Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T02:57:37.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Individual Differences in Content via Changing Person–Context Interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Jeffrey B. Vancouver
Jeffrey B. Vancouver*
Affiliation:
Ohio University
*
E-mail: vancouve@ohio.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 109 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, Ohio University.

References

Busemeyer, J. R., & Stout, J. C. (2002). A contribution of cognitive decision models to clinical assessment: Decomposing performance on the Bechara gambling task. Psychological Assessment, 14, 253–262.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.Google Scholar
Dalal, R. S., & Hulin, C. L. (2008). Motivation for what? A multivariate dynamic perspective of the criterion. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 63–101). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Goal-striving and self-regulation processes. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Work Motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 151–196). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal-setting theory with time: An integrated approach. Academy of Management Review, 29, 404–422.Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., & Hulin, C. L. (Eds.). (2000). Computational modeling of behavior in organizations. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R. (2009). Work motivation: Identifying use-inspired research directions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 77–93.Google Scholar
Klein, H. J., Austin, J. T., & Cooper, J. T. (2008). Goal choice and decision processes. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 101–151). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547.10.2307/3560240Google Scholar
Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 889–913.10.5465/amr.2006.22527462Google Scholar
Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Living systems theory as a paradigm for organizational behavior: Understanding humans, organizations, and social processes. Behavioral Science, 41, 165–204.Google Scholar
Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 1–18.Google Scholar
Wallsten, T. S., Pleskac, T. J., & Lejuez, C. W. (2005). Modeling behavior in a clinically diagnostic sequential risk-taking task. Psychological Review, 112, 862–880.Google Scholar
Yechiam, E., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2008). Evaluating generalizability and parameter consistency in learning models. Games and Economic Behavior, 63, 370–394.Google Scholar
Yechiam, E., Busemeyer, J. R., Stout, J. C., & Bechara, A. (2005). Using cognitive models to map relations between neuropsychological disorders and human decision-making deficits. Psychological Science, 16, 973–978.Google Scholar