The January 2010 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology is out, and there are some good articles to take a look at. It just may be more difficult to see them. More on that in a minute.
First, here are some of the titles in this issue:
Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. A must for anyone interested in EI; posits and supports a cascading model whereby emotion perception-->emotion understanding-->emotion regulation-->job performance.
Time is on my side: Time, general mental ability, human capital, and extrinsic career success. GMA shown to have strong links to two extrinsic measures of career success, income and prestige. (ah, but are smart people happier?)
I won’t let you down… or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Core self-evaluations' impact on job performance may depend on how much they focus on others.
Understanding performance ratings: Dynamic performance, attributions, and rating purpose. Performance ratings are influences by a variety of things, including overall performance variance and purpose of the ratings.
Okay, so back to my earlier comment: it appears that APA has restricted viewing abstracts of their journals to registered members (hence the lack of links in this post). On the one hand, no big deal, it appears you can simply register to gain access. On the other hand...why should someone have to do this? This is another unfortunate example of research being restricted (first by charging exorbitant fees for articles, now through personal identification) and contributes to the field being insular.
Granted, APA's not the only one that does this (hey buddy, got $400 for the CRL?) but that doesn't excuse it. Our field benefits from sharing of information, not just among professionals but with the general public. Requiring registration does not further that goal. Thankfully some individual researchers (see the sidebar on the main page) allow access to their work--something we should all be grateful for.
1 comment:
Yeah, it's bad for science. One of the core concepts of science is peer review and sharing information. APA should put that priority above gathering more data on its visitors.
Post a Comment