Previously, attempts to measure the CSE trait were indirect, requiring the trait to be extracted from the four scales that measured each individual trait. However, a direct core self- evaluation scale, the CSES, has recently been developed and proven both reliable and valid. Although some researchers still favor using the individual trait scales to measure core self-evaluations, the use of the direct measure is growing more popular in recent literature. There are several reasons the previous indirect measurement of the CSE trait was considered a limitation of CSE research: # Length: Direct scales are able to measure the underlying trait in a fewer number of items.
|
|
This approach focuses on the highest or lowest individual-trait score for the team. This is based on research that suggests that a single individual can significantly affect a group. Thus, in some cases the highest (i.e., maximum method) or lowest (minimum method) individual team member score may provide valuable insight.
|
|
Genes are a fundamental part of DNA that is aligned linearly on a eukaryotic chromosome. Chemical information that is transported and encoded by each gene is referred to as a trait. Many organisms possess two genes for each individual trait that is present within that particular individual. These paired genes that control the same trait is classified as an allele.
|
|
Response: Selection occurs on the level of the individual and not the individual trait. Less than optimal designs occur in part because the target of selection is the entire organism and not the trait itself. Selection does not optimize adaptive traits or strategies as much as it gradually eliminates unfit traits or strategies. We can measure adaptiveness by assessing the effort (costs) required.
|
|
"Staffing for effective group decision making: Key issues in matching people and teams." Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (1995): 291-332. but the association between individual trait characteristics and team performance generally has not been studied in actual field settings, with the exception of a few studies examining composition in terms of member ability. One reason is the difficulty of finding samples with an adequate number of teams.
|
|
However, traditional Mendelian genetics which examines inheritance patterns on an individual trait basis is limited to traits or phenotypes that cleanly segregate into distinct classes. Genomics is able to overcome this limitation through the comparison of the genomes of individuals exhibiting a trait or phenotype of interest to a reference genome which enables the identification differences between the two genomes such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), the movement of transposable elements (or retrotransposons) or deletions, among other genetic changes.
|
|
However, there are disadvantages to this process. Because a single experiment done in selective breeding cannot be used to assess an entire group of genetic variances, individual experiments must be done for every individual trait. Also, because of the necessity of selective breeding experiments to require maintaining the organisms tested in a lab or greenhouse, it is impractical to use this breeding method on many organisms. Controlled mating instances are difficult to carry out in this case and this is a necessary component of selective breeding.
|
|
Scarring is an individual trait, so it is difficult for a surgeon to predict how much a person might be predisposed to scarring. Currently, the American Medical Association does not approve of the use of lasers to perform operations on the pharynx or uvula. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a relatively new surgical treatment for snoring. This treatment applies radiofrequency energy and heat (between 77 °C and 85 °C) to the soft tissue at the back of the throat, such as the soft palate and uvula, causing scarring of the tissue beneath the skin.
|
|
Each trait had previously presented as a relatively powerful predictor of various job outcomes; however, until this time, these traits' predictive powers had only been studied in isolation. When studied together, Judge et al. (1997) discovered that these four traits would form a broader personality trait called core self-evaluations, which could predict job satisfaction better than each individual trait could when examined alone. In other words, relative levels of each of these four traits in an individual can be explained by one broad underlying trait; core self-evaluations.
|
|
In accordance with the RST, an association was found between people with extreme scores in BIS/BAS and adjustment problems. BIS and BAS reactivity correspond with individual trait differences in positive affect and negative affect – The BAS is associated with trait impulsivity and positive affect, while the BIS is associated with trait negative affect. For instance, it has been postulated that high BIS is related to anxiety, while high BAS is related to conduct disorders or impulsivity. According to this model, substance abuse problems may arise under two different personality traits: low BIS and high BAS.
|
|
The dispositional approach suggests that individuals vary in their tendency to be satisfied with their jobs, in other words, job satisfaction is to some extent an individual trait. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins raised apart have similar levels of job satisfaction. A significant model that narrowed the scope of the dispositional approach was the Core Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997.
|
|
For instance, the inputs of the highest ability member are critical for generating solutions to problems, and the inputs of the lowest ability member significantly affect the quality of assembly-line work (Steiner, 1972). Focusing on the highest or lowest individual-trait score of team members is therefore appropriate in situations where one person has an inordinate effect on team success. Maximum and minimum characteristic scores are considered most important when one team member having or lacking a characteristic will significantly impact the team's performance. For example, a very disagreeable team member may obstruct a team's ability to agree and cause poorer performance outcomes.
|
|
Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that people who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. The focus then shifted away from traits of leaders to an investigation of the leader behaviors that were effective.
|
|
However, later work by biologists and statisticians such as Ronald Fisher showed that if multiple Mendelian factors were involved in the expression of an individual trait, they could produce the diverse results observed, and thus showed that Mendelian genetics is compatible with natural selection. Thomas Hunt Morgan and his assistants later integrated Mendel's theoretical model with the chromosome theory of inheritance, in which the chromosomes of cells were thought to hold the actual hereditary material, and created what is now known as classical genetics, a highly successful foundation which eventually cemented Mendel's place in history. Mendel's findings allowed scientists such as Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane to predict the expression of traits on the basis of mathematical probabilities. An important aspect of Mendel's success can be traced to his decision to start his crosses only with plants he demonstrated were true-breeding.
|
|
D-identity refers to an individual trait, such as caring. D-identities are a matter of social interaction that only become identities because “other people treat, talk about, and interact” with the person in ways that bring forth and reinforce the trait (p. 103). According to Gee “D-identities can be placed on a continuum in terms of how active or passive one is in ‘recruiting’ them, that is, in terms of how much such identities can be viewed as merely ascribed to a person versus an active achievement or accomplishment of that person” (p. 104). The final identity perspective Gee identifies is the “affinity perspective (or A-identities)” (p. 105). A-identities are built by shared experiences as part of an affinity group, which according to Gee's definition is a group that share “allegiance to, access to, and participation in specific practices” (p. 105).
|
|