TY - JOUR
T1 - It's personal
T2 - An exploration of students' (Non) acceptance of management research
AU - Caprar, Dan V.
AU - Do, Boram
AU - Rynes, Sara L.
AU - Bartunek, Jean M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2016.
Copyright:
Copyright 2016 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Management educators often assume that research-based arguments ought to be convincing to students. However, college students do not always accept even well-documented research findings. Among the reasons this might happen, we focus on the potential role of psychological mechanisms triggered by scholarly arguments that affect students' self-concepts, leading them to engage in self-enhancing or self-protective responses. We investigated such processes by examining students' reactions to a research argument emphasizing the importance of intelligence to job performance, in comparison to their reactions to research arguments emphasizing the importance of emotional intelligence or fit. Consistent with our predictions, students were less likely to accept the argument for the importance of intelligence compared to the alternative, less threatening, arguments (i.e., the importance of emotional intelligence or fit). Further, acceptance of the argument about the importance of intelligence was affected by students' grade point average (GPA) and moderated by their emotional stability. Specifically, consistent with self-enhancement theory, students with lower GPAs were more likely to reject the argument for intelligence and give self-protective reasons for their responses, whereas students with higher GPAs were more likely to accept the argument and give self-enhancing reasons. Implications for future research and for management teaching are discussed.
AB - Management educators often assume that research-based arguments ought to be convincing to students. However, college students do not always accept even well-documented research findings. Among the reasons this might happen, we focus on the potential role of psychological mechanisms triggered by scholarly arguments that affect students' self-concepts, leading them to engage in self-enhancing or self-protective responses. We investigated such processes by examining students' reactions to a research argument emphasizing the importance of intelligence to job performance, in comparison to their reactions to research arguments emphasizing the importance of emotional intelligence or fit. Consistent with our predictions, students were less likely to accept the argument for the importance of intelligence compared to the alternative, less threatening, arguments (i.e., the importance of emotional intelligence or fit). Further, acceptance of the argument about the importance of intelligence was affected by students' grade point average (GPA) and moderated by their emotional stability. Specifically, consistent with self-enhancement theory, students with lower GPAs were more likely to reject the argument for intelligence and give self-protective reasons for their responses, whereas students with higher GPAs were more likely to accept the argument and give self-enhancing reasons. Implications for future research and for management teaching are discussed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978919503&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978919503&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5465/amle.2014.0193
DO - 10.5465/amle.2014.0193
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84978919503
VL - 15
SP - 207
EP - 231
JO - Academy of Management Learning and Education
JF - Academy of Management Learning and Education
SN - 1537-260X
IS - 2
ER -