Anders Sjöberg

Universitetslektor, Docent

Visa sidan på svenska
Works at Department of Psychology
Telephone 08-16 39 41
Visiting address Frescati Hagväg 14
Room 358
Postal address Psykologiska institutionen 106 91 Stockholm


Anders Sjöberg is supervising students at all levels. He teaches basic courses  I-O psychology and special courses in personnel selection, economic utility analysis and psychometrics.


The research conducted by Anders Sjöberg is now characterized by an interest in personnel selection, team effectiveness and artificial intelligence.


A selection from Stockholm University publication database
  • 2016. Annika Lantz Friedrich, Anders Sjöberg, Peter Friedrich. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25 (4), 561-569

    Our aim is to contribute to research on workplace innovation by identifying tasks within industrial Lean Production Systems (LPS) that can trigger the involvement of teams in workplace innovation. Previous research has shown negative effects of LPS for employees’ motivation, learning, and innovation processes. The principles of job design of production tasks, e.g., standardization and routinization, are seemingly opposed to a job design that supports team’s engagement in workplace innovation. In this study, we explored relations between task complexity, team learning, and proactivity. Work task analysis was conducted at baseline among 41 teams to capture the complexity of different work tasks. Eight months later, employees completed a questionnaire about team-learning processes, and managers rated each team’s proactivity. Three kinds of tasks were identified. The results showed that the main work task and supplementary tasks gave no input to the team’s learning process. Mediation analysis showed that additional work tasks, taking little time, have an impact on team proactivity through team learning. A conclusion is that teams within LPS can be engaged in workplace innovation depending on how they take on additional tasks, as these impact team learning. The implications for future research and practice are discussed.

  • 2014. Stefan Annell, Anders Sjöberg, Magnus Sverke. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 55 (5), 399-408

    Single scores from limited and unbalanced test batteries of cognitive ability can be ambiguous to interpret theoretically. In this study, a limited verbally and knowledge-loaded cognitive test battery, from applicants to the Swedish police academies (N=1,344), was examined to provide foundations for the use and interpretation of test scores. Three measurement models were compared: one single factor model and two bifactor models, which decomposed the variance of the battery into orthogonal components. The models were evaluated by fit indices and omega coefficients, and then applied to the prediction of academic performance. The overall prediction of all models was similar, although specific abilities also were found to provide substantial predictive validity over and above general intelligence (g). The findings provide support for the use of single scores in applied settings (selection), but suggest that it may be more appropriate to interpret such scores as composites of substantive components, and not just as measures of g.

  • 2013. Kristina Langhammer (et al.).

    The purpose of this paper was to examine the degree to which decision making style (i.e. rational, intuitive; Scott&Bruce, 1995), procedural accountability (Tetlock, 1985) and decision responsibility predict preference for hiring approaches to personnel selection. An experimental design was used to test whether procedure accountability and decision responsibility moderate preferences for hiring approach.  168 Human Resource professionals answered the online questionnaire built for the purpose of the study. The results showed that individuals scoring high on the intuitive decision-making style (IDMS) prefer a holistic hiring approach. However, the proposition that Rational Decision-Making Style (RDMS) scale would have a positive relationship with mechanical hiring approach was not supported. Furthermore, according to our findings the context does not explain preferred hiring approach with higher probability. One limitation of this study was that the experimental design might have affected the external validity in the context variable. Another limitation for this study was the relatively small sample size. Despite limitations, the present study has an unique contribution by tying together decision making style, procedural accountability and decision responsibility in an attempt to explain preference for holistic versus mechanical hiring approach.

  • 2012. Sofia Sjöberg (et al.). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53 (4), 368-373

    Sjoberg, S., Sjoberg, A., Naswall, K. & Sverke, M. (2012). Using individual differences to predict job performance: Correcting for direct and indirect restriction of range. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 368373. The present study investigates the relationship between individual differences, indicated by personality (FFM) and general mental ability (GMA), and job performance applying two different methods of correction for range restriction. The results, derived by analyzing meta-analytic correlations, show that the more accurate method of correcting for indirect range restriction increased the operational validity of individual differences in predicting job performance and that this increase primarily was due to general mental ability being a stronger predictor than any of the personality traits. The estimates for single traits can be applied in practice to maximize prediction of job performance. Further, differences in the relative importance of general mental ability in relation to overall personality assessment methods was substantive and the estimates provided enables practitioners to perform a correct utility analysis of their overall selection procedure.

Show all publications by Anders Sjöberg at Stockholm University

Last updated: February 15, 2018

Bookmark and share Tell a friend