Theoretische en praktische overwegingen bij spelgebaseerde en traditionele metingen van integriteit | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Gedrag & Organisatie
  4. Volume 36, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 36, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0921-5077
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7235

Abstract

Samenvatting

Integriteit is een belangrijke voorspeller voor werkgedrag, maar wordt nog weinig meegenomen in selectiesituaties. In vier studies onderzoeken we hoe de persoonlijkheidstrek integriteit (honesty-humility) van het HEXACO persoonlijkheidsmodel gemeten kan worden met traditionele en spelgebaseerde methoden (een gegamificeerd instrument en een assessmentspel) voor selectiesituaties. In Studie 1 tonen we aan dat de vertaling van honestyhumility naar integriteit gerechtvaardigd is, aangezien het concepten zoals rechtvaardigheid en eerlijkheid meet die met morele integriteit worden geassocieerd. In Studie 2 tonen we aan dat macht van belang is voor de trekactivatie van integriteit. Dit onderzoek suggereert dan ook dat een integriteitsmeting vooral van belang is voor posities waarin kandidaten veel macht krijgen. In Studies 3 en 4 worden spelgebaseerde integriteitsmetingen gevalideerd. Deze studies ondersteunen de constructvaliditeit van de spelgebaseerde integriteitsmeting doordat deze convergeert met zelfgerapporteerde integriteit. Studie 3 laat wel zien dat een gegamificeerde integriteitsmeting net zo makkelijk te faken is als een persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst. Studie 4 laat zien dat een assessmentspel waarin deze gegamificeerde integriteitsmeting was opgenomen, voorspellende validiteit en incrementele validiteit heeft ten opzichte van zelfgerapporteerde persoonlijkheid voor relevante uitkomsten. De resultaten tonen aan dat het mogelijk is om integriteit betrouwbaar en valide te meten met spelgebaseerde assessments en dat een spelgebaseerde integriteitsmeting voor personeelsselectie belangrijke werkgerelateerde uitkomsten kan voorspellen.

© Ard J. Barends, Reinout E. de Vries & Mark van Vugt
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.2.001.BARE
2023-06-01
2024-05-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(6), 713-721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603931
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anglim, J., Lievens, F., Everton, L., Grant, S. L., & Marty, A. (2018). HEXACO personality predicts counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior in low-stakes and job applicant contexts. Journal of Research in Personality, 77, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.003
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anglim, J., Morse, G., De Vries, R. E., MacCann, C., & Marty, A. (2017). Comparing job applicants to non-applicants using an item-level bifactor model on the HEXACO personality inventory. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 669-684. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2120
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of honesty-humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1216-1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.006
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & De Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psychological studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356-366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Audi, R., & Murphy, P. E. (2006). The many faces of integrity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20061615
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Barends, A. J. (2020). Assessing honesty-humility: Theoretical and practical considerations of traditional and game-based assessments. Repro VU.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Barends, A. J., & De Vries, R. E. (2019). Noncompliant responding: Comparing exclusion criteria in MTurk personality research to improve data quality. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 84-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.015
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Barends, A. J., & De Vries, R. E. (2022). Construct validity of a personality assessment game in a simulated selection situation and the moderating roles of the ability to identify criteria and dispositional insight. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12404
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Barends, A. J., De Vries, R. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2019a). Gamified personality assessment: Virtual behavior cues of honesty-humility. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227(3), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000379
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Barends, A. J., De Vries, R. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2019b). Power influences the expression of honesty-humility: The power-exploitation affordances hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103856
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Barends, A. J., De Vries, R. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2022). Construct and predictive validity of an assessment game to measure honesty-humility. Assessment, 29(4), 630-650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120985612
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Barnard, A. (2014). The competencies of integrity. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 21(2), 267-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2011.10820455
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.85.3.349
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Smit, I., Papini, D. R., & Goossens, L. (2013). Development and validation of the revised identity style inventory (ISI-5): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032642
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Black, J. E., & Reynolds, W. M. (2016). Development, reliability, and validity of the moral identity questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.041
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.19
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947-966. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022641
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Cooper, W. H., & Withey, M. J. (2009). The strong situation hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308329378
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Crowson, H. M. (2009). Does the DOG scale measure dogmatism? Another look at construct validity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(3), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.3.365-383
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
     [Google Scholar]
  27. De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P., Timmerman, M. E., De Roover, K., Mlačić, B., & Church, A. T. (2014). Towards a pan-cultural personality structure: Input from 11 psycholexical studies. European Journal of Personality, 28(5), 497-510. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1953
     [Google Scholar]
  28. De Vries, A., De Vries, R. E., Born, M. Ph., & Van den Berg, R. H. (2014). Persoonlijkheid als voorspeller van werkprestatie en contraproductief werkgedrag. Gedrag & Organisatie, 27(4), 407-427. https://doi.org/10.5117/2014.027.004.407
     [Google Scholar]
  29. De Vries, R. E., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). De zes belangrijkste persoonlijkheidsdimensies en de HEXACO persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst. Gedrag & Organisatie, 22(3), 232-274. https://doi.org/10.5117/2009.022.003.004
     [Google Scholar]
  30. De Vries, R. E., Tybur, J. M., Pollet, T. V., & Van Vugt, M. (2016). Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(5), 407-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.001
     [Google Scholar]
  31. De Vries, R. E., Wawoe, K. W., & Holtrop, D. (2015). What is engagement? Proactivity as the missing link in het HEXACO model of personality. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 178-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12150
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, September28-30, 2011, Tampere, Finland, pp. 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Fong, K., & Mar, R. A. (2015). What does my avatar say about me? Inferring personality from avatars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 237-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214562761
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Foroughi, C. K., Serraino, C., Parasuraman, R., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2016). Can we create a measure of fluid intelligence using Puzzle Creator within Portal 2? Intelligence, 56, 58-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.02.011
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Forsynthe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.175
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Georgiou, K., & Nikolaou, I. (2020). Are applicants in favor of traditional or gamified assessment methods? Exploring applicant reactions towards a gamified selection method. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106356
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Ebert, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). New procedure for extension analysis in exploratory factor analysis. Educational and Psychology Measurement, 57(5), 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057005001
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 379-398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.379
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwartze, R. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hendriks, A. (2012). SoPHIE – Software platform for human interaction experiments. University of Osnabrueck, Working Paper.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2009). Pillars of cooperation: Honesty-humility, social value orientation and economic behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 516-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.003
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What do we know about leadership? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Holtrop, D., Oostrom, J. K., Dunlop, P. D., & Runneboom, C. (2021). Predictors of faking behavior on personality inventories in selection: Do the ability and motivation to fake predict faking? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(2), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12322
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hu, J., & Connelly, B. S. (2021). Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta-analysis of within subject studies. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(3-4), 412-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12338
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Knoll, M., Meyer, B., Kroemer, N. B., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2015). It takes two to be yourself: An integrated model of authenticity, its measurement, and its relationship to work-related variables. Journal of Individual Differences, 36(1), 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000153
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Laljee, M., Laham, S. M., & Tam, T. (2007). Unconditional respect for persons: A social psychological analysis. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationpsychologie (GIO), 38(4), 451-464.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., & Abraham, J. D. (2020). Gamifying a situational judgment test with immersion and control game elements. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(4), 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2018-0446
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Langer, M., König, C. J., & Papathanasiou, M. (2019). Highly automated job interviews: Acceptance under the influence of stakes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(3), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12246
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO personality inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 182-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment, 25(5), 543-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659134
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lee, K., Gizzarone, M., Ashton, M. C. (2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually harass. Sex Roles, 49(1/2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023961603479
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (1988). The Tennessee self-concept scale: Reliability, internal structure, and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.612
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Marshall, M. A., & Brown, J. D. (2006). Trait aggressiveness and situational provocation: A test of the traits as situational sensitivities (TASS) model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1100-1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288488
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Monga, M. (2017). “Doing the right thing” in the banking sector: Integrity from an upper echelons perspective. In M.Orlitzky & M.Monds (Eds.), Integrity in business and management (pp. 105-135). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Moorman, R. H., Darnold, T. C., & Priesmuth, M. (2013). Perceived leader integrity: Supporting the construct validity and utility of a multi-dimensional measure in two samples. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 427-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.02.003
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Moorman, R. H., Darnold, T. C., Priesmuth, M., & Dunn, C. P. (2012). Toward the measurement of perceived leader integrity: Introducing a multidimensional approach. Journal of Change Management, 12(4), 383-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2012.728746
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Moshagen, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2017). The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms. Behavioral Research Methods, 49, 724-732. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0729-x
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(12), 1661-1671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209346309
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (sixth edition). Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Oostrom, J. K., De Vries, R. E., & De Wit, M. (2019). Development and validation of a HEXACO situational judgment test. Human Performance, 32(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1539856
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual confusion. European Management Journal, 25(3), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.04.006
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. (2003). The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17(4), 251-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.474
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Pletzer, J.-L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & De Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.004
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Pommier, E. A. (2010). The Compassion Scale (Doctoral dissertation).
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Quiroga, M. Á., Román, F. J., De La Fuente, J., Privado, J., & Colom, R. (2016). The measurement of intelligence in the XXI century using video games. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, e89. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.84
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027-1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.93.5.1027
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 155-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.004
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Saucier, G. (2009). Recurrent personality dimensions in inclusive lexical studies: Indications for a Big Six structure. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1577-1614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00593.x
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Scherkoske, G. (2013). Whither integrity I: Recent faces of integrity. Philosophy Compass, 8(1), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00475.x
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Schlenker, B. R. (2008). Integrity and character: Implications of principled and expedient ideologies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(10), 1078-1125. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.10.1078
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Sharma, L., Markon, K. E., & Clark, L. A. (2014). Toward a theory of distinct types of “impulsive” behaviors: A meta-analysis of self-report and behavioral measures. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 374-408. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034418
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Shoss, M. K., & Strube, M. J. (2011). How do you fake a personality test? An investigation of cognitive models in impression-managed responding. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.003
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & McLean Parks, J. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle down” among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 650-665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.650
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Suleiman, R. (1996). Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(5), 531-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(96)00029-3
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1077246.1077253
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Tabacchi, M. E., Caci, B., Cardaci, M., & Perticone, V. (2017). Early usage of Pokémon Go and its personality correlates. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.047
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Tangey, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1439-1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.007
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Ventura, M., & Shute, V. (2013). The validity of a game-based assessment of persistence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2568-2572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.033
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Walumbwa, F. O., Aviolo, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Wong, S. S., Lim, S. W. H., & Quinlan, K. M. (2016). Integrity in and beyond contemporary higher education: What does it mean to university students? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01094
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Woodward, C., & Pury, C. L. S. (2007). The construct of courage: Categorization and measurement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.59.2.135
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Worth, N. C., & Book, A. S. (2014). Personality and behavior in a massively multiplayer online-roleplaying game. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 322-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.009
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Worth, N. C., & Book, A. S. (2015). Dimensions of video game behavior and their relationships with personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.056
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Monica, S. (2015). The HEXACO model of personality and video game preferences. Entertainment Computing, 11, 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2015.08.001
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Zhao, K., & Smillie, L. D. (2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(3), 277-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314553709
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.2.001.BARE
Loading
Theoretische en praktische overwegingen bij spelgebaseerde en traditionele metingen van integriteit
G&O 36, 93 (2023); https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2023.2.001.BARE
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.2.001.BARE
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.2.001.BARE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): game-based assessments; honesty-humility; integrity; personality; power

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error