Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

It is an established notion, known as the wisdom of crowds, that people benefit from consulting the opinion of others when making estimates. A study of Vul and Pashler (2008) suggests that people might also have a crowd within that they can turn to for a second opinion. More specifically, the authors found that the average of two repeated estimates of the same individual was generally more accurate than either of the initial estimates in itself. Furthermore, this accuracy gain became larger when the second estimate was delayed. These findings are both of theoretical value, by providing a greater understanding of knowledge representation, and of practical value, by demonstrating a potential strategy for people to reach better judgments. The study of Vul and Pashler (2008) acted as the foundation of current research. We conducted a high-powered and registered direct replication, repeating the original study as meticulously as possible. Participants were asked to answer the same eight questions from the original study, only translated to Dutch. These were world knowledge questions to which the answer was always a percentage. In the immediate condition, participants were unexpectedly asked to immediately provide a second estimate to each question. Participants in the delayed condition were unexpectedly asked to provide a second estimate to each question three weeks after the first session. In both conditions, we compared the accuracy of each estimate to the accuracy of the average of the two estimates. For this study, we paid particular attention to the application of recommendations made in literature about good research practices, advocating openness and collaboration in science. Moreover, three exploratory extension studies served to further investigate the properties of the crowd within effect. First of all, we explored whether the effect could be found with a different format of questions, namely order of rank questions. Secondly, it was investigated whether the effect was stronger for easier questions as opposed to more challenging questions. Lastly, we examined whether the effect could be magnified by manipulating the burden on people's working memory while making estimates. We were able to successfully replicate the crowd within effect, contributing new convincing evidence for the potential power of combining estimates within individuals. However, lack of clarity remains regarding the boundaries and possibilities of the effect. Contrary to Vul and Pashler (2008), we found no unambiguous evidence for the value of inserting a time delay between two consecutive estimates. Furthermore, no crowd within effect was obtained with order of rank questions. Finally, we did not find straightforward evidence for a larger effect with easier questions or for the effectiveness of burdening working memory with a high load secondary task.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Research indicates that an appropriate match between person and job leads to numerous beneficial outcomes, such as a reduced risk on burnout, increased job satisfaction and job performance. The BasicProfileScreen (BPS) is a vocational personality questionnaire, constructed with the specific aim of assisting organizations in employee selection and coaching job seekers in vocational choices by assessing nine vocational personality traits and matching personality profiles with job requirements.To date, little is known of the psychometric properties of the BPS. The goal of the current study is to fill this gap by assessing the psychometric properties of the rating scale version of the BPS. In particular, we will evaluate the reliability of the BPS, by computing a lower bound to reliability and the test-retest reliability of the BPS scales. Further, convergent validity will be assessed by verifying predicted correlations between BPS scales and the scales of six other questionnaires. Finally, in order to assess the construct validity of the BPS, a principal component analysis (PCA) will be conducted. Lower bound to reliability, test-retest reliability and validity estimates of the empirical scales, resulting from the PCA, will be calculated as well. In general, participants were recruited via email and facebook. First-year psychology students were recruited as well, in exchange for course credits. Data were collected by submitting two questionnaires to the participants across a time frame of six to seven months. The first part of data collection consisted of an online questionnaire containing the BPS and six other questionnaires relevant for calculating the convergent validity of the BPS. Participants who completed the first questionnaire were invited by email to fill out the second online questionnaire containing the BPS.The current study yields first evidence for an adequate reliability and convergent validity of the theoretical scales of the BPS. The principal component analysis yields evidence for only six principal components while the theoretical assumptions underlying the BPS assume the existence of nine principal components. The reliability and convergent validity of the principal component scales can be interpreted as good. The current study should be considered as a first step in the validation process of the rating scale version of the BPS. Further research can focus on a thorough item analysis and item adaptation and can conduct a confirmatory factor analysis to verify current principal component structure. Application of the rating scale version of the BPS in vocational settings can be based upon matching observed BPS personality profiles (patterns of scale scores) with reference BPS personality profiles. Thus, conducting a profile analysis can be considered as an important second part of the validation process of the BPS.