affectivity. For the control group, as negative affectivity increased, controllability decreased. Treatment subjects' controllability ratings were similar across levels of negative affectivity. The study indicates that RJPs may have important outcomes beyond reducing turnover.Item The influence of dimension concreteness on assessors' judgments(1991) Parker, Debra K.; Gaugler, Barbara B.Assessment center dimensions have often been found to be low in convergent and discriminant validity (Hinrichs & Haanpera, 1976; Sackett & Dreher, 1982; Sackett & Hakel, 1979; Turnage & Muchinsky, 1982). Assessors' use of prototypes may interfere with assessment center ratings. Reliance on prototypes may be especially pronounced when dimensions are abstract. In this study, the influence of concrete dimensions on assessors observations, classifications, rating accuracy, and convergent and discriminant validity was investigated in an assessment center simulation. Sixty-six university students were trained as assessors. Using either concrete or abstract dimensions, they then evaluated the performance of confederates in three situational exercises. Subjects who rated concrete dimensions classified behaviors more accurately, rated dimensions more accurately according to two accuracy measures, and produced somewhat better convergent and discriminant validity than did subjects who rated abstract dimensions. Subjects who rated abstract dimensions had more accurate ratings according to one accuracy measure than did subjects who rated concrete dimensions.