Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do Findings from Laboratory Experiments on Preferential Selection Generalize to Cognitively-Oriented Tasks? A Test of Two Perspectives

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This investigation examined whether previous findings in preferential selection using laboratory simulations, which have used leadership tasks and perceived performance, generalize to cognitively oriented tasks and actual performance. We tested competing perspectives derived from two theoretical accounts of stereotype threat theory: regulatory focus and executive control interference. Non-stigmatized (Whites and Asians) and stigmatized (Hispanics and Blacks; total n = 513) individuals first took a cognitive ability test to be selected for a subsequent task and a chance to win a cash prize. They were then randomly assigned to an explanation concerning selection for a proofreading task based on merit, gender, or race. Results tended to support the regulatory focus view. The main study showed there were no significant differences in performance quantity or quality among participants who were selected based on merit or gender. Among those selected on race, stigmatized participants had lower performance quantity but higher performance quality (i.e., they were slower but more accurate) than non-stigmatized participants. A follow-up study (n = 252) found that stigmatized people selected based on race had more prevention concerns than non-stigmatized people. We discuss previous findings in preferential selection research utilizing experiments and conclude that the regulatory focus perspective can account for these results. Our research also shows that by using different outcomes, it is possible to qualify the allegedly harmful effects of preferential selection. This study is the first to experimentally examine the effects of preferential selection on actual task performance in cognitively oriented tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are two exceptions, which we discuss in the final section of the present paper (Brown et al. 2000; Turner and Pratkanis 1993).

  2. For brevity, henceforth, we use the term “Whites” to refer to individuals who are White, non-Hispanic.

  3. Because Asian Americans receive higher scores on cognitive ability tests (Roth et al. 2001), we included them in the non-stigmatized group, along with Whites.

  4. The number of participants who did not make any marks was not trivial. That said, when we were pilot-testing this study, we conducted some post-session informal interviews. One participant who had no marks explained that in the 12 min he had to complete the task, he was unable to figure out which marks to use. Thus, the task may have been perceived as difficult by some individuals, which may explain why a few of them did not record any marks. Based on this assessment, we decided to conduct the analyses with and without those who had recorded no marks. The results were robust to this test; they did not change by including or excluding these participants.

  5. Results reported below were robust to including or excluding people who answered the manipulation checks incorrectly.

  6. We also conducted these analyses, for performance quantity and quality, using GPA, highest degree (English speaking country or not), and cognitive ability as covariates. Results remained unchanged in terms of statistical significance. All these results are available from the first author upon request.

  7. Similar results were found when we operationalized performance quality differently. We used the number of correction of errors that did not exist. In other words, this is the number of marks that should not have been made. There was a significant race × selection method interaction, F (2, 501) = 4.68, p < .05, η2 = .02. Within participants selected based on race, minorities showed less errors (M = .73; SE = 1.85) than non-minorities (M = 2.94; SE = 4.71), F (1, 501) = 10.96, p < .001.

  8. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this idea.

References

  • Ackerman, P. L., & Ellingsen, V. J. (2016). Speed and accuracy indicators of test performance under different instructional conditions: Intelligence correlates. Intelligence, 56(Supplement C), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2001). The publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 261–292.

  • Barber, S. J. (2017). An examination of age-based stereotype threat about cognitive decline: Implications for stereotype-threat research and theory development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 62–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616656345.

  • Barber, S. J., & Mather, M. (2013a). Stereotype threat can reduce older adults’ memory errors. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(10), 1888–1895. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.840656.

  • Barber, S. J., & Mather, M. (2013b). Stereotype threat can both enhance and impair older adults’ memory. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2522–2529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613497023.

  • Barber, S. J., Mather, M., & Gatz, M. (2015). How stereotype threat affects healthy older adults’ performance on clinical assessments of cognitive decline: The key role of regulatory Fit. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, gbv009. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv009.

  • Beilock, S. L. (2008). Math performance in stressful situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00602.x.

  • Berry, C. M., Cullen, M. J., & Meyer, J. M. (2014). Racial/ethnic subgroup differences in cognitive ability test range restriction: Implications for differential validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(5), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.5.399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. P., Charnsangavej, T., Keough, K. A., Newman, M. L., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2000). Putting the “affirm” into affirmative action: Preferential selection and academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 736–747.

  • Brown, R. P., & Lee, M. N. (2005). Stigma consciousness and the race gap in college academic achievement. Self and Identity, 4(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, L. (1995). Why affirmative action is divisive, difficult—and necessary. The Washington Post, p. C03.

  • Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chalabaev, A., Dematte, E., Sarrazin, P., & Fontayne, P. (2014). Creating regulatory fit under stereotype threat: Effects on performance and self-determination among junior high school students. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 27, 119–132.

  • Chalabaev, A., Major, B., Sarrazin, P., & Cury, F. (2012). When avoiding failure improves performance: stereotype threat and the impact of performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 130–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. G. (1995). Fairly inconsistent: The meaning of “fairness” is usually in the eye of the begrudged (p. D3). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.2.93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585–611. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, A. J. C., Wilmuth, C. A., Yap, A. J., & Carney, D. R. (2015). Preparatory power posing affects nonverbal presence and job interview performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1286–1295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Paola, M., & Gioia, F. (2016). Who performs better under time pressure? Results from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 53(Supplement C), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doverspike, D., Taylor, M. A., & Arthur Jr., W. (2000). Affirmative action: A psychological perspective. Hauppauge, NY, US: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos, T., & Torres, J. A. C. (2007). Implicit identification with academic achievement among Latino college students: The role of ethnic identity and significant others. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 293–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004). Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 279–301). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennis, B., & Stel, M. (2011). The pantomime of persuasion: Fit between sales-agent nonverbal communication and influence strategies. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, 441–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, E. A., & Tosi Jr., H. L. (2007). Effort, performance, and conscientiousness: An agency theory perspective. Journal of Management, 33, 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, C. E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Retraining attitudes and stereotypes to affect motivation and cognitive capacity under stereotype threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 740–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, L. R., Markman, A. B., Todd, W., & Baldwin, G. C. (2009). Stereotype threat reinterpreted as a regulatory mismatch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013463.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hays, W. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.). Fort Worth: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., & Alcott, V. B. (2001). What I think you think of me: Women’s reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 574–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: The effect of gender rarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 188–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536–544.

  • Heilman, M. E., Kaplow, S. R., Amato, M. A. G., & Stathatos, P. (1993). When similarity is a liability: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on reactions to like-sex and different-sex others. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 917–927.

  • Heilman, M. E., Lucas, J. A., & Kaplow, S. R. (1990). Self-derogating consequences of sex-based preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 202–216.

  • Heilman, M. E., Manzi, F., & Braun, S. (2015). Presumed incompetent: perceived lack of fit and gender bias in recruitment and selection. In A. M. Broadbridge & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in management: Getting in, getting on, getting out (Vol. 90, pp. 90–104). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.

  • Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W. F., & Gilbert, D. (1996a). The other side of affirmative action: Reactions of non-beneficiaries to sex-basedpreferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 347–357.

  • Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on task choices of men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 99–105.

  • Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? The impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00150.

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., Legault, L., & Kang, S. K. (2011). Lingering effects: stereotype threat hurts more than you think. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5(1), 227–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01031.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E. (2006). Uncovering the motivational processes underlying justice: The implicit cognitive, affective, and conative effects of experiencing (un)fairness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, Akron, OH.

  • Johnson, R. E., & Steinman, L. (2009). The use of implicit measures for organisational research: An empirical example. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41, 202–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenny, E. (1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L. M., Mayer, D. M., & Kravitz, D. A. (2014). The stigma of affirmative action: A stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 964–989. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, H. O. (2016). Supreme court has spoken on affirmative action. Now, colleges should boost income diversity. Retrieved June 25, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/24/supreme-court-has-spoken-on-affirmative-action-now-colleges-should-boost-income-diversity.html

  • Li, A., Evans, J., Christian, M. S., Gilliland, S. W., Kausel, E. E., & Stein, J. H. (2011). The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences (Vol. xiii). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFall, S., Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. (2009). Testing the generalizability of the mere effort account of the evaluation–performance relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, M., Régner, I., Morisset, P., Rigalleau, F., & Huguet, P. (2012). Stereotype threat strengthens automatic recall and undermines controlled processes in older adults. Psychological Science, 956797612437607, 723–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612437607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nacoste, R. W. (1989). Affirmative action and self-evaluation. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 103–109). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, L. T., & Crandall, C. S. (2003). Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 782–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, D. L., & Harvey, R. D. (2000). Hostile environments, stereotype threat, and math performance among undergraduate women. Current Psychology, 19(4), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-000-1025-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: Effects of interracial contact on executive function. Psychological Science, 14(3), 287–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(2), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.25356510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, P. L., Be Vier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer III, F. S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Multiple social identities and stereotype threat: Imbalance, accessibility, and working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 949–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rydell, R. J., Van Loo, K. J., & Boucher, K. L. (2014). Which executive functions are impaired by stereotype threat and account for different threat-related outcomes? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Convergent evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 87, 38–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, M., Pittinsky, T., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual lest performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). New York: Academic Press.

  • Stewart, M. M., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Selection based on merit versus demography: Implications across race and gender lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. C. (1994). Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the 1990 General Social Survey. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(1–2), 143–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1501&2_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Totenberg, N. (2016, June 24). Supreme court upholds affirmative action in college admissions. NPR.org. Retrieved June 25, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2016/06/23/483275212/supreme-court-upholds-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions

  • Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1993). Effects of preferential and meritorious selection on performance: An examination of intuitive and self-handicapping perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293191006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voyer, D. (2011). Time limits and gender differences on paper-and-pencil tests of mental rotation: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0042-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R. (1995). Affirmative action: A small patch on a festering problem. Minneapolis Star Tribune, p. 4.

  • Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 456–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weyant, J. M. (2005). Implicit stereotyping of Hispanics: Development and validity of a Hispanic version of the implicit association test. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(3), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986305276747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Will, G. F. (2001). Affirmative action out of control. The Washington Post, p. A19.

  • Wong, J. T., & Gallo, D. A. (2016). Stereotype threat reduces false recognition when older adults are forewarned. Memory, 24(5), 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1036885.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av.Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile

    Edgar E. Kausel

  2. Department of Management & Organizations, University of Arizona, P. O. Box 210108, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0108, USA

    Jerel E. Slaughter

  3. Prince Mohammad Bin Salman College of Business and Entrepreneurship, King Abdullah Economic City, Saudi Arabia

    Joel M. Evans

  4. Institute on Aging, Mather LifeWays, 1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 1800, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA

    Jordan H. Stein

Authors
  1. Edgar E. Kausel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerel E. Slaughter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joel M. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jordan H. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edgar E. Kausel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kausel, E.E., Slaughter, J.E., Evans, J.M. et al. Do Findings from Laboratory Experiments on Preferential Selection Generalize to Cognitively-Oriented Tasks? A Test of Two Perspectives. J Bus Psychol 34, 587–601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9590-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9590-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation