THE EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY SIMILARITY ON PEER RATINGS OF CONTEXTUAL WORK BEHAVIORS

By David Antonioni, Heejoon Park. 2001

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d76ad7711c05042e2d1e070c63783b34f40d740c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

1. Eric Molleman
2. B. Nijstad
3. G. Stewart
4. Charles C. Manz
5. Annelies E. M. van Vianen

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Eric Molleman
2. Stephen H. Courtright
3. Charles C. Manz
4. Ramón Rico
5. Miriam Sanchez-Manzanares
6. B. Nijstad
7. G. Stewart
8. Gerben van der Vegt

In Social Psychology

1. Eric Molleman
2. Stephen H. Courtright
3. Charles C. Manz
4. Miriam Sanchez-Manzanares
5. Ramón Rico
6. B. Nijstad
7. G. Stewart
8. Gerben van der Vegt

Citations in the corpus

• A Person-Environment Fit Approach to Volunteerism: Volunteer Personality Fit and Culture Fit as Predictors of Affective Outcomes (2008, background): “In the P-E fit literature, similarity-attraction has been studied as the interpersonal compatibility between individuals and coworkers (Antonioni & Park, 2001; Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2003; Strauss, Barrick, & Connerley, 2001) and between individuals…”
• The phenomenology of fit: linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. (2006, unknown): “…similarity have implemented the atomistic, molecular, and molar approaches by separately assessing the person and other members of the organization (Antonioni & Park, 2001; Bauer & Green, 1996; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002), soliciting comparisons of the person relative to others (Strauss, Barrick, &…”
• The Effects of Diversity Faultlines and Team Task Autonomy on Decision Quality and Social Integration (2007, background): “In a similar vein, many scholars have highlighted the importance of team member conscientiousness for team dynamics and performance (Antonioni & Park, 2001; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Harrison et al., 2002; Molleman, Nauta, & Jehn, 2004).”
• Self-Leadership: A Multilevel Review (2011, background): “Humphrey et al. (2007) further proposed that teams should minimize the variance in conscientiousness, as this should lead to greater member goal congruence and less conflict (Antonioni & Park, 2001).”