College of Behavioral & Social Sciences

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/8

The collections in this community comprise faculty research works, as well as graduate theses and dissertations..

Browse

Filters

2005 - 200912020 - 20221

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Fairness

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparing the Validity & Fairness of Machine Learning to Regression in Personnel Selection
    (2022) Epistola, Jordan J; Hanges, Paul J; Psychology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)
    In the realm of personnel selection, several researchers have claimed that machine learning (ML) can generate predictions that can out-predict more conventional methods such as regression. However, high-profile misuses of ML in selection contexts have demonstrated that ML can also result in illegal discrimination and/or bias against minority groups when developed improperly. This dissertation examined the utility of ML in personnel selection by examining the validity and fairness of ML methods relative to regression. Studies One and Two predicted counterproductive work behavior in Hanges et al.’s (2021) sample of Military cadets/midshipmen, and Study Three predicted job performance ratings of employees in Patalano & Huebner’s (2021) human resources dataset. Results revealed equivalent validity of ML to regression across all three studies. However, fairness was enhanced when ML was developed in accordance with employment law. Implications for the use of ML in personnel selection, as well as relevant legal considerations, are presented in my dissertation. Further, methods for further enhancing the legal defensibility of ML in the selection are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    ARE YOU IN OR OUT? A GROUP-LEVEL EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF LMX ON JUSTICE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
    (2005-01-03) Mayer, David M.; Schneider, Benjamin; Psychology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)
    Early work on leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggested that leaders differentiating followers into in-groups and out-groups leads to superior group performance. However, research on LMX has almost exclusively studied individual outcomes as opposed to group outcomes. In addition, the notion of differentiation suggests that not all group members have high quality relationships with their leaders thereby violating rules surrounding experienced organizational justice. Thus, the purpose of this dissertation is to conceptualize and study LMX at the level of analysis at which it was initially conceptualized (i.e., the work group level), and to examine the effects of LMX level (i.e., mean in group members' LMX scores) and LMX strength (i.e., variance in group members' LMX scores, i.e., differentiation) on group performance (i.e., unit-level customer satisfaction) and group-level fairness perceptions (i.e., justice climates). Drawing on LMX, organizational justice, social comparison theory, and multilevel theory and research, I derived a number of testable hypotheses involving the relationship between LMX level and LMX strength on justice climates and group performance. There were three major sets of findings regarding (1): the effects of LMX level, (2) the effects of LMX differentiation (later called LMX strength), (3) and the moderating roles of task interdependence and group size on the LMX strength to justice climates relationships. First, LMX level was positively related to justice climates; however, the relationship between LMX level and customer satisfaction was not significant. Second, as predicted, LMX strength was negatively related to justice climates, but, incongruent with the differentiation (strength) hypothesis of LMX theory, there was not a significant relationship between LMX strength and customer satisfaction. Third, consistent with the hypothesis, task interdependence moderated the relationship between LMX strength and justice climates such that justice climates were more favorable when strength was high and task interdependence was high. Collectively, these results suggest that having variability (i.e., differentiation) in the quality of relationships in a work group may have negative effects on justice climates, particularly when individuals must work interdependently; but a negligible direct effect on group performance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.