Subjects: Library Science，Information Science >> Information Science submitted time 2023-11-12
Abstract： This paper sets more than 90 indicators in academic achievements, fund projects, academic honors, research directions, international cooperation, awards, academic part-time jobs and other directions, forming a multi-dimensional evaluation system for the scientific research competitiveness of young scholars in universities, and systematically implementing and practical testing through procedural language. This multi-dimensional evaluation system has the characteristics of comprehensive measurement of the quality and quantity of academic achievements, comparison of scholars in different disciplines, and attention to the potential investigation of scholars, which can provide a certain reference for the evaluation of young talents in related fields.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Although research has revealed that work and family can benefit each other (Casper et al., 2018), most companies still hold the belief that family matters often undermine individuals’ abilities to perform their jobs. This belief is based on the notion of “work devotion schema,” which represents a traditional assumption that employees should give priority to their work ahead of other life pursuits (Bourdeau et al., 2019). According to this schema, “ideal workers” are those who are willing to work long hours and do whatever their work demands. In contrast, people who experience work-family conflict are assumed to be preoccupied by family matters and thus as failing to meet the requirements of the ideal employee according to the work devotion schema. As a result, managers are likely to provide fewer job opportunities to these people. It is implied that others at work are very likely to interpret work-family conflict as an indicator of what kind of person the employee is and to interact with him/her accordingly. Therefore, work-family conflict may not only represent a personal experience but also have interpersonal implications in the workplace. Several studies have tested the antecedents and consequences of others’ perceptions of work-family conflict. For instance, Hoobler et al. (2009) showed that managers expected female employees to have higher levels of family-to-work conflict and considered this to make them less well matched to their jobs, thus providing them with fewer opportunities. Moreover, Li et al. (2017) found that supervisor perceptions of work-family conflict were negatively related to employees’ performance ratings. However, the research into others’ perceptions of work-family conflict remains in its early stages. Therefore, by integrating the literature on work-family conflict with that on stereotyping, this study builds an integrative model outlining how others at work (i.e., supervisors and coworkers) form perceptions of an employee’s work-family conflict, and how these perceptions influence his/her workplace outcomes. Specifically, drawing on theories of stereotyping (Cuddy et al., 2009), we propose that employees’ family characteristics (i.e., marital status, number of children, and caring for elders) may increase others’ perceptions of family-to-work conflict (FWC), whereas employees’ work characteristics (i.e., work time, workload, and work autonomy) may increase others’ perceptions of work-to-family conflict (WFC). We also identify the boundary conditions of these relationships by proposing the moderating roles of the focal employee’s gender and the perceiver’s gender egalitarianism. Moreover, building on the stereotype content model and the warmth-competence framework (Fiske et al., 2002), we delineate the interpersonal consequences of work-family conflict—that is, how others view and react to an employees’ work-family conflict. We propose that others’ perceptions of an employee’s work-family conflict can influence their perceptions of the employee’s competence and warmth. Employees who are perceived to have FWC will tend to be viewed as less competent, whereas those who are perceived to have WFC will tend to be viewed as less warm. Likewise, we propose the moderating roles of the focal employee’s gender and the perceiver’s gender egalitarianism in the relationships between perceptions of FWC/WFC and perceptions of competence/warmth. Finally, we extend the theoretical model by proposing leadership emergence and workplace ostracism as behavioral consequences of perceptions of competence, and supportive behavior and approach aggression behavior as behavioral consequences of perceptions of warmth. This study makes several contributions to the literature on work-family conflict. Theoretically, it opens a new avenue for research on work-family conflict by exploring its interpersonal mechanisms and by teasing out the antecedents of others’ perceptions of work-family conflict and the consequences of these perceptions. This study also advances our understanding of social perceptions in the workplace by positing that work-family conflict can serve as an important signal about an employee, to which supervisors and coworkers react accordingly. Practically, as with many stereotypes that affect workplace decisions, this study provides important implications for managers and coworkers to be aware of their own biases. Managers and coworkers should ensure that biased perceptions of work-family conflict do not affect their interpersonal behavior with other employees, as the elimination of such bias will help to create a more just and favorable working environment.
Subjects: Psychology >> Management Psychology submitted time 2021-07-31
Abstract： Studies have shown that others’ (i.e., supervisors and coworkers) perceptions of work-family conflict have a great impact on employees’ work outcomes. However, this research is still at an early stage. It is unclear how supervisors and coworkers form their perceptions of employees’ work-family conflict and how these perceptions influence employees’ work outcomes. We add to this line of research by incorporating the literature on work-family conflict with that on stereotyping. We propose that an employee’s family and work characteristics might influence others’ perceptions of work-family conflict. Based on the competence-warmth framework, we further argue that others’ perceptions of work-family conflict may influence perceptions of competence and warmth, which in turn influence their reactions to the focal employee. Our model opens a new avenue for the research into work-family conflict by exploring its interpersonal mechanisms and by teasing out the antecedents of others’ perceptions of work-family conflict and the consequences of these perceptions. " "
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Management Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Applied Psychology submitted time 2021-04-02
Abstract： Normative misperception refers to the cognitive bias between an individual’s normative perception and people’s true views of the behaviors or attitudes of others. The occurrence of normative misperception has been proven to be universal, and it occurs when people mistakenly estimate the benefit of a certain attitude and/or behavior. Scholars have begun to draw on normative misperception to explain humans’ social behavior. However, whether different types of norm misperception (behavioral vs. attitudinal misperception) have different effects on behavior, and whether different normative information (descriptive vs. injunctive normative information) diverges in alleviating the normative misperception and its influence on behavior remain unclear. We also ask whether the theory of impression management could be applied to normative misperception in exploring the psychological mechanism underlying its impact on behavior. The current study aims to address these issues with food waste in dining out as the target behavior. Study 1 was a correlational study based a survey carried out among residents from six provinces situated in the western, central, and eastern regions of China. We measured the independent variables (behavioral misperception and attitudinal misperception), dependent variable (food wasting behavior during the most recent eating out), and mediators (three dimensions of impression evaluation: sociability, morality, and competence) with scales developed in previous literature. After excluding outliers and participants who failed the attention check question, we collected 957 valid data. In study 2, two two-factorial experiments (descriptive normative vs. non-normative information in experiment 1; injunctive normative vs. non-normative information in experiment 2) were conducted to test the effects of descriptive (injunctive) normative information on behavioral (attitudinal) misperception. We also ran bootstrap analysis separately for each set of data to determine the relationship among normative information, misperception, impression evaluation, and food wasting behavior. The results of study 1 showed that participants tended to overestimate others’ food waste and their approval of wasteful behavior, and both misperceptions had significant positive effects on food waste, implying that these misperceptions not only exist, but also promote people’s food wasting behavior further. The t-test revealed a greater effect on attitudinal misperception as opposed to behavioral misperception on food waste. In addition, as speculated, the sociability dimension of impression evaluation mediated the relationship between both misperceptions and wasteful behavior, whereas the mediating role of morality and competence were not significant. In other words, because participants overestimated others’ wasteful behavior and their degree of approval, they worried that being too economical in public might be considered as being stingy or indecent, and this worry further bred wasteful behavior. Study 2 confirmed the difference between the mechanisms underlying the two types of normative information: descriptive normative information reduced the behavioral misperception itself, creating a new normative perception among the participants and prompting them to switch from complying with the original norm (people generally waste food) to adhering to the new one (people’s wasteful behavior is not as common as imagined), which mitigated misperception’s negative effect on wasteful behavior. On the contrary, injunctive normative information did not decrease the attitudinal misperception itself but rather moderated the relationship between the misperception and behavior: misperception still existed, but its prescriptive power declined. The findings of this study highlight the importance of considering the distinction between the two types of normative misperception in social norm campaigns, and suggest two possible ways of correcting people’s normative misperception: providing descriptive normative information to decrease people’s behavioral misperception and providing injunctive normative information to ameliorate attitudinal misperception’s detrimental effect on behavior. "
Subjects: Psychology >> Management Psychology submitted time 2019-02-20
Abstract： Power disparity refers to the differences in the concentration of power among team members. Although the pervasiveness and importance of power disparity have been well recognized, it is less clear about whether power disparity is functional or dysfunctional. Researchers have suggested that power disparity can facilitate team performance by facilitating coordination, while it has also been shown to trigger team conflict since power disparity may be perceived as unequal and unfair. In this context, our study mains to reconcile the contrasting perspectives by proposing procedural justice and team legitimacy as the contingences of the relationship between power disparity and team conflict (i.e., task conflict and relationship conflict). Drawing on the perspective of power struggle, we propose that in a situation where power disparity is perceived as legitimate due to high level of procedural justice, members are likely to accept the current distribution of power, and thus coordinate with each other. However, when power disparity is perceived as illegitimate, as generated by low level of procedural justice, members are likely to view power disparity as unequal and unfair. In this case, low ranked members may tend to rebel the current power distribution by competing over power, thereby resulting in team conflict. Data were collected from two manufacturing companies in Zhejiang Province. To reduce the potential influence of common method bias, we used a two-wave design with a one-month interval. At Time 1, 450 employees within 90 teams responded to the questions on power disparity, procedural justice, team legitimacy and control variables. At Time 2, 376 employees within 81 teams who completed Time 1 survey responded to the questions on task conflict and relationship conflict. The final sample contained 322 employees within 70 teams. We measured individuals’ power through round-robin design (i.e., asking individual to rate the power of each team member) and calculated the coefficient of variation in individuals’ power to indicate the degree of power disparity within a team. Moreover, we aggregated the measures of task conflict, relationship conflict, procedural justice and team legitimacy to the group level for analyses. Results showed that both procedural justice and team legitimacy moderated the relationship between power disparity and team conflict (task conflict and relationship conflict). When procedural justice was high, power disparity was negatively related to task conflict and relationship conflict, while these relationships became positive when procedural justice was low. In a similar vein, when team legitimacy was high, power disparity was negatively associated with task conflict and relationship conflict, whereas power disparity was positively related to task conflict and relationship conflict when team legitimacy was low. Moreover, procedural justice was shown to positively related to team legitimacy. Finally, following the procedures suggested by Grant and Berry (2011), we conducted a mediated moderation analysis to test the integrative model. Result showed that team legitimacy mediated the moderation effect of procedural justice on the relationship between power disparity and team conflict (task conflict and relationship conflict). Our findings contribute to literature in two ways. First, this study extends our current understanding of the relationship between power disparity and team conflict by testing procedural justice and team legitimacy as the moderators of this relationship. Second, our findings reveal that power disparity can either decrease or increase team conflict when procedural justice （team legitimacy） is high and low, respectively. By doing so, our study provides a new approach to integrate the functional and dysfunctional perspectives on the effect of power disparity.
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment