Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:57:48.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defense of the Situation: An Interactionist Explanation for Performance on Situational Judgment Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Alexandra M. Harris ,
Lane E. Siedor ,
Yi Fan ,
Benjamin Listyg  and
Nathan T. Carter
Alexandra M. Harris*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Lane E. Siedor
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Yi Fan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Benjamin Listyg
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Nathan T. Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alexandra M. Harris, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: alexandra.harris25@uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whereas Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) propose a model of situational judgment test (SJT) performance that removes the “situation” in favor of conceptualizing SJTs as a measure of general domain knowledge, we argue that the expression of general domain knowledge is in fact contingent on situational judgment. As we explain, the evidence cited by Lievens and Motowidlo against a situational component does not inherently exclude the importance of situations from SJTs and does overlook the strong support for a person–situation interaction explanation of behavior. Based on the interactionist literature—in particular, the trait activation theory (TAT) and situational strength literatures—we propose a model that both maintains the key pathways and definitions posited by Lievens and Motowidlo and integrates the situational component of SJTs.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 23 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait-activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Personnel Psychology, 55, 137–163. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00106.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., Lievens, F., Kleinmann, M., Brändli, M., Fraefel, L., & König, C. J. (2013). Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 326–341. doi:10.1037/a0031257 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1149–1179. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinmann, M., Ingold, P., Lievens, F., Jansen, A., Melchers, K., & König, C. (2011). A different look at why selection procedures work: The role of candidates’ ability to identify criteria. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 128–146. doi:10.1177/2041386610387000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumm, S., Lievens, F., Hüffmeier, J., Lipnevich, A. A., Bendels, H., & Hertel, G. (2015). How “situational” is judgment in situational judgment tests? Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 399–416. doi:10.1037/a0037674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F., Chasteen, C. S., Day, E. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2006). Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 247–258. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.247 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lievens, F., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2016). Situational judgment tests: From measures of situational judgment to measures of general domain knowledge. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., & Keen, G. (2015). The interplay of elicitation and evaluation of trait-expressive behavior: Evidence in assessment center exercises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1169–1188. doi:10.1037/apl0000004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R. (2001). 5 years of progress: A reply to Block. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 108–113. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchers, K. G., Bösser, D., Hartstein, T., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Assessment of situational demands in a selection interview: Reflective style or sensitivity? International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 20, 475–485. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meriac, J. P., Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., & Fleisher, M. S. (2008). Further evidence for the validity of assessment center dimensions: A meta-analysis of the incremental criterion-related validity of dimension ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1042–1052. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1042 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. doi:10.1177/0149206309349309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rockstuhl, T., Ang, S., Ng, K., Lievens, F., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Putting judging situations into situational judgment tests: Evidence from intercultural multimedia SJTs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 464–480. doi:10.1037/a0038098 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tett, R. P., Simonet, D. V., Walser, B., & Brown, C. (2013). Trait activation theory: Applications, developments, and implications for person–workplace fit. In Christiansen, N. D. & Tett, R. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 71–100). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar