Being Both Too Liberal and Too Conservative: The Perils of Treating Grouped Data as though They Were Independent

By P. Bliese, P. Hanges. 2004

435 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aba616194e29e6d591e5c62015c8b66a8c20ee65

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Sociology and Political Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

DYNAMIC NETWORKS AND BEHAVIOR: SEPARATING SELECTION FROM INFLUENCE: separating selection from influence (2010, methodology): “Depending on the exact nature of the data, such procedures can be biased towards conservative as well as liberal testing (KENNY & JUDD 1986, BLIESE & HANGES 2004), and therefore lack reliability.”
Vulnerable Children in Varying Classroom Contexts: Bystanders' Behaviors Moderate the Effects of Risk Factors on Victimization (2010, background): “If not modeled, this nonindependence of observations may produce inaccurate standard errors (Bliese & Hanges, 2004; Julian, 2001; Lee, 2000; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).”
Shouldering a silent burden: The toll of dirty tasks (2012, methodology): “As such, it was important to investigate whether we could consider these data to be independent (Bliese and Hanges, 2004).”
Cultural Tightness–Looseness and Perceptions of Effective Leadership (2016, methodology): “As discussed by van de Vijver and Leung (1997) and Bliese and Hanges (2004), random coefficient modeling (RCM; also frequently referred to as HLM) accounts for the correlated errors in observations created by having nested data structure.”
Management commitment to the ecological environment and employees: Implications for employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors (2015, methodology): “RCM accounts for the clustering of data within work units and therefore is a suitable method to test such models (Bliese and Hanges, 2004).”
Socially Responsible Human Resource Management and Employee Support for External CSR: Roles of Organizational CSR Climate and Perceived CSR Directed Toward Employees (2017, methodology): “The hierarchal data structure leads to gross errors of prediction if a researcher uses statistical approaches (such as ordinary least squares regression) that are not designed to model data structures that include dependence due to clustering of entities (Bliese and Hanges 2004; Hox 2010; Snijders a”
BEYOND PERSONALITY TRAITS: A STUDY OF PERSONALITY STATES AND SITUATIONAL CONTINGENCIES IN CUSTOMER SERVICE JOBS (2011, methodology): “The data were nonindependent in that observations were nested within individuals, necessitating the use of multilevel modeling (Bliese & Hanges, 2004; Kenny & Judd, 1986).”
To prosper, organizational psychology should… adopt a global perspective (2008, background): “…of the individual values within the sample is affected systematically by higher-level factors (e.g., countries, ethnic membership), failing to account for the higher-level source of cultural meaning is problematic because it will result in biased parameter estimates (e.g., Bliese & Hanges, 2004).”
Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations (2010, positive): “Even if parameter estimates are accurate, Bliese and Hanges (2004) suggested that in models involving only individual-level variables this nonindependence may result in too many type II errors, and thus a loss of power.”
Performance consequences of psychological empowerment (2009, methodology): “A suitable method of analysis for overcoming the impact of non-independence is Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM, Bliese and Hanges 2004; Raudenbush and Bryk 2002).”
Bystanders Matter: Associations Between Reinforcing, Defending, and the Frequency of Bullying Behavior in Classrooms (2011, background): “Ignoring this nonindependence of observations may produce inaccurate standard errors (Bliese & Hanges, 2004; Julian, 2001; Lee, 2000; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).”