Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Resolving Scientific Disputes by the Joint Design of Crucial Experiments by the Antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham Dispute Regarding Participation in Goal Setting

Resolving Scientific Disputes by the Joint Design of Crucial Experiments by the Antagonists:... In this monograph we describe a unique method for resolving scientific disputes: the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists themselves with the help of a mediator. This method was applied to the issue of the effect of participation on goal commitment and performance. In research on this topic, Latham and his colleagues had obtained markedly different results from those obtained by Erez and her colleagues. With Locke serving as a third party mediator, Latham and Erez designed four experiments to resolve the discrepancies. The experiments were conducted at the University of Washington and the University of Maryland. The results revealed that the major reason for the difference was that Erez gave very brief tell instructions to her assigned goal subjects, whereas Latham used a tell and sell approach. Four additional factors also contributed to the earlier difference in findings: goal difficulty, setting personal goals before goal treatments were introduced, self-efficacy-inducing instructions, and instructions to reject disliked goals. It was concluded that (a) the differences between Latham and Erez can be explained on the basis of differences in specific procedures, and (b) the method used to resolve this dispute should be used by other investigators. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Psychology American Psychological Association

Resolving Scientific Disputes by the Joint Design of Crucial Experiments by the Antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham Dispute Regarding Participation in Goal Setting

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/resolving-scientific-disputes-by-the-joint-design-of-crucial-wcrGy7QaE1

References (62)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0021-9010
eISSN
1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.753
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In this monograph we describe a unique method for resolving scientific disputes: the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists themselves with the help of a mediator. This method was applied to the issue of the effect of participation on goal commitment and performance. In research on this topic, Latham and his colleagues had obtained markedly different results from those obtained by Erez and her colleagues. With Locke serving as a third party mediator, Latham and Erez designed four experiments to resolve the discrepancies. The experiments were conducted at the University of Washington and the University of Maryland. The results revealed that the major reason for the difference was that Erez gave very brief tell instructions to her assigned goal subjects, whereas Latham used a tell and sell approach. Four additional factors also contributed to the earlier difference in findings: goal difficulty, setting personal goals before goal treatments were introduced, self-efficacy-inducing instructions, and instructions to reject disliked goals. It was concluded that (a) the differences between Latham and Erez can be explained on the basis of differences in specific procedures, and (b) the method used to resolve this dispute should be used by other investigators.

Journal

Journal of Applied PsychologyAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Nov 1, 1988

There are no references for this article.