When guilt works: a comprehensive meta-analysis of guilt appeals

Introduction

Guilt appeals are widely used as a persuasive approach in various areas of practice. However, the strength and direction of the persuasive effects of guilt appeals are mixed, which could be influenced by theoretical and methodological factors.

Method

The present study is a comprehensive meta-analysis of 26 studies using a random-effects model to assess the persuasive effects of guilt appeals. In total, 127 effect sizes from seven types of persuasive outcomes (i.e., guilt, attitude, behavior, behavioral intention, non-guilt emotions, motivation, and cognition) were calculated based on 7,512 participants.

Results

The analysis showed a small effect size of guilt appeals [g = 0.19, 95% CI (0.10, 0.28)]. The effect of guilt appeals was moderated by the theoretical factors related to appraisal and coping of guilt arousal, including attributed responsibility, controllability and stability of the causal factors, the proximity of perceiver-victim relationship, recommendation of reparative behaviors, and different outcome types. The effect was also associated with methods used in different studies.

Discussion

Overall, the findings demonstrated the persuasive effects of guilt appeals, but theoretical and methodological factors should be considered in the design and testing of guilt appeals. We also discussed the practical implications of the findings.

Çocukluk Dönemi Travmalarının Yetişkinlik Dönemi Tutum ve Davranışlarını Belirlemeye İlişkin Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması: Çok Boyutlu Travma Ölçeği

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bireylerin travmalarını ve travma sonrası belirtilerini belirleyen, DSM-5 ile uyumlu, geçerli ve güvenilir Çok Boyutlu Travma Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi ve bu ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır.Yöntem: Çalışmanın örneklem grubu 18 yaş ve üzeri 1054 bireyden (843 kadın 211 erkek) oluşmaktadır. Veriler, demografik bilgi formu, Çocukluk Çağı Travmaları Ölçeği, Travma Sonrası Stres Bozukluğu Kontrol Listesi - Sivil Versiyon, Bilişsel Duygu Düzenleme Ölçeği, Stresle Başa Çıkma Tarzları Ölçeği ve Çok Boyutlu Travma Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Çok Boyutlu Travma Ölçeği’nin (ÇBTÖ) geçerliliğine ve güvenilirliğini dair gerekli analizler uygulanmıştır. Ölçek geliştirme basamakları titizlikle takip edilerek ölçüm aracının yapı geçerliliğini desteklemek amacıyla sırasıyla Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi uygulanmıştır.Bulgular: Elde edilen bulgular neticesinde ÇBTÖ’de yer alan ilk ölçek olan Çocukluk Çağı Travmaları Ölçeği’nde (ÇÇTÖ) 31 madde ve 6 alt boyuttan (duygusal ihmal/istismar, fiziksel istismar, fiziksel ihmal, cinsel istismar, ikincil travma ve diğer travmalar); ve ÇÇTÖ’de bulunan ikinci ölçek olan Travma Sonrası Belirtiler Ölçeği’nde (TSBÖ) 26 madde ve 6 alt boyuttan (kaçınma, yineleme, aşırı tepki, bilişsel bozulma, işlevsel bozulma ve çözülme belirtileri) oluşan toplamda 57 madde ve 12 alt boyutluk bir ölçüm aracı geliştirilmiştir. ÇÇTÖ için açıklanan toplam varyans %62,58 olarak bulunurken, cranbach alpha güvenilirlik katsayısı 0,87 olarak elde edilmiştir. TSBÖ için açıklanan toplam varyans %67,19 olarak saptanmış olup, cranbach alpha güvenilirlik katsayısı 0,94 olarak bulunmuştur. Alt boyutların güvenilirlik değerleri 0,50 – 0,91 arasında değişiklik göstermektedir. Ölçekte gerekli metotlar ile her alt boyuttan ayrı ayrı kesme puanı belirlenmiştir.Sonuç: 57 madde ve 12 alt boyuttan oluşan 5’li likert şeklinde tasarlanan, yüksek düzeyde geçerliliğe ve güvenilirliğe sahip “Çok Boyutlu Travma Ölçeği (ÇBTÖ)” literatüre kazandırılmıştır.

The Relationship Between Follower Affect for President Trump and the Adoption of COVID-19 Personal Protective Behaviors

In the current series of studies, we draw upon implicit leadership theories, social learning theory, and research on decision making to investigate whether affect toward President Trump explains U.S. residents’ evaluations of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis, as well as the likelihood that that residents engage in personal protective behaviors. A meta-analysis using 17 nationally representative datasets with a total of 26,876 participants indicated that participants who approve of President Trump tend to approve of his leadership regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and were less likely to engage in personal protective behavior (PPBs; i.e., hand washing, wearing a mask or other face covering in public, and social distancing). On the other hand, those disapproving of President Trump also tended to disapprove of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and were more likely to engage in PPBs. In a second study, using an established measure of leader affect (leader affect questionnaire) and controlling for political party, we replicated and extended these results by demonstrating that expending cognitive effort toward understanding the COVID-19 crisis attenuated the relationship between affect toward President Trump and (1) approval of his leadership during the COVID-19 crisis and (2) engagement in some, but not all, PPBs.

Recommendations for Reviewing Meta-Analyses in Organizational Research

This article encourages transparency in the reporting of meta-analytic procedures. Specifically, we highlight aspects of meta-analytic search, coding, data presentation, and data analysis where published meta-analyses often fall short in presenting sufficient information to allow replication. We identify opportunities where reviewers can request additional information or analyses that will enhance transparent reporting practices and facilitate the evaluation of quality in meta-analytic reporting. We focus on concerns specific to (or prevalent in) meta-analyses conducted in organizational research. In doing so, we reference a number of existing and emerging techniques, highlighting their contribution to meta-analysis while emphasizing key information reviewers may request. Our focus is primarily on meta-analyses, but secondary uses of meta-analytic data are also considered. We conclude by providing a checklist for reviewers in an effort to facilitate the review process as it pertains to the goals of transparency and replicability.

A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Social Capital on Firm Performance in China’s Transition Economy

There is almost no research consensus on the influence of social capital on firm performance in China, which motivates our study in this paper. Our research aim here is to identify the effect of contextual and methodological moderators on the relationship between social capital and firm performance in China’s transition economy. Meta-analysis is employed to explore the impact of social capital on firm performance and to identify moderators affecting the relationship based on 106 independent studies between 2008 and 2018. The results demonstrate that the social capital–performance link is positive and significant in China. Particularly, social capital has a stronger positive relationship with performance in high-tech industries or in low-level marketization. Meanwhile, the social capital–performance link depends on the specific performance measures and dimensions. The paper clearly indicates the value of cultivating social capital and reveals that distinct types of social capital are needed at different points in different industries and market areas.

Beyond Meta-Analysis: Secondary Uses of Meta-Analytic Data

Secondary uses of meta-analytic data (SUMAD) represent advanced analyses and applications of first-order meta-analytic results for theoretical (e.g., theory testing) and practical (e.g., evidence-based practice) purposes to produce novel knowledge that cannot be directly obtained from the input meta-analytic results. First-order meta-analytic results in the form of bivariate effect sizes have been used as input to such secondary analyses and applications. Given the increasing popularity of SUMAD in human resource management (HRM) and organizational behavior (OB), there is a need for a systematic review on this topic. This article has two primary goals. First, it reviews essential works regarding SUMAD in the fields of HRM/OB and provides taxonomies of SUMAD in theoretical and practical domains. Second, it introduces recent SUMAD and discusses future directions that encourage more innovative and rigorous research endeavors along this line.

Just how miserable is work? A meta-analysis comparing work and non-work affect

Although we spend much of our waking hours working, the emotional experience of work, versus non-work, remains unclear. While the large literature on work stress suggests that work generally is aversive, some seminal theory and findings portray working as salubrious and perhaps as an escape from home life. Here, we examine the subjective experience of work (versus non-work) by conducting a quantitative review of 59 primary studies that assessed affect on working days. Meta-analyses of within-day studies indicated that there was no difference in positive affect (PA) between work versus non-work domains. Negative affect (NA) was higher for work than non-work, although the magnitude of difference was small (i.e., .22 SD, an effect size comparable to that of the difference in NA between different leisure activities like watching TV versus playing board games). Moderator analyses revealed that PA was relatively higher at work and NA relatively lower when affect was measured using “real-time” measurement (e.g., Experience Sampling Methodology) versus measured using the Day Reconstruction Method (i.e., real-time reports reveal a more favorable view of work as compared to recall/DRM reports). Additional findings from moderator analyses included significant differences in main effect sizes as a function of the specific affect, and, for PA, as a function of the age of the sample and the time of day when the non-work measurements were taken. Results for the other possible moderators including job complexity and affect intensity were not statistically significant.

Current practices in meta-regression in psychology, education, and medicine

Having surveyed the history and methods of meta-regression in a previous paper, in this paper, we review which and how meta-regression methods are applied in recent research syntheses. To do so, we reviewed studies published in 2016 across four leading research synthesis journals: Psychological Bulletin, the Journal of Applied Psychology, Review of Educational Research, and the Cochrane Library. We find that the best practices defined in the previous review are rarely carried out in practice. In light of the identified discrepancies, we consider how to move forward, first by identifying areas where further methods development is needed to address persistent problems in the field and second by discussing how to more effectively disseminate points of methodological consensus.

A Meta-Analysis of Shared Leadership: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderators

Many organizations are encouraging a shared leadership approach that meets the increased complexity of today’s working environment. It is therefore imperative for researchers to clearly comprehend the mechanism of shared leadership in teams. Contributing to the burgeoning research in the field of shared leadership, this study aims to advance our understanding along the many dimensions of the shared leadership phenomenon: its antecedents, moderators, and consequences. In this article, we provide a critical and comprehensive analysis of the extant literature and generate an integrated framework that presents seven hypotheses and five research questions. We then empirically test this framework via a systematic meta-analysis from 40 studies (team n = 3,019). Significantly, our findings reveal that the internal team environment and team heterogeneity are positively related to the emergence of shared leadership in teams. Moreover, we confirm the positive relationship between shared leadership and team outcomes. Our analysis also highlights how intragroup trust and task interdependence significantly moderate the shared leadership–team outcomes relations, with higher correlations observed in greater levels of intragroup trust, as well as larger levels of task interdependence. We also find the moderating effect of shared leadership measurement methods in such relations. Specifically, there is a stronger relationship when shared leadership is measured with social network analysis, rather than aggregating approaches. Overall, our study brings valuable insights into the shared leadership area and provides clear directions for future research.

When Leadership Powers Team Learning: A Meta-Analysis

Team learning behavior is found to be one of the most effective team processes, as learning behavior at the team level (e.g., sharing, discussing, and reflecting on knowledge and actions) enables teams to adapt existing or develop new knowledge. Team leadership behavior is considered a critical accelerant for creating conditions that are essential to engage in team learning behavior, such as a safe environment. Yet despite the growing amount of research in team learning, this relationship remains unclear. Meta-analytic techniques were used to examine when team leadership behaviors support team learning behavior and how the task type moderates that relationship. Forty-three empirical studies reporting 92 effect sizes were synthesized. Analyses show that team leadership behavior explains 18% of the variance in team learning behavior. Furthermore, results indicate that person-focused leaders foster team learning for both adaptive and developmental tasks, whereas task-focused leaders influence team learning for adaptive tasks only.

A review of literature on mediators and moderators of workplace bullying

Purpose

During the past 26 years, there has been a phenomenal growth in the literature on workplace bullying. The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesize the extant empirical studies on underlying and intervening mechanisms in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 53 studies on mediators and moderators in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships (2001-2016) were selected from academic databases (Google Scholar, Research Gate, Emerald Insight, Science Direct, etc.)

Findings

The review suggests that while a reasonable number of studies examine the role of mediators and moderators in bullying–outcomes relationships, such efforts are meager in antecedents–bullying relationships. The paper concludes by proposing some potential variables that can explain the underlying mechanisms in the bullying phenomenon and alleviate/aggravate the antecedents–bullying–outcomes relationships.

Originality/value

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first review on mediators and moderators of workplace bullying.

If It Were Only That Easy: The Use of Meta-Analytic Research by Organizational Scholars

This paper evaluates how researchers are currently citing meta-analytic results and provides specific recommendations for interpreting the information provided by meta-analysis (MA). The past four decades have seen a proliferation of MA research across the organizational sciences and myriad improvements to how MA is conducted. MAs are cited more frequently than individual primary studies and have a substantial influence on subsequent research and theorizing. Yet the consumption of meta-analytic results in organizational scholarship remains superficial. We evaluate citation practices for four seminal MAs and find that authors predominantly interpret meta-analytic findings in the simplest way possible: as evidence of the existence of a relationship between variables. In focusing only on this basic finding, citing authors neglect the complexity and rich detail provided by MA. We offer advice for how researchers can more effectively leverage the strengths of meta-analytic findings to inform subsequent research by taking advantage of the benefits that meta-analytic methodology can provide for the explanation of organizational phenomena.

Who Is the Culprit? A Commentary on Moderator Detection

Over the years, many in the field of organizational psychology have claimed that meta-analytic tests for moderators provide evidence for validity generalization (Schmidt & Hunter, 1977), a term first used in the middle of the last century (Mosier, 1950). In response, Tett, Hundley, and Christiansen (2017) advise caution when it comes to our inclination toward generalizing findings across workplaces/domains and urge precision in attaching meaning to the statistic we are generalizing. Their focal article was insightful and offers important recommendations for researchers regarding certain statistical indicators of unexplained variability, such as SDρ. In this commentary, we would like to make a different point about SDρ, namely that it, and other statistics based on residual variance, will be deflated due to the lack of variance in moderators. It is this lack of between-study variance, as much as anything else, that leads to misguided conclusions about validity generalization.

A Failed Challenge to Validity Generalization: Addressing a Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Nature of VG

The lengthy and complex focal article by Tett, Hundley, and Christiansen (2017) is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of validity generalization (VG): It is based on the assumption that what is generalized in VG is the estimated value of mean rho ($\bar{\rho}$). This erroneous assumption is stated repeatedly throughout the article. A conclusion of validity generalization does not imply that $\bar{\rho}$ is identical across all situations. If VG is present, most, if not all, validities in the validity distribution are positive and useful even if there is some variation in that distribution. What is generalized is the entire distribution of rho ($\bar{\rho}$), not just the estimated $\bar{\rho}$ or any other specific value of validity included in the distribution. This distribution is described by its mean ($\bar{\rho}$) and standard deviation (SDρ). A helpful concept based on these parameters (assuming ρ is normally distributed) is the credibility interval, which reflects the range where most of the values of ρ can be found. The lower end of the 80% credibility interval (the 90% credibility value, CV = $\bar{\rho}$ – 1.28 × SDρ) is used to facilitate understanding of this distribution by indicating the statistical “worst case” for validity, for practitioners using VG. Validity has an estimated 90% chance of lying above this value. This concept has long been recognized in the literature (see Hunter & Hunter, 1984, for an example; see also Schmidt, Law, Hunter, Rothstein, Pearlman, & McDaniel, 1993, and hundreds of VG articles that have appeared in the literature over the past 40 years since the invention of psychometric meta-analysis as a means of examining VG [Schmidt & Hunter, 1977]). The $\bar{\rho}$ is the value in the distribution with the highest likelihood of occurring (although often by only a small amount), but it is the whole distribution that is generalized. Tett et al. (2017) state that some meta-analysis articles claim that they are generalizing only $\bar{\rho}$. If true, this is inappropriate. Because $\bar{\rho}$ has the highest likelihood in the ρ distribution, discussion often focuses on that value as a matter of convenience, but $\bar{\rho}$ is not what is generalized in VG. What is generalized is the conclusion that there is validity throughout the credibility interval. The false assumption that it is $\bar{\rho}$ and not the ρ distribution as a whole that is generalized in VG is the basis for the Tett et al. article and is its Achilles heel. In this commentary, we examine the target article's basic arguments and point out errors and omissions that led Tett et al. to falsely conclude that VG is a “myth.”

On the Mystery (or Myth) of Challenging Principles and Methods of Validity Generalization (VG) Based on Fragmentary Knowledge and Improper or Outdated Practices of VG

In their focal article, Tett, Hundley, and Christiansen (2017) stated in multiple places that if there are good reasons to expect moderating effect(s), the application of an overall validity generalization (VG) analysis (meta-analysis) is “moot,” “irrelevant,” “minimally useful,” and “a misrepresentation of the data.” They used multiple examples and, in particular, a hypothetical example about the relationship between agreeableness and job performance. Four noteworthy problems with the above statements, other similar statements elsewhere in Tett et al.’s article, and their underlying assumptions are discussed below along with alternative perspectives.

Effects of cognitive bias modification on social anxiety: A meta-analysis

Background

Cognitive bias modification (CBM), a set of techniques for modifying bias in information processing—is considered a novel intervention for social anxiety disorder (SAD), which has drawn considerable interest from researchers. However, the effects of CBM on SAD are not consistent. Some studies have demonstrated significant positive effects compared to control groups, while others have found no such effects.

Aims

We conducted a meta-analysis aimed at quantitatively assessing the effects of CBM on SAD at post-test.

Method

Through a systematic literature search by two independent raters, 34 articles (36 randomized studies) including 2,550 participants were identified. A multilevel modeling approach was employed to assess the effects of CBM on SAD, and to explore the potentially crucial procedures and sample characteristics that enhance the effectiveness of benign training.

Results

In general, there were small but significant effects of CBM on the primary symptoms of SAD (g = 0.17), cognitive bias (CB) toward threat (g = 0.32), and reactivity in stressful situations (g = 0.25), but non-significant effects on secondary symptoms. However, the interpretation modification program was more effective than was attentional bias modification in reducing SAD primary symptoms and negative CB. Laboratory training procedures produced larger primary symptom reductions compared to Internet-based training, whereas the percentage of contingency and feedback about training performance boosted cognitive effects only. Finally, the following groups were more likely to benefit from CBM: younger participants (primary symptoms and cognitive effects), women (primary symptom effects), and samples with stronger CB (stressor effects). The quality of the randomized controlled trials was less than desirable, as there was some indication of publication bias in our study.

Conclusions

Current findings broadly supported cognitive theories of SAD that consider a bidirectional or mutually reinforcing relationship between symptoms and CBs. However, the small therapeutic effect observed here indicates that it is necessary to develop more reliable and efficient CBM interventions that are specific to SAD.

Error-Related Negativity and the Misattribution of State-Anxiety Following Errors: On the Reproducibility of Inzlicht and Al-Khindi ()

In their innovative study, Inzlicht and Al-Khindi (2012) demonstrated that participants who were allowed to misattribute their arousal and negative affect induced by errors to a placebo beverage had a reduced error-related negativity (ERN/Ne) compared to controls not being allowed to misattribute their arousal following errors. These results contribute to the ongoing debate that affect and motivation are interwoven with the cognitive processing of errors. Evidence that the misattribution of negative affect modulates the ERN/Ne is essential for understanding the mechanisms behind ERN/Ne. Therefore, and because of the growing debate on reproducibility of empirical findings, we aimed at replicating the misattribution effects on the ERN/Ne in a go/nogo task. Students were randomly assigned to a misattribution group (n = 48) or a control group (n = 51). Participants of the misattribution group consumed a beverage said to have side effects that would increase their physiological arousal, so that they could misattribute the negative affect induced by errors to the beverage. Participants of the control group correctly believed that the beverage had no side effects. As Inzlicht and Al-Khindi (2012), we did not observe performance differences between both groups. However, ERN/Ne differences between misattribution and control group could not be replicated, although the statistical power of the replication study was high. Evidence regarding the replication of performance and the non-replication of ERN/Ne findings was confirmed by Bayesian statistics.

Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions (BC) have long been discussed as an important element in theory development, referring to the “who, where, when” aspects of a theory. However, it still remains somewhat vague as to what exactly BC are, how they can or even should be explored, and why their understanding matters. This research tackles these important questions by means of an in-depth theoretical-methodological analysis. The study contributes fourfold to organizational research methods: First, it develops a more accurate and explicit conceptualization of BC. Second, it widens the understanding of how BC can be explored by suggesting and juxtaposing new tools and approaches. It also illustrates BC-exploring processes, drawing on two empirical case examples. Third, it analyzes the reasons for exploring BC, concluding that BC exploration fosters theory development, strengthens research validity, and mitigates the research-practice gap. Fourth, it synthesizes the analyses into 12 tentative suggestions for how scholars should subsequently approach the issues surrounding BC. The authors hope that the study contributes to consensus shifting with respect to BC and draws more attention to BC.

Getting Through the Gate

This study empirically examined the statistical and methodological issues raised in the reviewing process to determine what the “gatekeepers” of the literature, the reviewers and editors, really say about methodology when making decisions to accept or reject manuscripts. Three hundred and four editors’ and reviewers’ letters for 69 manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Business and Psychology were qualitatively coded using an iterative approach. Systematic coding generated 267 codes from 1,751 statements that identified common methodological and statistical errors by authors and offered themes across these issues. We examined the relationship between the issues identified and manuscript outcomes. The most prevalent methodological and statistical topics were measurement, control variables, common method variance, factor analysis, and structural equation modeling. Common errors included the choice and comprehensiveness of analyses. This qualitative analysis of methods in reviews provides insight into how current methodological debates reveal themselves in the review process. This study offers guidance and advice for authors to improve the quality of their research and for editors and reviewers to improve the quality of their reviews.

Are We Correcting Correctly?

The formulae for attenuation correction in meta-analysis treat reliabilities as if they were independent of each other. The current study puts this assumption of independence to the test by empirically examining the correlation among predictor and criterion reliability estimates across studies. Interdependence of reliabilities would result in either overestimation or underestimation of population correlations depending on the direction of the relationship between the reliabilities. We conducted two studies to examine the extent to which predictor and criterion reliabilities correlate across studies. Study 1 is based on 628 pairs of reliability estimates from 518 studies published in the Academy of Management Journal and the Journal of Applied Psychology between 2004 and 2011, while Study 2 is based on 564 pairs of reliability estimates from 347 studies included in a meta-analysis on perceived organizational support (POS) and some of its antecedents and outcomes. The findings in both studies show substantial correlations between predictor and criterion reliability coefficients across studies. Our article discusses important implications from these findings for future research and for the future conduct of meta-analyses.

Metaanalyse–praktische Schritte und Entscheidungen im Umsetzungsprozess

In diesem Beitrag wird der Durchführungsprozess metaanalytischer Techniken nach Hunter und Schmidt (2004) Schritt für Schritt beschrieben. In Form eines Tutoriums geben wir evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen, verweisen auf relevante Quellen und Hilfsmittel und bewerten alternative Vorgehensweisen in Bezug auf ihre Güte und Akzeptanz. Wir wenden uns an Forschende, die eine Metaanalyse mit der Besonderheit der Artefaktkorrekturen nach Hunter und Schmidt durchführen wollen und geben Anregungen für die Verbreitung metaanalytischer Ergebnisse sowohl im Wissenschaftskontext als auch im Austausch mit Praktikern.

The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis

Research suggests that contact with nature can be beneficial, for example leading to improvements in mood, cognition, and health. A distinct but related idea is the personality construct of subjective nature connectedness, a stable individual difference in cognitive, affective, and experiential connection with the natural environment. Subjective nature connectedness is a strong predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors that may also be positively associated with subjective well-being. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between nature connectedness and happiness. Based on 30 samples (n = 8523), a fixed-effect meta-analysis found a small but significant effect size (r = 0.19). Those who are more connected to nature tended to experience more positive affect, vitality, and life satisfaction compared to those less connected to nature. Publication status, year, average age, and percentage of females in the sample were not significant moderators. Vitality had the strongest relationship with nature connectedness (r = 0.24), followed by positive affect (r = 0.22) and life satisfaction (r = 0.17). In terms of specific nature connectedness measures, associations were the strongest between happiness and inclusion of nature in self (r = 0.27), compared to nature relatedness (r = 0.18) and connectedness to nature (r = 0.18). This research highlights the importance of considering personality when examining the psychological benefits of nature. The results suggest that closer human-nature relationships do not have to come at the expense of happiness. Rather, this meta-analysis shows that being connected to nature and feeling happy are, in fact, connected.

Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Case Studies

The purpose of this article is to provide the research design of a meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies. The meta-synthesis aims at building theory out of primary qualitative case studies that have not been planned as part of a unified multisite effect. By drawing on an understanding of research synthesis as the interpretation of qualitative evidence from a postpositivistic perspective, this article proposes eight steps of synthesizing existing qualitative case study findings to build theory. An illustration of the application of this method in the field of dynamic capabilities is provided. After enumerating the options available to meta-synthesis researchers, the potential challenges as well as the prospects of this research design are discussed.

Employees’ Social Context and Change-Oriented Citizenship

Change-oriented citizenship depends on support received from employees’ social context. Meta-analytic tests based on 131 independent samples and 38,409 employees confirmed positive relationships between leader, coworker, and organizational support and change-oriented citizenship, even after accounting for employees’ attitudes and intentions (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit). Moderator analyses indicated that specific coworker and organizational support had stronger relationships with change-oriented citizenship than generic support. In contrast, specific and generic leader support were equally important predictors of change-oriented citizenship.

Leadership, Commitment, and Culture

The two purposes of this article were to examine the meta-analytic relationships between several well-studied forms of leadership and employee commitment and to test if some of these relationships vary due to societal culture. Transformational/charismatic leadership was shown to be positively related to affective (AC; ρ = .451, k = 116) and normative commitment (NC; ρ = .337, k = 30), while contingent reward and management-by-exception (active) were positively related to AC (ρ = .369, k = 51 and ρ = .083, k = 25, respectively). Laissez faire leadership was negatively related to AC (ρ = −.296, k = 15). In terms of culture, societal individualism-collectivism did not affect the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and AC. In contrast, the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and both NC and continuance commitment was stronger in countries that value collectivism. We also found evidence that the relationship between contingent reward and AC was stronger in societies with higher rather than lower levels of power distance/hierarchy. Implications of these findings on the study of leadership, culture, and commitment are discussed.

Gestão de Recursos Humanos: uma metanálise de seus efeitos sobre desempenho organizacional

O campo de estudo da Gestão Estratégica de Recursos Humanos e, mais especificamente, da relação entre práticas de Gestão de Recursos Humanos (GRH) e desempenho organizacional, apresenta controvérsias que ainda precisam ser resolvidas. Isto significa que permanece a necessidade de revisar a literatura dos estudos neste campo, para encontrar algum sentido no vasto número de conclusões propostas. Por esse motivo, a fim de atualizar e acatar sugestões e examinar moderadores, ainda não analisados em outras revisões, a proposta para o presente estudo é realizar uma metanálise dos resultados de 194 registros de estudos empíricos e originais, realizados e/ou publicados entre os anos de 1985 a 2007, mantendo a metanálise por uma ou mais práticas de GRH e por um ou mais indicadores de desempenho organizacional. Para a realização desta metanálise escolhemos o método de metanálise psicométrica de Hunter e Schmidt (2004). Com base nesta metanálise, podemos inferir que há uma relação positiva entre GRH e desempenho organizacional. A estimação da magnitude desta relação aumenta, quando as práticas de GRH são combinadas em um sistema ou dois ou mais resultados de desempenho organizacional são levados em consideração.

Review of meta-analyses on the association between child sexual abuse and adult mental health difficulties: a systematic approach

This review evaluates the quality of recent meta-analyses on child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology. Using systematic review methods, seven recently published, English-language meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria of assessing outcome of child sexual abuse. Some methodological weaknesses were identified, such as failure to assess the validity of the primary studies. Child sexual abuse was found to be a nonspecific risk factor in the development of adult mental health difficulties, but the effect sizes varied (partly related to sample type and size). No gender difference was consistently found on adult mental health difficulties but was for victims' perceived mental health consequence. Future meta-analyses need to consider their methods of assessing primary studies to allow for an evidence-based model of adult psychopathology.

Citing and Building on Meta-Analytic Findings

Meta-analysis is commonly used to quantitatively review research findings in the social sciences. This article looks at what happens next, after a meta-analysis is published. The authors examine how meta-analytic findings are cited in subsequent studies and whether the citing authors take full advantage of the information meta-analyses provide. A review of 1,489 citations to meta-analyses in 319 empirical studies published in three journals over two decades indicates that the frequency of citing meta-analyses is accelerating. An analysis of citing practices indicates that authors use data for a variety of purposes in subsequent research studies. However, the citing studies often underreported important aspects of meta-analytic data, and additional opportunities exist to build on the data provided by meta-analytic reviews.

Debunking Myths and Urban Legends About Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis is the dominant approach to research synthesis in the organizational sciences. We discuss seven meta-analytic practices, misconceptions, claims, and assumptions that have reached the status of myths and urban legends (MULs). These seven MULs include issues related to data collection (e.g., consequences of choices made in the process of gathering primary-level studies to be included in a meta-analysis), data analysis (e.g., effects of meta-analytic choices and technical refinements on substantive conclusions and recommendations for practice), and the interpretation of results (e.g., meta-analytic inferences about causal relationships). We provide a critical analysis of each of these seven MULs, including a discussion of why each merits being classified as an MUL, their kernels of truth value, and what part of each MUL represents misunderstanding. As a consequence of discussing each of these seven MULs, we offer best-practice recommendations regarding how to conduct meta-analytic reviews.