Sentencing Guidelines Reform Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Condemning Guidelines Reform - Research Paper Example In like manner options have been taken a gander at for guilty parties of peaceful wrongdoing, for example, network administration. The Need for Sentencing Reforms The jail populace has been quickly developing for a long time, with an expansion of 7% in the period from 2000 to 2005 (King, 2007). The expense every day per detainee of keeping hoodlums imprisoned is noteworthy making the increments in jail populace negative to the financial plans of numerous states. Likewise, there are costs related with building new penitentiaries if the populace increments to that expand, and the related space and land use. This spots substantial interest on arrangement creators to attempt to decide condemning laws and changes that will restrain the jail populace. Disciplines for wrongdoing are produced for numerous reasons including political, for example, attempting to win casts a ballot in a political race, anyway one of the prevalent drivers is diminishing the degree of wrongdoing. The potential re sults for perpetrating a wrongdoing assume a huge job when people conclude whether to finish a wrongdoing. For instance, wrongdoing and discipline can be seen as a feature of a monetary model, where the individuals who consider violations weigh up the advantages of the wrongdoing versus all the potential expenses. On the off chance that the discipline for wrongdoing is high contrasted with the prize, at that point they are bound to reexamine, this is particularly evident if the probability of arraignment and discipline is high (Reynolds, 1990). Hence changes in condemning must glance at a harmony between keeping the quantity of detainees low, yet at the same time giving compelling discipline and impediment to wrongdoings. Furthermore, discipline for wrongdoing can act to change conduct in crooks. For instance, sedate guilty parties are frequently determined to a great extent by a need which originates from their compulsion, and cheats might be reacting to covetousness. Jail life may change this longing in a segment of the individuals who are detained, giving them an opportunity to consider what their identity is and what they are doing. Projects inside jail and outside of it that attention on breaking addictive practices, for example, treatment alternatives for tranquilize guilty parties can likewise be extremely profitable strategies for diminishing crime percentage. This is on the grounds that without the dependence driving them, numerous lawbreakers that submitted medicate offenses will no longer have the equivalent solid need or want to. At long last, detainment isn't a powerful arrangement in all cases. At the point when a wrongdoing is submitted out of an apparent need, especially on account of chronic drug use, detainment goes about as a discipline, yet never really diminish the probability of re-offense. At the point when the criminal is discharged, the drivers that made him affront in the primary case are as yet present, and re-offense is likely. Medi cation Based Sentencing Reforms Sentencing change enactment has concentrated on lawbreakers who have submitted low level offenses. This area will analyze a portion of the sorts of enactment in more detail. Thirteen states passed enactment that took a gander at expanding the accessible alternatives for tranquilize treatment for the enormous number of peaceful medication based wrongdoings. Of these states, nine passed laws that made or expanded condemning preoccupation for sedate guilty parties. Condemning redirection includes condemning sending the criminal to an office or a program that worked with them in rewarding their medication issue. This was at that point present in various states, however condemning changes attempted to explain ambiguities inside the law, along these lines permitting condemning redirection to be utilized in an expanded number of cases. Louisiana built up an alternate condemning preoccupation model for sedate wrongdoings than is utilized in different states. The model in this state takes into consideration the sentence to be occupied and the person to start the treatment program without an announcement of blame, or a

Leadership Skills Seminar essays

Authority Skills Seminar articles The possibility of authority improvement is regularly tormented by misinterpretations also, legends. One of the most harming of these legends is that administration is a characteristic quality that can't be learned or enhanced. This is by no means obvious: administration abilities can, truth be told, be scholarly, and the motivation behind this workshop is to help every one of you get familiar with a portion of the significant Once, administration aptitudes were thought to apply just to individuals in positions high up in the corporate structure. Today, administration abilities are turning into a completely significant piece of pretty much every individual's business aptitude set. We progressively work in groups where we should figure out how to deal with the yield of others, in both a normal office condition, and in virtual situations. In that capacity, administration abilities are a significant piece of the range of abilities of each individual in this room. Today, we'll be taking a gander at the administration of United States Navy Leader D. Michael Abrashoff to help represent initiative ideas. Abrashoff is the man accountable for the USS Benfold, the $1 billion warship that is won the lofty Spokane Trophy for the best battle status in the armada. You may expect Abrashoff to be an inflexible, military sort yelping arranges in the style of George S. Patton. In all actuality, Abrashoff's administration style is as dynamic as any found in the business world at enormous. His prosperity implores us to ask: How has he been so effective utilizing imaginative administration aptitudes in such an inflexible domain' Today, we'll be taking a gander at a portion of the hypotheses that underlie his prosperity. The possibility of the wellspring of intensity or authority is significant in administration. The vast majority are likely the most acquainted with the force gotten from being a specialist in a field. In that capacity, a dental specialist of specialist attracts power from their master information a specific zone. Abrashoff's authority style originates from a couple of significant bases of ... <!

Why Children With ADHD Need Structure and Routines

Why Children With ADHD Need Structure and Routines ADHD Parenting Print Why Children With ADHD Need Structure and Routines By Keath Low Keath Low, MA, is a therapist and clinical scientist with the Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities at the University of North Carolina. She specializes in treatment of ADD/ADHD. Learn about our editorial policy Keath Low Medically reviewed by Medically reviewed by Steven Gans, MD on August 05, 2016 Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital. Learn about our Medical Review Board Steven Gans, MD Updated on August 13, 2019 ADHD Overview Symptoms Causes Diagnosis Treatment Living With In Children 10000 Hours / DigitalVision / Getty Images If youre parenting a child with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), youve likely heard how important it is to expose such children to routines  and a structured environment. But what does that mean exactly, and how does structure help? With this overview, get a better understanding of why routines are the key to caring for children with trouble focusing. Understanding Structure Structure is a term one hears a great deal as it relates to parenting children with ADHD. So, what does structure look like? Simply put, a structured environment is one that is organized and predictable. When your child has day-to-day routines and a schedule to follow, this creates structure in their lives. Consistent house rules, expectations, and consequences that are clearly understood by your child (and positively reinforced by you) help maintain a predictable environment. In a structured environment, your child knows what to expect. This knowledge creates a sense of security, which is why most children benefit from structure whether they have ADHD or not. How to Organize Your Home to Help a Child With ADHD Structure and ADHD Many children are capable of structuring their  chores, schedules, and activities and of developing good habits on their own. For a child with ADHD, however, this is a much more difficult undertaking because of how the disorder functions. Children with ADHD struggle with the ability to regulate themselves. This means they find it challenging  to stop impulsive behaviors and keep their focus when there are so many distractions pulling them in different directions. The symptoms of ADHD lead to problems with self-control. As a result, children with ADHD need more external controls (i.e. structure) in order to help them manage symptoms. When you build in external controls at home, you are helping your child to experience more successes and also teaching them good habits and skills along the way. With structure, children learn to set aside the same block of time to complete their homework or to establish a bedtime and morning routine. Simple moves  such as taking a shower and picking out clothing for school the night before can make getting to school on time the following morning much easier. A Helpful Analogy One way to help explain structure is to use an analogy. Structure is a lot like scaffolding. In other words, the routines, the reminders, and limits you set and the consistency you provide is a lot like the scaffolding used on tall buildings. This scaffolding provides support as the building is going up, or “growing.” Similarly, when you create structure at home, you are providing the support needed to help your child be successful and develop greater competence. As a result, your childs  self-confidence  grows. Eventually, this will help your child develop skills to organize and structure their lives as they move into adulthood. Helpful ADHD Resources

Analysis Of James Henry Whitakers s A Mini Club Man ...

Introduction: In 1890 James Henry Whitakers founded this organization making his own in Christ church home using his horse and van (today it’s a mini club man), formerly when he was working for a confectioner in England, at the age of 14 he first got a taste for the stuff. Then he came to Newzealand.It in 1890’s and began to put this chocolate expertise into business and e himself sells it door to door. (And now this was the third generation of Whittaker family leading this business in chocolate world.) In 1896 he moved to wellington to make Australia’s premium chocolate from them he started elaborating his business. In 1913, his sons Ronald James join him in partnership to for J.H.Whittaker and sons. This company supports motor equestrian sports nationality (Newzealand’s).Their Business took off over the years with chocolates being eagerly sought by more more respected retailers. Retailer’s played a vital role in taking off J.H.Whittaker Business over years in the chocolate world. Their family saying â€Å"Blood is thicker than water and chocolate is thicker than that.† The Company themselves controls its entire manufacturing process, calling itself a â€Å"Beam to Bar manufacturer, to ensure top – Quality products. E-MARKETING STRATEGY – Newzealand’s most trusted Brand In 1992 the company formed J.H.Whittaker Australia Ltd.The Company’s marketing phrases include â€Å"A Passion for chocolate since 1896 â€Å"Good honest chocolate.†And by the reader’s Digest survey this company isShow MoreRelatedStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 Pagesand permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290. Many of the designations by manufacturers

The Parts of a Computer - 563 Words

Power Supply A power supply unit (PSU) is the component that supplies power to the other components in the computer. As Sam is likely to be using a computer for long periods of time I would recommend a powerful power supply with 750W and the maximum voltage available currently which is 12V. This power supply guarantees to deliver clean, stable, continuous power. The power supply also is 80PLUS Gold certified which means it is 92% energy efficient. However this power supply may be expensive so Sam could downgrade the voltage size for example to 3V at a cheaper price. Processors Fan Heat Sink (HSF) A computer fan is a cooling fan placed inside a computer case used for cooling purposes, it reduces the heat which is generated from the computer and increases energy efficiency. The faster the fan the less energy will be wasted. This is great for Sam as I believe he will be using his computer quite often which means a lot of heat will be generated using a cooling fan will keep the hardware components at a steady temperature to allow continuous processing. USB Ports Universal Serial Bus (USB) is a device that allows communication between other devices and a host such as computers. USB has effectively replaced the previous removable devices such as the floppy disk which was used to save and transfer files from one computer to another. They are a variety of interfaces such as serial and parallel ports. Sam will need to use USB compatible devices such as mice, keyboards, digitalShow MoreRelatedComputer Component Upgrade : Parts Of A Computer Essay2061 Words   |  9 Pages Digital Technology Internal BMC 11INTE_02 3 March 2016 Computer Component Upgrade Parts of a Computer Processor A Processor is the ‘workhorse’ of the computer doing all of the calculations and processes that are required to power the computer programs that the user are is running. A processor would find it hard to keep up with all of the most current programs that needed to be run if it only had one section that could operate. So over time, CPU’s have been engineered to have moreRead MoreThe Basic Parts That Make Up A Computer1337 Words   |  6 PagesLawson City Since you are looking to upgrade or purchase a new set of computers, I would like to discuss the basic parts that make up a computer. It is important for everyone to have a basic understanding of what makes a computer. As technology advances, it’s important that you be able to make an educated decision on whether to upgrade or to replace your current systems. The difference can be a good deal of your hard earned money. Therefore, I will be detailing the Operating System, Processor, MemoryRead MoreComputers And The New Wave Parts Manufacturing1475 Words   |  6 PagesNeokat Liburd Mr. Sirois Civics Honors 6/2/15 How do I Qwikscope w/ 3D Printed Guns Microwaves, computers, cell phones, what do they all have in common? desktop fabricators. desktop fabricators have paved the way for engineers by making the impossible possible. They are the new wave parts manufacturing because of their intelligent manufacturing process and part by part building applications. desktop fabricating also known as â€Å"3D Printing † or â€Å"Additive Manufacturing† is a build process in which productsRead MoreExplain The Various Parts Of The Computer And Their Functions806 Words   |  4 Pages Various pARts of the Computer and Their Function †¢ Housing The lodging is the piece of your PC that holds every one of the parts that make the PC work. In a desktop tower, the lodging does exclude a screen, console or mouse. A comprehensive PC houses both a screen and the segments that make the PC work, however does exclude a mouse or console. A portable workstation incorporates the screen, console, mouse (or mouse elective) and the segments that make the PC work †¢ Motherboard The motherboardRead MoreEssential Parts of Computer and How It Works2621 Words   |  11 PagesContents II. Introduction 2 III. Computers 2 A. CPU 2 B. Memory storage 3 1. Primary storage 3 2. Secondary storage 4 C. Peripherals 8 1. Ink-jets (bubble-jets) printers 8 2. Laserjet printers 9 IV. Connecting To Internet 10 V. Conclusion 12 VI. Reference List 13 * Introduction Nowadays, running business in 20th century means that you got to be clever about technology. When companies are striving for higher achievements and more-efficient workability, innovation is whatRead MoreComputers Are A Necessary Part Of Our Lives Day Essay2152 Words   |  9 PagesComputers are indeed a necessary part of our lives day in and out. Some of us need to face them all day, others spend only a few hours or less. Nevertheless it is undeniable all of us get to a certain point in time where our eyes feel the strain of using it. How can we avoid computer eyestrain? Here are a few pointers to help our eyes stay healthy. Break up the time we spend on the computer. For those that need to spend hours at a time on the computer, the degree of eyestrain often correlatesRead MoreComputer Viruses Are An Dangerous Part Of The Internet Of Things Essay2099 Words   |  9 PagesComputer viruses are an unfortunate daily occurrence, due to their high prevalence and ability to do a r ange of things. They can range from simple packet sniffing to data mining to keylogging. In my paper, I will be discussing computer viruses, how they’re constructed, the different types of viruses, how they work and the steps that can be taken to prevent against them. I believe that computer viruses are an extremely dangerous part of the internet of things, and everyone should be very cautiousRead MoreA Career in a Vital Part of Society, Computers Essay664 Words   |  3 Pagestoday’s age, the human race has great dependences on computers, vital in order for society to function. Various systems depend on the use of computers, which brings the question. Who can help build and maintain these diverse mechanisms? This brought me to a career that appreciated how electronics benefit and help shape our future. Many Fields derive from Electronics Technology, yet one had captured my interest Computer Hardware Specialists†. Computer Hardware Specialists consist of variou s studies andRead MoreRisk Management : An Essential Part On Computer Security Planning1455 Words   |  6 Pagestreats, no matter how secure the system is. Planning for security isn’t possible. However, performing a full risk assessment of developing security protocols and enforcing control to avoid network devastation. Risk management plays an essential part on computer security planning. The risk analysis gives an idea to make an educated assumption regarding network security. The process of risk analysis identifies existing security controls, calculates current vulnerabilities, and evaluates the consequencesRead MoreComputers Has Become An Essential Part Of People Life1100 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction: Over the last sixty years, computers has become an essential part of people life. It’s used in almost every filed such as education, health and agriculture to the name but few. As the technology advances, people rely more and more computers in everyday activities. Nowadays, every person has at least a mini computer in their pocket called a smart phone which not only can it make calls, but also collect information about its surrounding environment and makes it available for many applications

Cognitive Ability Free Essays

string(46) " cognitive ability and victimization at work\." Journal of Applied Psychology 2010, Vol. 95, No. 5, 889 –901  © 2010 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/10/$12. We will write a custom essay sample on Cognitive Ability or any similar topic only for you Order Now 00 DOI: 10. 1037/a0019985 Get Smarty Pants: Cognitive Ability, Personality, and Victimization Eugene Kim and Theresa M. Glomb University of Minnesota Drawing on the victim precipitation model, this study provides an empirical investigation of the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization at work. You read "Cognitive Ability" in category "Essay examples" We propose that people high in cognitive ability are more prone to victimization. In this study, we also examine the direct and moderating effects of victims’ personality traits, specifically the 2 interpersonally oriented personality dimensions of agency and communion. Results support the direct positive relationship of cognitive ability and victimization. The positive relationship between high cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by the victims’ personality traits; agency personality traits strengthen the relationship of cognitive ability and victimization, whereas communion personality traits weaken this relationship. Keywords: cognitive ability, victimization, personality, agency, communion Recently, a Seattle Times article described the victimization of Suzuki Ichiro, a high-ability baseball player who achieved 200 hits for 8 consecutive years and was the 2007 All Star Game Most Valuable Player (see Baker, 2008). The article reported that his teammates from the Seattle Mariners stated they â€Å"really dislike him† and wanted to â€Å"knock him out† because this high-ability player cares more about individual records than team records. A popular press article (Bruzzese, 2002) reported that victims of workplace bullying are often employees who are â€Å"smart† and â€Å"talented,† and organizations that fail to prevent victimization against these talented employees will experience their turnover, decreases in productivity, and increases in health care costs (see also Murphy, 2006). Similarly, a survey of workplace victimization suggests that â€Å"bright† people are often targets of interpersonal aggression because of their high level of ability (Namie Namie, 2000). In the school context, research by Peterson and Ray (2006a, 2006b) on gifted children suggests that many high-ability students experience bullying in school because of their intellectual capability. Although each of the above examples provides a mere glimpse into the phenomena of victimization, together they suggest that ability may be a critical precipitating factor in victimization. However, there is limited research attention to the possibility that ability, specifically cognitive ability, may be associated with being a target of victimization—the possibility of â€Å"smart victims. Given that Brand (1987) posited â€Å"cognitive ability is to psychol- This article was published Online First August 16, 2010. Eugene Kim and Theresa M. Glomb, Department of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference , New Orleans, Louisiana. We are grateful to Michelle Duffy, Paul Sackett, and the participants of the Center for Human Resources and Labor Studies Workshop for comments on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eugene Kim, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Avenue South, Room 3-300, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: kimx0897@ umn. edu 889 ogy as carbon is to chemistry† (p. 257), it is surprising that cognitive ability has not received attention in the workplace victimization literature. This study takes an important first step in establishing the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization in an organizational context; it builds the scholarly knowledge base of workplace victimization and suggests that smart victims may be important to consider in attempts to prevent workplace victimization. In doing so, it makes contributions to the literature on cognitive ability, victimization, and an emerging theme in management research suggesting that victims may precipitate aggression from others in the workplace (for review, see Aquino Thau, 2009). We outline these contributions below. First, this study suggests an exception to the generally accepted idea that cognitive ability is associated with various positive outcomes. Previous research confirming that cognitive ability predicts many job and real-life outcomes is plentiful (see Brand, 1987; Jensen, 1998; Kuncel, Hezlett, Ones, 2004; Schmidt Hunter, 1998); however, typically these outcomes are favorable. In comparison, we propose victimization, a negative outcome, will be higher for those high in cognitive ability. Understanding the relationship between cognitive ability and workplace victimization is particularly relevant because cognitive ability is used in selection decisions (Heneman Judge, 2005) and is strongly related to skill and knowledge acquisition, task performance, and creativity at work (Kuncel et al. , 2004). Thus, understanding workplace victimization for those high in cognitive ability can reduce the risk of negative outcomes for these highly desirable employees, including decreased motivation, job satisfaction, and task performance (Glomb, 2002, in press) as well as lower team and organizational performance (Aquino Thau, 2009). Second, this study extends the scope of the victim precipitation model, the idea that victims either intentionally or unintentionally provoke potential perpetrators. The limited application of the victim precipitation model emphasizes submissive and provocative victim characteristics (Aquino, 2000; Olweus, 1993) but has not posed the possibility of smart victims (for exceptions, see Namie Namie, 2000; Peterson Ray, 2006a, 2006b). By positing and testing the idea that smart victims may also adhere to the victim 890 KIM AND GLOMB recipitation model, we extend this theoretical framework beyond the typical submissive and provocative victim typologies. Third, we extend previous research by considering two basic personality dimensions—agency and communion (Digman, 1997; Wiggins, 1991)—and their interplay with cognitive ability and victimization. According to Bakan (1966), agency is defined as individualization in a group, and it involves independence, dominance, and persona l growth; communion is defined as integration of the individual in a group, and it involves cooperation, attachment, and caring (see also Wiggins, 1991). The original aim of agency and communion personality traits was to understand and distinguish interpersonal behaviors between individuals (Wiggins, 1991), thereby making agency and communion especially relevant to workplace victimization in which the interpersonal relationship of perpetrators and victims is critical for understanding victimization motives (see Schafer, 1977). Drawing primarily on the theory of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), we propose that communion is negatively related to victimization and also buffers the relationship of cognitive ability and victimization, whereas agency is positively related to victimization and also strengthens the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. In summary, in this study we advance theoretical and empirical research on workplace victimization by examining the role of cognitive ability in precipitating victimization at work and how personality traits linked to more favorable interpersonal interactions (i. e. agency and communion) may have direct and moderating effects on victimization. Workplace Victimization The prevalence of harmful behaviors among employees has been reflected in a growing body of academic research (e. g. , Aquino Thau, 2009; Barling, Dupre, Kelloway, 2009; Bowl? ing Beehr, 2006; Douglas et al. , 2008; Glomb, Steel, Arvey, 2002; Hershcovis et al. , 2007; Neuman Baron, 2005; Sackett DeVore, 2001). Researchers have examined interpersonal workplace aggression—any form of interpersonal behavior to harm, injure, or discomfort the target at work (Baron Richardson, 1994; Glomb, 2002)—at the individual level (e. . , Baron Neuman, 1996) and have also extended theoretical and empirical frameworks to consider group-level (e. g. , Glomb Liao, 2003) and dyadic (e. g. , Andersson Pearson, 1999) relationships. Drawing on theories of victimization (e. g. , Curtis, 1974; Schafer, 1968; Sparks, Genn, Dodd, 1977), researchers have also examined workplace victimization—the self-perception of being a target of interpersonal aggression at work (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, Allen, 1999; Aquino Thau, 2009)—at the individual level (e. g. , Aquino et al. 1999; Glomb, 2002), group level (e. g. , Aquino Byron, 2002), and dyadic level (e. g. , Aquino Lamertz, 2004). Drawing on criminology theory in which victim precipitation (Curtis, 1974 ) and victim elements (Schafer, 1968) are studied, researchers have suggested typical characteristics of victims. For example, Olweus’s (1978, 1993) work in school settings resulted in the proposition of two types of victims. One type of victim is labeled submissive victim and is more anxious, cautious, quiet, and sensitive than other students. In contrast to submissive victims, some students who show highly aggressive behaviors can also become the targets of aggression; Olweus (1993) referred to them as provocative victims. Although Olweus’s research was in a school setting, similar themes of victim types have been suggested in organizational contexts. For example, Aquino and colleagues (Aquino Bradfield, 2000; Aquino Byron, 2002; Aquino et al. , 1999) posited that self-determination, aggressiveness, dominating interpersonal behavior, and negative affectivity are typical characteristics of victims. Individuals low in self-determination are more likely to be targets of aggression (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999) and may be likened to submissive victims. Individuals high in aggressiveness (e. g. , Aquino Bradfield, 2000) and dominating interpersonal behavior (e. g. , Aquino Byron, 2002) may be likened to provocative victims. Individuals high in negative affectivity may be likened to either submissive or provocative victims because negative affectivity is related to either insecurity and anxiety or hostility and aggression (e. . , Aquino Bradfield, 2000; Aquino et al. , 1999). In other words, previous research suggests that certain types of individuals, either submissive or aggressive people, may be more frequent targets of aggression in both school and organizational contexts. Although existing research has enhanced the understanding of victimization, there is limited attention to the role of an important individual difference— cognitive ability (for possible exceptions, see Namie Namie, 2000; Peterson Ray, 2006a, 2006b). Peterson and Ray (2006b) showed that many smart students experienced bullying in school contexts and that intellectual capability is one of the most frequently reported reasons for being bullied. In their study, 36% of smart students were called derogatory names (e. g. , dork, geek, nerd, smarty, idiot, moron, retard, dumb), and 19% of them were teased about their grades and intelligence. According to Peterson and Ray’s (2006a) qualitative study, some high-ability students reported that the envy of lowability students contributes to targeting smart students. Interviewees stated that â€Å"gifted kids have the upper hand in classrooms† and â€Å"good kids usually get what they want† (p. 257). In addition, some students responded that competition between gifted students contributes to targeting one another. One interviewee reported being the target of bullying from â€Å"other gifted kids who didn’t like that I was smarter than they were† (p. 258). One exception to the lack of research on ability and victimization in organizational contexts is a survey of working adults by Namie and Namie (2000). Although this study was not focused on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization, their survey data provide insight into this issue. In their survey, more than 20% of survey participants (i. e. , targets and witnesses) responded that bright people were targets of interpersonal aggression, reporting that perpetrators envied the targets’ high level of competence and abilities (21%) and that perpetrators treated them as competitors or challengers who threatened their superiority (31%). Literature on school bullying among gifted children, employee reports of smart victims, and the submissive/provocative victim typology suggest that understanding the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization in an organizational context is valuable. Linking Cognitive Ability and Victimization The victim precipitation model (e. g. , Amir, 1967; Curtis, 1974; Gottfredson, 1981; Schafer, 1968, 1977; Sparks et al. , 1977) undergirds the proposed relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. The core argument of the model is that victims COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 891 exhibit behavioral tendencies (either intentional or unintentional) that provoke potential perpetrators to respond to them with harmful behaviors (see Aquino et al. , 1999; Schafer, 1977). In other words, at a minimum, victims unknowingly are at risk of victimization for their individual characteristics; at a maximum, individual characteristics lead to behaviors that elicit victimization from potential perpetrators. Cognitive ability may function as a â€Å"victim precipitator† for several reasons. First, the desirable characteristics of high-cognitive employees may unintentionally instigate other employees to react to them with harmful behaviors. As noted above, cognitive ability plays a central role in the prediction of myriad important workplace outcomes, including task performance, training performance, counterproductive work behavior, creativity, and career success (e. g. , Dilchert, Ones, Davis, Rostow, 2007; Jensen, 1998; Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, Barrick, 1999; Kuncel et al. , 2004; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, Feldman, 2005; O’Reilly Chatman, 1994; Schmidt Hunter, 1998). For example, the validity of cognitive ability in predicting task performance, training performance, and creativity is . 51, . 57 (Schmidt Hunter, 1998), and . 36 (Kuncel et al. , 2004), respectively. However, these favorable outcomes may also create conditions for victimization. Such positive outcomes of highcognitive-ability employees make them more likely to be targets of an upward or a lateral social comparison process within a work group because individuals choose a â€Å"standard setter† who has high ability as a comparative target (Feldman Ruble, 1981; Festinger, 1954). As a consequence, these comparisons may elicit negative cognitive and affective states, such as lowered self-evaluation and emotions of envy, shame, hostility, and interpersonal competition (e. g. , Garcia, Tor, Gonzalez, 2006; Smith, 2000; Tesser, Millar, Moore, 1988), which in turn increase the likelihood of becoming the target of victimization. In other words, the positive characteristics of high-cognitive-ability employees unintentionally place them at risk of being a target because others want to restore their lowered self-evaluation and negative emotions following comparison (see Fein Spencer, 1997; Smith, 1991). Schafer (1977) categorized this type of victim as someone who has done nothing against the perpetrators but whose unintentional behaviors or outcomes instigate the perpetrators to commit aggressive behaviors toward the victim. Second, the favorable characteristics of high-cognitive-ability employees may instigate other employees within a work group to react to them with harming behaviors in a more intentional way. An experimental study by Menon and Thompson (2007) found that individuals in higher (relative) social comparison positions are more likely to overestimate that they are a threat to others. This perceptual bias leads them to experience uncomfortable interpersonal relationships as â€Å"asymmetries in threat appraisal [strain] social interactions during a conflict situation† (p. 6). In their study, people who regarded themselves as threatening elicited less favorable reactions from a counterpart and lower satisfaction with the interaction, even though these perceptions about threat were not communicated explicitly during the interaction. In an organizational context, because of the positive work outcomes of highcognitive-ability employees, they are more likely to have favorable views of them selves, to perceive that others are threatened by them, and to distrust others’ motives (i. e. , self-enhancing bias; Menon Thompson, 2007). In other words, high-cognitive employees may overestimate the comparison threat they pose to other group members, which may result in a change in behaviors—for example, avoidance or condescension—toward other group members. This change in behavior then elicits harming behaviors from others (see Duffy, Shaw, Schaubroeck, 2008). In summary, drawing on the victim precipitation model, we argue that high-cognitive-ability employees may instigate other individuals to respond to them with interpersonally aggressive behaviors. First, high-cognitive-ability employees may unintentionally provoke potential perpetrators because of their position as upward or lateral social comparison targets, thereby fostering negative affective and cognitive states in others who turn to harming behaviors. Second, high-cognitive-ability employees may provoke potential perpetrators because of their overestimates of how threatening they are, which results in changed behaviors against coworkers that promote more negative interactions. Accordingly, we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 1: High cognitive ability is positively related to victimization. We note that the current study is unable to address the specific mechanism for the association between cognitive ability and victimization. Rather, we propose likely theoretical mechanisms and conduct empirical tests that would lend support for this association without testing the exact meditational processes. The Role of Personality Traits: Agency and Communion According to Bakan (1966), there are â€Å"two fundamental modalities in the existence of living forms, agency for the existence of an organism as an individual and communion for the participation of the individual in some larger organism of which the individual is part [emphasis added]† (p. 14). Wiggins (1991) integrated Bakan’s idea into the personality literature, defining agency and communion as â€Å"the condition of being a differentiated individual and the condition of being part of a larger social or spiritual entity [emphasis added]† (p. 9), and proposed that the agency– communion model is relevant to understand and distinguish interpersonal behaviors between individuals. Personality researchers have used agency and communion as umbrella terms that broadly cover self-oriented terms (including independence, egoistic bias, ambition, self-competence, personal growth, and instrumentality) versus group-oriented terms (including cooperation, attachment, consideration, warmth, nurturance, and socialization), although these constructs are not exactly the same (e. g. Abele Wojciszke, 2007; Digman, 1997; Wiggins, 1991). Previous research suggested that two broad dimensions—akin to agency and communion—are independent higher order dimensions of personality in the interpersonal circumplex (e. g. , Blackburn, Renwick, Donnelly, Logan, 2004; Digman, 1997; Wiggins, 1991). With regard to the five-factor model of personality, Trapnell and Wiggins (1990) found that agency corresponds primarily to the dominance aspect of extraversion and that communion corresponds primarily to agreeableness (see also Peabody Goldberg, 1989; Wiggins, 1991). Digman (1997) has also derived two independent higher order factors that correspond to an agency and communion taxonomy; agency corresponds to extraversion and openness (i. e. , personal growth), and communion corresponds to agreeableness, con- 892 KIM AND GLOMB scientiousness, and emotional stability (i. e. , socialization; see also John, 1990; McCrae Costa, 1996). Recently, Abele and Wojciszke (2007) confirmed previous studies by showing that a pool of 300 trait items (e. g. , communion, collectivism, morality, and femininity items for communion; agency, individualism, competence, and masculinity items for agency) is educed to the two broad dimensions of agency and communion. This idea is well summarized by Abele and Wojciszke, who stated the following: There is a long tradition in social and personality psychology to distinguish fundamental dimensions for the description of persons and groups: social and intellectual desirability, individualism and collectivism, independent and i nterdependent self, competence and morality, competence and warmth, dominance and nurturance, masculinity and femininity, and so on. Following Bakan (1966), we call these fundamental dimensions agency and communion. (p. 759) a similar vein, Aquino and Bommer (2003) showed that high levels of organizational citizenship behavior decreases victimization; presumably, this relationship may be due to a positive reciprocity norm. Overall, targets who have high agency personality traits do not engage in the positive reciprocity cycle and are more likely to be engaged in the negative reciprocity circle, which increases the likelihood of victimization. Targets who have high communion personality traits are more likely to be engaged in the positive reciprocity circle with coworkers, which decreases the likelihood of victimization. Therefore, we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 2: High agency is positively related to victimization. Hypothesis 3: High communion is negatively related to victimization. Integrating the victim precipitation model with theories of reciprocity, we propose the moderating roles of agency and communion personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. Although high levels of cognitive ability and competence may make someone predisposed to victimization, this may depend on their interpersonal interactions with others as influenced by their agency and communion personality traits. Because agency-driven behaviors do not build a norm of positive reciprocity or possibly initiate a norm of negative reciprocity, it strengthens the positive relationship between targets’ cognitive ability and victimization. For example, employees who are high in cognitive ability and agency traits may use their talent to increase individual performance, which may negatively impact other group members. Conversely, because communion-driven behaviors initiate a norm of positive reciprocity between the giver and the taker, it circumvents or buffers the positive relationship between targets’ cognitive ability and victimization. For example, employees who are high in both cognitive ability and communion traits may use their talent to increase group performance (e. g. , help coworkers with workloads or problems). Such behaviors contribute to build the positive reciprocity cycle with coworkers and thereby weaken the likelihood of victimization because of high cognitive ability. Put simply, being smart and focused on oneself will lead to more victimization, but being smart and focused on group members will lead to less victimization. Although there is no direct empirical evidence suggesting an interactive effect of cognitive ability and agency and communion traits on victimization, recent studies hint at the plausibility of such an effect. For example, Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2006) suggested that people differentiate one another by competence as well as likeability, which in turn affects their cognitive and affective content of interpersonal perception (see also Collins, 1981). Similarly, Casciaro and Lobo (2005) suggested the importance of competence and likeability in a work setting; when individuals were high in both competence and likeability, coworkers treated them as â€Å"lovable stars,† but when individuals were high in competence and low in likeability, coworkers treated them as â€Å"competent jerks. † Consistent with the previous conceptual arguments, Casciaro and Lobo (2008) showed that individuals who are competent and likeable form more task interaction networks, whereas individuals who are competent and dislikeable fail to form task Put simply, agency and communion personality traits are independent multidimensional constructs (Saragovi, Koestner, Dio, Aube, 1997) that reflect self-oriented and group-oriented behaviors. Given that behaviors are rooted in personality traits (see Fleeson, 2001; Hogan Holland, 2003; Moskowitz Cote, 1995) and that agency and communion personality traits serve to describe interpersonal behaviors (Wiggins, 1991), we propose that individuals who have more agency traits, such as independence, egoistic bias, ambition, and self-competence, are involved in agency-driven behaviors, such as seeking goals and being less concerned about others. Conversely, individuals who have more communion traits, such as communality, socialization, consideration, and warmth, are involved in communion-driven behaviors, such as helping and nurturing coworkers and developing harmonious interpersonal relationships with coworkers. The direct relationship between agency and communion personality traits and victimization is supported by theories of reciprocity. Agency-driven behaviors do not build a norm of positive reciprocity, at best (Axelrod, 1984), and initiate a norm of negative reciprocity, at worst (Andersson Pearson, 1999). In the absence of a norm of positive reciprocity, employees do not feel obligated to respond to (positive) actions with other positive actions. Individuals high in agency engage in agency-driven behaviors, which may be at the expense of and harmful to others. A norm of negative reciprocity will perpetuate these harmful behaviors. Thus, aggressive behaviors against individuals who are high in agency may, in fact, increase. This implies higher victimization for people who have agency traits that either block the positive reciprocity norm or elicit the negative reciprocity norm through agency-driven behaviors. Conversely, communion-driven behaviors initiate a norm of positive reciprocity between the giver and the taker (Gouldner, 1960). In other words, the taker generally responds to the communion-driven behavior with another communion-driven behavior toward the giver. After building a norm of positive reciprocity, both givers and takers are reluctant to violate this relationship through harming one another because it breaks the social norm and promotes a reputation for being untrustworthy, unkind, and unthankful (Cialdini, 2001; Gouldner, 1960). Thus, individuals who are high in communion traits engage in communion-driven behaviors and perpetuate a norm of positive reciprocity in which they are less likely to be the targets of interpersonal aggression. In COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 893 interaction networks. Although failure to form task networks with â€Å"competent jerks† is distinct from victimizing them, this work does suggest withholding something favorable from them—a behavior that is consistent with some passive, indirect forms of victimization examined here (e. . , withholding information or resources). In line with this research, we predict that two interpersonally oriented personality dimensions that affect likeability play a critical role in the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization; smart individuals who are high in agency traits may experience more victimization, whereas smart individuals who are high in communion traits may experience less victimization. Therefore, we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 4: The relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by agency, such that when targets are high in cognitive ability, targets high in agency will experience more victimization than those lower on agency. Hypothesis 5: The relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by communion, such that when targets are high in cognitive ability, targets high in communion will experience less victimization than those lower on communion. Method Participants and Procedure Two hundred and seventeen employees of an organization that manages health care homes for individuals with disabilities voluntarily completed paper-and-pencil surveys during on-site survey administration with researchers. 1 Participants were guaranteed confidentiality. Employees within a health care home worked closely with one another to provide excellent care and service for the residents, and they constitute our work groups. Of the respondents, 95% were Caucasian, 74% were women, and 35% were employed full time. Average tenure was 22 months, and average age was 24 years. The organization had administered the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1984) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough Bradley, 1996) to job applicants prior to hire, and the Wonderlic and CPI scores of our respondents were linked to the survey data from the current study using identifiers. Fifty employees who did not have Wonderlic and CPI scores were excluded. After listwise deletion of individuals with incomplete information, the final sample was composed of 133 employees in 27 groups (i. e. , health care homes). Group size ranged from two to 10 members (average 4. 93). Comparisons between those respondents who were in our final sample and those who were deleted because of missing data revealed only one significant difference; excluded employees had slightly lower negative affectivity scores ( p . 05). Measures Cognitive ability. Cognitive ability was assessed using the Wonderlic Personnel Test prior to hire. The Wonderlic Personnel Test is a 50-item, 12–20-min omnibus test of intelligence, and it was originally designed to measure general mental ability for personnel selection. The manual reports that test–retest reliability ranges from . 82 to . 94 and that interform reliabilities range from . 73 to . 95 (Wonderlic, 1984). Victimization. Victimization was assessed using the 20-item Aggressive Experiences Scale (AES)-Target scale (Glomb, in press; Glomb Liao, 2003). Illustrative items are â€Å"how often has a coworker or supervisor made angry gestures toward you? â€Å"how often has a coworker or supervisor spread rumors about you? † and â€Å"how often has a coworker or supervisor belittled your opinions in front of others? † Respondents indicated the frequency of their victimization experience using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (once a week or more). One item was removed because of zero variance (â€Å"how often has a coworker or superviso r physically assaulted you? †). The coefficient alpha of the AESTarget scale was . 87. Agency and communion. At present, there are not commonly accepted assessments of agency and communion, perhaps because of their designation as higher order constructs. Agency and communion have been measured by the Masculinity and Femininity scales from several personality inventories, including the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, Stapp, 1974) and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974; for review, see Helgeson, 1994; Saragovi et al. , 1997). Agency and communion have also been measured using the five-factor model; Wiggins (1991) suggested using the Extraversion (i. e. dominance facet only) and Agreeableness scales because these capture a substantial portion of variance in agency and communion, respectively (for empirical support, see also Peabody Goldberg, 1989; Trapnell Wiggins, 1990). Also, using the Big Five framework, Digman (1997) suggested using the Extraversion and Openness scales for agency (i. e. , personal growth) and the Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional S tability scales for communion (i. e. , socialization). In this study, agency and communion were operationalized using both Wiggins’s (1991) specific measure approach and Digman’s (1997) broad measure approach. Following Wiggins’s approach, we selected the CPI scale of Dominance ( . 83) for agency and the CPI scale of Communality ( . 71) for communion. The CPI-Dominance is highly correlated with extraversion (r . 82; Fleenor Eastman, 1997), and dominance is a key facet of extraversion (DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, 2007). The construct definition also supported our choice: Individuals high in dominance are assertive, dominant, and task-oriented; individuals low in dominance are quiet and cautious. The CPI-Communality is highly correlated with agreeableness (r . 0; Fleenor Eastman, 1997), and agreeableness corresponds to communion (Wiggins, 1991). The construct definition of communality supports our decision: Individuals who are high in communality are likely to be team players who fit in with other people easily, agreeable, cooperative, reasonable, approachable for advice, dependable, and contented; individuals who are low in communality are likely to be nonconformers, changeable, mo ody, and reckless (Gough Bradley, 1996; Groth-Marnat, 1990). Following Digman’s (1997) broader approach to agency measurement, we selected the CPI scales of Social Presence ( . 2), 1 This data set was used to examine different research questions in Glomb and Liao (2003), Glomb and Tews (2004), and Glomb and Welsh (2005). 894 KIM AND GLOMB Capacity for Status ( . 72), and Independence ( . 74) in addition to Dominance. These additional three scales have been identified as compound traits of extraversion and openness (Fleenor Eastman, 1997), and extraversion and openness correspond to agency (Digman, 1997). CPI-Social Presence also corresponds to the dominance facet rather than the sociability facet of extraversion (Hough Ones, 2001). The construct definition supported our choice: Individuals high in social presence are self-assured in social settings, and individuals low in social presence are reserved; individuals high in capacity for status are likely to be ambitious and to have high desire to succeed, and individuals low in capacity for status dislike competition; individuals high in independence are likely to be self-sufficient, persistent in seeking goals whether others agree, aggressive, and assertive, and individuals low in independence are likely to seek support from others, avoid conflict, be meek, and be mild (Gough Bradley, 1996). We used similar conceptual and construct evidence for the Communion scale. In addition to CPI-Communality, we selected the CPI scales of Socialization ( . 78) and Responsibility ( . 77) because these two scales have been identified by Hough and Ones (2001) as compound traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (see also Fleenor Eastman, 1997); furthermore, Digman (1997) has suggested that communion corresponds to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. The construct definition of these two components also supported our decision: Individuals high in socialization are likely to be conscientious and easy to conform to others, whereas individuals low in socialization are likely to be rebellious and to have unconventional attitudes; individuals high in responsibility are responsible and ethically perceptive, whereas individuals low in responsibility are likely to be self-indulgent and careless (Gough Bradley, 1996). In summary, the Agency scale is composed of the CPI scales of Dominance, Social Presence, Capacity for Status, and Independence; the Communion scale is composed of the CPI scales of Communality, Socialization, and Responsibility. 2 Given the typical conceptualization of agency and communion as broad traits, we consider the broad operationalization in our primary analyses and conduct additional analyses for the narrow, one variable conceptualization. The reliability scores of multidimensional Agency and Communion scales were . 87 and . 84, respectively (see Cronbach, 1951; W. M. Rogers, Schmitt, Mullins, 2002). We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess whether the CPI scales load on the higher order common latent constructs of agency and communion using LISREL 8 (Joreskog Sorbom, 1996). The results for the ? Agency and Communion scales reveal that a two-factor model— 2 (12) 19. 43; incremental fit index (IFI) . 98; comparative fit index (CFI) . 98; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) . 06; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) . 07—fits the data quite well and fits significantly better than a one-factor model— 2(13) 49. 96; IFI . 91; CFI . 90; SRMR . 10; RMSEA . 5—providing evidence that subscales load on the higher order measures of agency and communion. In addition, agency and communion correlate . 16 (ns) in our study, which is comparable with correlations reported in previous studies (e. g. , Abele Wojciszke, 2007 [r –. 03, –. 05]; Bruch, 2002 [r . 05, . 11]; Conway, Pizzamiglio, Mount, 1996 [r . 27, . 32]). We a lso assessed the criterion-related validity of the Agency and Communion scales by examining whether they are significantly related to variables shown to be related to agency and communion measures in the broader personality psychology literature. Specifically, we assessed life satisfaction and burnout in our study but did not examine these variables in our substantive hypotheses. Correlations in our data are similar to those in prior literature using alternative operationalizations of communion and agency. Specifically, results show that our Communion scale is significantly related to well-being outcomes, such as life satisfaction (r . 24, p . 01, compared with r . 26 for women and . 28 for men in Saragovi et al. , 1997), and that our Agency scale is significantly related to psychological health outcomes, such as emotional exhaustion (r –. 21, p . 01, compared with r –. 5 in Roos Cohen, 1987). Control variables. On the basis of previous workplace victimization research (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999; Aquino Thau, 2009; Bowling Beehr, 2006; Hentig, 1948; Schafer, 1968), we controlled for several variables to reduce the potential impact of unmeasured variables on victimization. Empirical evidence on the relation ship between employee demographics and victimization shows mixed findings (Bowling Beehr, 2006); we control for an employee’s age, gender, and tenure in the organization. There is a compelling theoretical link between organizational hierarchy and victimization (see Aquino et al. 1999); we control for supervisory versus nonsupervisory status. Individual differences, such as positive and negative affectivity, show mixed relationships with victimization (see Bowling Beehr, 2006); we use the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, Tellegen, 1988) to control for positive affectivity ( . 86) and negative affectivity ( . 86). Stress may generate negative affective and behavioral responses that spark victimization (Bowling Beehr, 2006); we use the Stress Diagnostic Survey (Matteson Ivancevich, 1982) to control for job, work group, and organizational stress ( . 9 for job, . 89 for work group, and . 87 for organizational stress). Interpersonal aggression engagemen t has been proposed as an antecedent of victimization on the basis of social exchange theory (Andersson Pearson, 1999; Bandura, 1973), and Glomb and her colleagues (e. g. , Glomb, 2002; Glomb Liao, 2003) provided empirical support for the idea of reciprocal aggression. Interpersonal aggression engagement was assessed by the AES-Engaged In scale (Glomb, in press; Glomb Liao, 2003). The AES-Target (discussed above) and AES-Engaged In scales have the same item content except that one asks about behaviors that you were the target of and the others asks about behavior that you engaged in. We removed three items from the AES-Engaged In scale ( . 80) because of zero variance. Other CPI scales were excluded for one of two reasons: (a) They did not include the core dimensions of Extroversion–Dominance for agency or Agreeableness for communion, or (b) they included these dimensions but were contaminated by others as well. These â€Å"mixed† scales were the most likely reason for exclusion. Specific mappings of CPI scales to Big Five (i. e. , A: agreeableness, C: conscientiousness, ES: emotional stability, EX: extraversion, O: openness) characteristics are as follows: Self-Acceptance (ES EX), Empathy (EX O C), Well-Being (ES EX), Tolerance (O A), Achievement With Conformation (O C), Achievement With Independence (ES EX O C), Psychological-Mindedness (ES O), Flexibility (O C), Sociability (EX-Sociability), Intellectual Efficiency (O), Self-Control (ES C), and Good Impression (C). COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 895 Results Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. Cognitive ability is significantly correlated with victimization (r . 18, p . 05). Agency and communion are not significantly correlated with victimization. Several control variables—including age (r . 21, p . 01); job, workgroup, organizational stress (r . 41, . 24, . 41, respectively, p . 01); and aggression engagement (r . 54, p . 01)—are significantly correlated with victimization. The control variables of positive and negative affectivity and hierarchical status suggest nonsignificant associations with victimization. Table 2 presents the regression results using the broad operationalization of agency and communion (see Digman, 1997). Because individuals in the same work group are not independent, the independent assumption of traditional ordinary least squares regression is violated, causing biased estimators. Therefore, we used a clustered regression with a White-correction in STATA that allows covariance between individuals within groups and corrects for heteroscedasticity across groups (see W. H. Rogers, 1993). We report unstandardized regression coefficients and regular R2 because standardized coefficients and adjusted R2 are not valid with the cluster option (see Glomb Liao, 2003; W. H. Rogers, 1993). We tested the degree of multicollinearity with the variance inflation factor; values ranged from 1. 05 to 1. 94, with an average variance inflation factor of 1. 37, suggesting it was not a critical problem. Control variables explain 42% of the variance in victimization (Model 1). Model 2 includes cognitive ability, agency, and communion. Results suggest a significant relationship between cognitive ability and victimization (b 0. 17, p . 01), supporting Hypothesis 1. Agency and victimization were also significantly associated (b 0. 08, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 2. This association is different from the nonsignificant zero-order correlation, suggesting the association exists after controlling for other variables. Consistent with the zero-order correlations, communion was not significantly associated with victimization; Hypothesis 3 was not supported. These variables explain an additional 4% of the variance in victimization. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity Job stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Agency (index) Communion (index) Agency (CPI–Dominance) Communion (CPI–Communality) Cognitive ability Victimization M SD 1 . 15 . 09 . 05 . 00 . 11 . 02 . 12 . 21 . 11 . 01 . 09 . 03 . 09 . 18 . 02 2 3 4 To test the moderating effects of personality traits, we used hierarchical moderated regression with centered interaction terms. Interaction terms explain an additional 4% of the variance in victimization (Model 3). Hypothesis 4, which predicts the moderating role of agency personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was supported (b 0. 02, p . 05). Hypothesis 5, which predicts the moderating role of communal personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was also supported (b – 0. 05, p . 05). The interactions were plotted using Aiken and West’s (1991) method and are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 illustrates that as cognitive ability increases, for those high in agency, victimization increases compared with those low in agency. Figure 2 illustrates that as cognitive ability increases, for those low in communion, victimization increases, and for those high in communion, victimization decreases. These results suggest that agency traits exacerbate and that communion traits buffer the relationship of cognitive ability to victimization. We tested the same regression model using specific measures of agency and communion, which is consistent with Wiggins’s (1991) operationalization (i. e. CPI-Dominance for agency and CPI-Communality for communion). These results suggest similar empirical findings, which confirm the role of cognitive ability, agency, and communion on victimization at work. Table 3 presents the regression results. In Model 4, results suggest a significant relationship between cognitive ability and victimization (b 0. 15, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 1. Dominance and victimization were significantly associated (b 0. 11, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 2. Communality was also significantly associated with victimization (b – 0. 18, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 3. This finding is different than the broad communion index, in which the association was not significant. These variables explain an additional 6% of the variance in victimization. In Model 5, interaction terms explain an additional 2% of the variance in victimization. Hypothesis 4, which predicts the moderating role of agency personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0. 74 0. 44 1. 85 2. 21 23. 77 7. 41 0. 73 0. 45 19. 24 5. 22 37. 61 5. 63 11. 94 3. 81 9. 63 3. 63 14. 94 5. 02 21. 33 5. 06 55. 55 7. 98 55. 21 4. 25 58. 85 10. 3 54. 43 5. 34 25. 41 5. 40 23. 74 6. 41 .28 . 20 . 04 . 12 . 22 . 18 . 39 . 28 . 16 . 03 . 12 . 05 . 18 . 16 .19 . 10 . 06 . 33 . 31 . 28 . 05 . 03 . 06 . 09 . 01 . 08 . 21 .14 . 05 . 37 . 05 . 21 . 09 . 15 . 07 . 09 . 07 . 05 . 14 .19 . 06 . 15 . 02 . 19 . 10 . 23 . 07 . 18 . 05 . 00 .06 . 29 . 13 . 10 . 27 . 25 . 29 . 09 . 12 . 03 .45 . 55 . 25 . 03 . 01 . 01 . 05 . 03 . 41 .43 . 21 . 01 . 1 5 . 01 . 12 . 12 . 24 .31 . 22 . 04 . 21 . 01 . 07 . 41 .07 . 05 . 07 . 03 . 08 . 54 .16 . 87 . 11 . 13 . 04 .24 . 54 . 14 . 11 . 11 . 10 . 09 .05 . 09 . 18 1, male Note. N 133. Correlations greater than . 7 are significant at p . 05; those greater than . 21 are significant at p 0; Hierarchical status: subordinate 1, supervisor 0; CPI California Psychological Inventory. .01. Gender: female 896 KIM AND GLOMB Table 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Victimization Victimization Variable Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity Job stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Cognitive ability Agency (index) Communion (index) Cognitive Ability Agency Cognitive Ability Communion R2 R2 Model 1 0. 2 . 03 . 09 . 55 . 11 . 03 . 35 . 03 . 24 . 62 Model 2 1. 16 . 01 . 09 . 81 . 12 . 05 . 37 . 10 . 25 . 60 . 17 . 08 . 21 . 46 . 04 Model 3 1. 06 . 02 . 09 1. 09 . 15 . 04 . 43 . 18 . 27 . 60 . 15 . 06 . 2 6 . 02 . 05 . 50 . 04 .42 Note. N 133. Regression coefficients are unstandardized because standard regression coefficients are invalid with the cluster option (see Glomb Liao, 2003; W. H. Rogers, 1993). Gender: female 1, male 0; Hierarchical status: subordinate 1, supervisor 0. p . 05. p . 01 (two-tailed test). Figure 2. The moderating role of communion personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. was marginally supported (b 0. 01, p . 10). Hypothesis 5, which predicts the moderating role of communion personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was supported (b – 0. 03, p . 05). Discussion The primary purpose of this study was to examine the role of cognitive ability in workplace victimization, a topic that has received scant research attention. Cognitive ability predicts many job and real-life outcomes (see Brand, 1987), and thus, it is important to include in the portfolio of variables associated with victimization, such as personality, demographics, behaviors, and organizational characteristics (see Aquino Thau, 2009; Bowling Beehr, 2006). Consistent with a victim precipitation model, our results suggest that cognitive ability is associated with workplace victimization. We also tested the relationship between agency and communion—two interpersonally oriented personality dimensions—and victimization. Consistent with a negative reciprocity cycle and a provocative victim typology, our results suggest that individuals high in agency personality traits experience victimization at work. Counter to expectations, we did not find a significant relationship between communion and lower victimization in our primary analyses. This nonsignificant finding may be explained by the positive–negative asymmetry effect (see Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Fickenauer, Vohs, 2001; Taylor, 1991), which would suggest that positive interpersonal interactions carry less weight than negative social interactions, and therefore, it may cause a nonsignificant finding. The nonsignificant findings may also be caused by the broad communion measure, the components of which might evidence differential relationships with victimization. A previous study found that victimization is significantly associated with agreeableness ( – . 21, p . 05) but is not significantly associated with conscientiousness and emotional stability ( – . 02 and . 10, respectively; Figure 1. The moderating role of agency personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 897 Table 3 Supplemental Analysis Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Victimization Victimization Variable Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity Job stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Cognitive ability Agency (CPI Dominance) Communion (CPI Communality) Cognitive Ability Agency Cognitive Ability Communion R2 R2 Model 4 1. 33 . 01 . 11 . 46 . 11 . 00 . 34 . 14 . 28 . 61 . 15 . 11 . 18 . 48 . 06 Model 5 1. 24 . 02 . 08 . 36 . 14 . 00 . 35 . 18 . 30 . 61 . 12 . 10 . 18 . 1†  . 03 . 50 . 02†  outcomes, rather than the more distal individual difference of cognitive ability, that are mediating explanatory variables. Future work might explore whether high performance, ability, and achievement in other domains adhere to similar processes (cf. Feather, 1994, on tall poppies). Theoretical Implications This study contributes to the cognitive ability, personality, and workplace victimizati on literatures in a variety of ways. First, we extend the scope of the victim precipitation model by proposing and testing the possibility of smart victims. Second, contrary to the existing cognitive ability literature, our finding indicates a potential downside to high cognitive ability (e. g. , for another possible exception, such as clever concealer effects, see Wilson Herrnstein, 1985). This study moves cognitive ability research in a new direction by positing and testing a potential downside to high cognitive ability in the workplace. Third, in our study we examined two broad interpersonally oriented personality dimensions— agency and communion—and their association with workplace victimization. Although personality researchers have confirmed that the agency and communion model is useful in terms of investigating interpersonally oriented outcomes (see Abele Wojciszke, 2007; Bruch, 2002; Digman, 1997; Helgeson, 1994; Wiggins, 1991), this model is currently less popular than the Big Five model in organizational scholarship, perhaps because of the absence of an agreed upon operationalization of these multidimensional traits (see Helgeson, 1994; Saragovi et al. , 1997). Although the Big Five is certainly a useful taxonomy, because we are interested in workplace victimization and the interpersonal relationships between victims and perpetrators, the agency and communion framework may be useful for future victimization research. Fourth, the interplay of two key individual differences— cognitive ability and personality traits— on victimization provides an integration of two complementary theories, which adhere to the social and personality psychological models of social interactions. Although previous workplace victimization literature integrated the victim precipitation model with structural theory (e. g. Aquino, 2000; Aquino et al. , 1999), and reciprocity theory with structural theory (e. g. , Aquino Bommer, 2003), the integration of the victim precipitation model and reciprocity theory has not received research attention. In this study, we take the first step by integrating victim precipitation with reciprocity theory to demonstrate t he interactive effects of cognitive ability and agency– communion personality traits on workplace victimization. This approach is consistent with social psychological literature suggesting the multiplicative effect of competence and likeability on social interactions (see Casciaro Lobo, 2008; Fiske et al. 2006). Note. N 133. Regression coefficients are unstandardized because standard regression coefficients are invalid with the cluster option (see Glomb Liao, 2003; W. H. Rogers, 1993). Gender: female 1, male 0; Hierarchical status: subordinate 1, supervisor 0; CPI California Psychological Inventory. †  p . 10. p . 05. p . 01 (two-tailed test). Jensen-Campbell et al. , 2002), which are captured in our index. These results are consistent with our supplemental analysis; when we adopted the specific scale of Communion (i. e. CPICommunality for agreeableness; see Wiggins, 1991), we found a significant relationship between communion and victimization (b – 0. 18, . 15, p . 05). More studies are necessary to have greater confidence in the relationship between communion personality traits and victimization at work. Finally, our results demonstrate the moderating effects of agency and communion on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. Results suggest that the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is exacerbated by agency personality traits, which is manifested in self-oriented behaviors (i. . , independence, dominance, capacity for status, and social presence) in a work group. Conversely, results suggest that the increased propensity to be victimized because of one’s high cognitive ability can be mitigated by communion personality traits, which is manifested in other-oriented or â€Å"team player† behavior (i. e. , communality, responsibility, and socialization) in a work group. We acknowledge that we do not study possible mediating mechanisms and that cognitive ability may be operating as a p roxy for other variables relevant to workplace success. For example, it may be that high-performing individuals, rather than high-cognitiveability individuals, are those who are most likely to be the targets of interpersonal aggression. Similar theoretical processes of social comparison would also apply to high performance, but in this case, cognitive ability operates as a proxy for performance. As noted, cognitive ability is related to myriad positive outcomes on the job, and we acknowledge that it may be those proximal favorable job Organizational Implications In the 1950 movie Harvey, Jimmy Stewart’s character Elwood Dowd says, â€Å"Years ago my mother used to say to me . . . She’d say ‘In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant. ’ Well, for years I was smart . . . I recommend pleasant. † On the basis of our findings, we recommend that if you are going to be â€Å"oh-so smart† then you should also be â€Å"oh-so pleasant† to avoid workplace victimization. Beyond individual advice, the results also have important practical implications for managers. First, 898 KIM AND GLOMB managers need to be aware of this potential dark side of high cognitive ability at work. Managers are familiar with the positive side of high cognitive ability, but initial evidence of smart victims suggests managers may need to be on the lookout for and take precautions to deter the workplace victimization of smart employees. The strong and consistent relationship between cognitive ability and many elements of performance suggests that these individuals may be among the most important to keep satisfied, productive, and retained. Tactics helpful in preventing the victimization of high-cognitive-ability employees may reduce both the proximal and distal costs of workplace victimization. Second, our results suggest that high cognitive ability does not predestine employees to be victimized—their personality also plays a role. Although managers attend to personality during the selection process because it predicts job performance (see Dunn, Mount, Barrick, Ones, 1995), our results suggest that personality can also have either a protective (i. e. , communion) or intensifying (i. e. , agency) role in victimization. We do not suggest that organizations should not select applicants who are high in agency traits because they are more vulnerable to victimization at work. Personality traits have their own bright and dark sides (see Judge LePine, 2007). For example, although our results show that employees who are high in agency traits are more likely to be victims at work, research also shows that traits under the agency umbrella are associated with being a leader (e. g. , extraversion; Judge, Bono, Ilies, Gerhardt, 2002). Further, although high-ability employees who are also high in communion are less likely to be victims at work, research also suggests that traits under the communion umbrella are associated with the use of more lenient standards to evaluate coworker performance (e. . , agreeableness; Bernardin, Cooke, Villanova, 2000). Thus, organizations need to consider both the benefits and costs of the communion and agency personality traits of employees and to be aware of their correlates, both favorable and unfavorable. Regardless of the composition of agency and communion in the workforce, organizations can attempt to modify individual beh aviors by creating strong situations (e. g. , human resource practices, organization culture) that minimize the link between personality and behaviors and that enhance positive reciprocity norms between employees. Limitations and Future Directions This study is not without limitation. First, range restriction in cognitive ability may cause reduced sample correlations. However, given that range restriction reduces the strength of relationships because of limited variance (Sackett Yang, 2000), this seems to be a minor issue. Further, the degree of variability of cognitive ability is similar to that in other studies (e. g. , Chan, 1997; Mumford, Van Iddekinge, Morgeson, Campion, 2008; Sackett Ostgaard, 1994). Second, the external validity of these findings is limited. This data set is small and is from a predominantly Caucasian sample of health care workers. The sample is also predominantly female, which may have influenced effects; women high in cognitive ability and agency may be particularly prone to victimization because of gender stereotypes (see Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, 1972). The context of a health care home is interesting because employees may be more empathetic and less competitive given self-selection into this caring profession. They are also more likely to be exposed to victimization; the health care industry continually reports some of the highest levels of workplace aggression and victimization (see Rippon, 2000), though victimization is often perpetrated by patients, and in our study we examined victimization from coworkers and supervisors. Examining our relationships in other business contexts and groups is necessary. Third, the construct validity of our agency and communion measures may be questioned. Given that there is not a generally accepted method of transforming the CPI scales into the broad indices of agency and communion, we created our own measures guided by previous literature and linkages of the content of the scales (e. g. , Digman, 1997; Gough Bradley, 1996; Hough Ones, 2001). In the field of personality psychology, there have been calls for the development and study of agency and communion scales (see Helgeson, 1994); we concur and believe the development of valid and concise measures of agency and communion traits might promulgate the use of these interpersonally oriented personality constructs. Fourth, measures were self-report from a single source, and thus, common method bias is a potential problem. However, cognitive ability and personality traits were measured for personnel selection, and perceived victimization was measured 22 months later, on average (i. e. , average tenure is 22 months). Because there are large temporal and psychological distances between cognitive ability and perceived victimization measures, the impact of common method bias is not a major concern (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, Podsakoff, 2003). We also controlled for positive affectivity and negative affectivity, which also impact the cognitive perception and reporting processes (Bowling Beehr, 2006; Isen, 1987; Podsakoff Organ, 1986; Schmitt, 1994; Spector, 1994; Watson Clark, 1984). As Schmitt (1994) suggested, the appropriateness of methods should be based on the stage of development of the research; given the lack of research in this area, self-report data would be deemed acceptable. Further, as noted by others (e. . , Aquino Lamertz, 2004; Spector, 1994), it is difficult to envision circumstances in which non-self-report data w How to cite Cognitive Ability, Essay examples

Person centred support free essay sample

Person-centred care is not just about giving people whatever they want or just providing care it’s having a clear understanding about the individuals you are supporting, knowing what their needs, culture and emotional needs are,working with the individual and their family and other professionals to meet those needs. There are eight Person centred values they include:Individuality The individual should have the right to make their own choice in what they wear, eat, drink, respect he/she to be their own person and in their own space.Rights If the individual youre supporting refuses personal care then you have to respect that because they have the right to say no, the are still people they still have the choice to say yes or no.Choice As a care worker you should allow the individual to tell how they want a particular thing done ie how they want their hair done and how he/she prefers or like her hair done up. We will write a custom essay sample on Person centred support or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Privacy An individual should be given space and time to themselves, they all need a break from us sometimes ie when he/she has a visitor, let them be alone in a quiet area.Independence A little indepence is a good for the person you support even something small like getting dress ie putting their underwear on just prompting will help help build his/her confidence.Dignity No one wants to feel stripped of all their dignity, still making the individual feel like you respect them is good ie allowing he/she to wash their private areas will make them feel comfortableRespect Letting the person youre supporting know that youre there to help, dont make he/she feel like theyre incapable,† let me know if there’s anything you need. I’m happy to help, but I can respect that you like to do things on your own.† this helpsPartnership working in partnership with your colleagues and the service user is the coming together in achieving the servicers needs and what needs f ocus.