Not all forms of misbehavior are created equal

Received: 16 January 2018

|

Accepted: 16 January 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ijsa.12200

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Not all forms of misbehavior are created equal: Differential personality facet–counterproductive work behavior relations Caleb B. Bragg1 | Nathan A. Bowling2 1 Department of Psychological Science, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, Connecticut 2

Department of Psychology, Wright State University, Fairborn, Ohio

We examined whether four personality traits—trait aggression, trait industriousness, trait deceptiveness, and trait self-control—were differentially related to 11 narrow-bandwidth CWB facets: (a) property destruction, (b) inappropriate verbal actions, (c) inappropriate physical actions, (d) poor attendance, (e) poor quality work, (f) unsafe behavior, (g) theft and related behavior, (h) misuse of information, (i) misuse of time and resources, (j) alcohol use, and (k) drug use. Based on responses

Correspondence Caleb Bragg, Department of Psychological Science, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, Connecticut. Email: [email protected]

from 404 employed participants recruited using Mechanical Turk, we found that each narrowbandwidth personality trait often yielded stronger relationships with overall CWB than with narrow-bandwidth CWB facets.

1 | INTRODUCTION

et al. (2007), for example, reported meta-analytic evidence linking agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability to broad-

Research conducted since the early 2000s has generally assessed

bandwidth CWBs. The current study extends this research by examin-

counterproductive work behavior (CWB) by summing participants’

ing perpetrator personality as a predictor of narrow-bandwidth CWB

responses to heterogeneous sets of items (see Bennett & Robinson,

facets.

2000; Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Marcus, Taylor, Hastings, Sturm, &

As a basis for predicting which personality traits will be most

Weigelt, 2016). Although this broad-bandwidth approach to assessing

strongly related to which specific forms of CWB, we invoke the princi-

CWBs offers clear benefits—for example, it helps avoid range restric-

ple of conceptual overlap (Binning & Barrett, 1989; Lievens, Corte, &

tion that may occur if researchers were to focus on narrow, low base

Schollaert, 2008; Warr, 2000). This principle asserts that the more

rate CWBs (see Bennett & Robinson, 2003; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990)—

conceptually similar a predictor variable is to a criterion variable, the

its use obscures any differential relationships that may exist for more

stronger the two variables will correlate with each other. Furthermore,

specific types of CWBs (see Bolton, Becker, & Barber, 2010; Spector

we matched the bandwidth of each personality trait with that of the

et al., 2006). To address this problem, the current study examined

CWB is was conceptually linked to (i.e., we used narrow-bandwidth

relationships involving narrow-bandwidth CWB facets. Specifically, we

measures to assess both the personality traits and the CWB facets).

examined narrow perpetrator personality traits (i.e., trait aggression,

This feature capitalizes on the bandwidth-fidelity principle, thus likely

trait industriousness, trait deceptiveness, and trait self-control) as pre-

maximizing the personality–CWB relationships we observed (see Ones

dictors of the 11 narrow CWB facets identified by Gruys and Sackett

& Viswesvaran, 1996). As described below, we distinguish among

(2003). In the following section we present a priori justification for why

CWBs that have the greatest conceptual similarity with either (a) trait

particular narrow personality traits should be most strongly related to

aggression, (b) trait industriousness, (c) trait deceptiveness, or (d) trait

particular narrow CWBs.

self-control.

2 | PERPETRATOR PERSONALITY TRAITS AS PREDICTORS OF NARROW-BANDWIDTH CWBS

2.1 | CWBs conceptually linked to trait aggression Trait aggression, a facet of agreeableness that shares some conceptual overlap with neuroticism (see Stanek & Ones, 2018), is the extent to

Several studies have examined perpetrator personality traits as

which a person habitually engages in behaviors that harm others (Buss

predictors of broadly measured CWB (e.g., Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt,

& Perry, 1992). People who are high in trait aggression are likely to

2007; Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Berry

display aggressive behaviors across a variety of contexts, such as when

Int J Select Assess. 2018;26:1–9.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijsa

C 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd V

|

1

2

|

BRAGG

AND

BOWLING

driving (Fernandes, Job, & Hatfield, 2007) or when interacting with a

deceitfulness to a lesser extent, we expect trait deceptiveness to yield

romantic partner (Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011). By exten-

a relatively weak relationship with an overall CWB scale comprising all

sion, we expect trait aggression to predict CWBs—particularly CWB

11 of Gruys and Sackett (2003) CWB facets.

that are themselves aggressive. We posit that three forms of CWB identified by Gruys and Sackett (2003) are particularly aggressive: (a)

Hypothesis 3: Trait deceptiveness will predict (a) theft

property destruction, (b) inappropriate physical actions, and (c) inappro-

and related behaviors, (b) misuse of information, and (c)

priate verbal actions. These CWBs qualify as aggressive because each

misuse of time and resources better than it will predict

involves active and overt efforts to harm another person or another

overall CWB.

person’s property. Because this aggressive component is present to a lesser degree within other forms of CWBs, we expect trait aggression

2.4 | CWBs conceptually linked to trait self-control

to yield a relatively weak relationship with an overall CWB scale comprising all 11 of Gruys and Sackett (2003) CWB facets.

Trait self-control, which is a compound trait consisting of elements of conscientiousness and emotional stability (see Stanek & Ones, 2018),

Hypothesis 1: Trait aggression will predict (a) property destruction, (b) inappropriate verbal actions, and (c) inappropriate physical actions better than it will predict overall CWB.

reflects the extent to which a person habitually avoids behaviors that produce long-term costs that are disproportionate to their short-term benefits (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1994). Because CWBs generally produce both short-term benefits (e.g., they can be used as an immediate coping response to work stressors; Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010)

2.2 | CWBs conceptually linked to trait industriousness

and long-term costs (e.g., they can result in sanctions from one’s employer), trait self-control is likely related to most types of CWB (see Marcus & Schuler, 2004).

Trait industriousness—an aspect of conscientiousness (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007)—reflects the extent to which a person

Hypothesis 4: Trait self-control will predict overall CWB

habitually works hard and strives for success (MacCann, Duckworth, &

better than it will predict any narrow-bandwidth CWB

Roberts, 2009). As such, trait industriousness should be an especially

facet.

good (negative) predictor of CWBs that reflect the withholding of effort. We posit that three CWBs from the Gruys and Sackett (2003)

3 | METHOD

model reflect a lack of effort: (a) poor attendance, (b) poor work quality, and (c) unsafe behavior. These CWBs, in other words, are each acts of

3.1 | Participants

omission—they each involve failing to act when one should. Other

We recruited participants (N 5 404) using Mechanical Turk (MTurk;

forms of CWB, however, do not reflect a lack of effort. We thus expect

https://requester.mturk.com/; see Landers & Behrend, 2015). Crowd-

trait industriousness to yield a relatively weak relationship with an

sourcing services such as MTurk are well-suited for studying CWB and

overall CWB scale comprising all 11 of Gruys and Sackett (2003) CWB

other socially sensitive topics because they provide participants with an

facets.

unparalleled level of anonymity. Indeed, crowdsourcing samples have been used in several published CWB articles (e.g., Bowling & Eschleman, Hypothesis 2: Trait industriousness will predict (a) poor attendance, (b) poor work quality, and (c) unsafe behavior better than it will predict overall CWB.

2010; Burton, Taylor, & Barber, 2014; Cohen, Panter, & Turan, 2013). We required participants to be employed a minimum of 20 hours per week and to be employed in their current job for a minimum of 1 year. The average participant was approximately 34 years old, worked

2.3 | CWBs conceptually linked to trait deceptiveness People who are high in trait deceptiveness, a component of the metatrait stability/socialization (DeYoung, 2006; Stanek & Ones, 2018), habitually break moral or social conventions by using manipulation, flattery, or some other covert means of attaining personal gain (Weller & Tikir, 2010; see also Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000; Ashton et al., 2004). Trait deceptiveness, therefore, has the greatest conceptual similarity with covert CWBs that violate moral conventions. We posit that three

42 hours per week, and was employed in his or her current job for an average of 8 years. Approximately 56% of participants were male and approximately 83% were Caucasian. Sample participant job titles included ‘Custodian’, ‘Editor’, ‘Engineer’, ‘Lab Technician’, ‘Professor’, and ‘Surgeon’. Each participant was paid $1 USD for responding to the study questionnaire.

3.2 | Measures

CWBs within the Gruys and Sackett (2003) model best represent cov-

We assessed the study variables using self-report measures. Unless

ert violations of moral convention: (a) theft and related behaviors, (b)

otherwise noted, each measure used a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly

misuse of information, and (c) misuse of time and resources. Each of

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Each measure yielded an acceptable

these types of CWB involves covert and deceitful behavior intended to

internal-consistency reliability estimate (i.e., each Cronbach’s a was

benefit the perpetrator. Because other forms of CWB reflect

 .78; see Table 1).

3.19

5.44

2.89

4.83

1.10

1.32

1.08

1.49

1.67

1.28

1.24

1.24

2.14

1.20

1.11

2.07

2.36

2.19

1. Aggression

2. Industriousness

3. Deceptiveness

4. Self-control

5. Property destruction

6. Inappropriate verbal actions

7. Inappropriate physical actions

8. Poor attendance

9. Poor quality work

10. Unsafe behavior

11. Theft and related behavior

12. Misuse of information

13. Misuse of time and resources

14. Alcohol use

15. Drug use

16. CWB-interpersonal

17. CWB-organizational

18. Overall CWB

0.49

0.55

0.49

0.53

0.59

0.91

0.49

0.54

0.58

0.79

0.68

0.46

0.59

0.50

1.22

1.25

0.98

1.03

SD

(.84) 2.65 .12 .31 .13 .17 .34 .49 .31 .38 .32 .30 .18 .19 .42 .34

2.48 .49 2.11 2.15 2.09 2.16 2.28 2.35 2.26 2.33 2.39 2.14 2.13 2.17 2.34 2.29

.65 2.58

.33

.34

.25

.22

.31

.33

.36

.24

.35

.34

.36

.15

.38

.19

2.42

(.90)

.55

2.37

3

2.33

2 (.85)

1

2.37

2.46

2.22

2.25

2.40

2.33

2.36

2.23

2.33

2.34

2.41

2.13

2.35

2.17

(.92)

2.58

.45

2.52

4 .17

.93

.75

.97

.95

.88

.66

.92

.95

.72

.67

.69

1.00

.90

(.86)

2.16

.11

2.10

5 .35

.94

.82

.97

.86

.85

.67

.91

.80

.70

.68

.71

.82

(.86)

.78

2.32

.27

2.14

6 .14

.88

.71

.96

.29

.35

.51

.83

.84

.68

.60

.62

(.98)

.76

.93

2.13

.12

2.09

7 .30

.89

.94

.72

.64

.62

.74

.87

.75

.74

.63

(.80)

.55

.59

.58

2.36

.14

2.14

8 .29

.83

.76

.69

.62

.59

.49

.77

.54

.81

(.84)

.52

.55

.58

.57

2.30

.29

2.25

9

.84

.70

.84

.62

.61

.46

.84

.69

(.78)

.66

.59

.60

.58

.59

2.28

.40

2.30

.29

10

.89

.81

.91

.78

.71

.48

.89

(.93)

.59

.48

.65

.81

.72

.85

2.22

.28

2.24

.22

11

.76

.91

.96

.64

.63

.69

(.78)

.76

.66

.63

.69

.73

.75

.76

2.31

.31

2.28

.30

12

.69

.97

.42

.61

.58

(.86)

.57

.43

.38

.42

.62

.47

.58

.57

2.30

.28

2.35

.29

13

.90

.77

.84

.91

(.84)

.50

.51

.63

.50

.50

.51

.32

.73

.75

2.36

.26

2.13

.27

14

.89

.76

.87

(.92)

.80

.55

.55

.73

.53

.55

.55

.28

.77

.85

2.23

.16

2.12

.20

15

.98

.98

(.96)

.82

.75

.38

.83

.86

.73

.62

.63

.93

.88

.88

2.21

.17

2.16

.23

16

.80

(.92)

.75

.70

.68

.86

.81

.75

.59

.67

.81

.67

.73

.67

2.42

.37

2.31

.30

17

(.95)

.92

.92

.83

.80

.62

.88

.84

.72

.74

.78

.85

.85

.84

2.35

.30

2.27

.30

18

Note. N 5 404. Uncorrected correlations appear above the diagonal; correlations corrected for unreliability in both variables appear below the diagonal. All uncorrected correlations of .10 or stronger are significant at p < .05; All uncorrected correlations of .13 or stronger are significant at p < .01. Cronbach’s alphas appear in parentheses on the diagonal.

M

Variable

Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations of all study variables

AND

TA BL E 1

BRAGG BOWLING

| 3

4

|

BRAGG

AND

BOWLING

3.2.1 | Trait aggression

16 items that had item-total correlations of  .30 (see Everitt & Skrondal,

We used the 12-item Brief Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ; Webster

2002). The final trait self-control scale comprised these 16 items. Note

et al., 2014) to assess trait aggression. A sample item is ‘If I have to

that the pilot study found that this scale had a high level of internal-

resort to violence to protect my rights, I will’.

consistency reliability (a 5 .91). A sample item from the final scale is ‘I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the

3.2.2 | Trait industriousness

long run’ (reversed-scored). We provide the complete set of self-control

We used 10 items from MacCann et al. (2009) to assess trait

items in the Appendix 1.

industriousness. We modified five of the MacCann et al. items because they made reference to the workplace and were thus conceptually

3.2.5 | Counterproductive work behavior

indistinguishable from one or more CWB dimensions. The original

We used revised versions of Gruys and Sackett’s (2003) scales to

MacCann et al. item ‘I put little time or effort into my work’, for exam-

assess 11 types of CWB: (a) property destruction (4 items), (b) inappro-

ple, may be indistinguishable from two CWB dimensions identified by

priate verbal actions (8 items), (c) inappropriate physical actions (7

Gruys and Sackett (2003)—(a) misuse of time and resources and (b)

items), (d) poor attendance (5 items), (e) poor quality work (3 items),

poor quality work. We revised this item to read ‘I put little time and

(f) unsafe behavior (4 items), (g) theft and related behavior (10 items),

effort into my daily responsibilities’. Pilot testing (N 5 83) found that

(h) misuse of information (5 items), (i) misuse of time and resources (13

the revised trait industriousness scale yielded a high level of internal-

items), (j) alcohol use (3 items), and (k) drug use (4 items). We summed

consistency reliability (a 5 .82). A sample item from the final scale is ‘I

all 66 of Gruys and Sackett’s item to create an overall CWB scale; we

work hard at everything I do’. We provide the complete set of industri-

also—in line with the results from Gruys and Sackett’s (2003) multidi-

ousness items in the Appendix 1.

mensional scaling analysis—computed interpersonal (the sum of the property destruction, inappropriate verbal actions, inappropriate

3.2.3 | Trait deceptiveness

physical actions, theft and related behavior, misuse of information cate-

We used a seven-item scale created specifically for the current study to

gories) and organizational (the sum of the poor attendance, poor quality

assess trait deceptiveness. These items were culled from three sources:

work, unsafe behavior, misuse of time and resources, alcohol use, and

(a) the honesty component of the HEXACO model (De Vries, 2013), (b)

drug use categories) CWB subscales.

the interpersonal manipulation component of the self-report psychopathy

Whereas the original Gruys and Sackett (2003) scales asked partic-

measure (Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007), and (c) the honesty scale

ipants to report the likelihood they would engage in the given behavior,

from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006). Pilot

we asked participants to report the frequency with which they have

testing using three subject matter experts (SMEs; industrial-organizational

actually engaged in the behavior during the past year. Each CWB item

psychology Ph.D. students) identified seven items that overlapped with Med-edović’s (2012) definition of dishonesty (‘having tendencies toward

used a 7-point frequency scale (1 5 Never; 2 5 Once or twice a year; 3 5 Once a month; 4 5 Two or three times a month; 5 5 Weekly; 6 5 Two

manipulative, volatile, and deceitful behavior’). Specifically, the SMEs on

or Three times a week; 7 5 Daily). Because CWB scales often include

average gave the seven retained items a rating of 5.97 on a 7-point scale

items that are irrelevant to some jobs (e.g., workers cannot misuse an

(1 5 poor face validity; 7 5 high face validity). A second pilot study

expense account that they do not have; Bowling & Gruys, 2010), we

(N 5 51) found that the seven-item scale yielded a high level of internal-

also included a Not Relevant response option for each CWB item. We

consistency reliability (a 5 .82). A sample item from the seven-item trait

coded Not Relevant responses as missing data.

deceptiveness scale is ‘I lie to get myself out of trouble’. We provide the complete set of deceptiveness items in the Appendix 1.

3.2.4 | Trait self-control We used a 16-item scale created specifically for the current study to assess trait self-control. This scale comprised items culled from three sources: (a) the Retrospective Behavioral Self-Control Scale (RBS; Marcus, 2003), (b) the Self Control Scale (SCS; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), and (c) the Grasmick Low Self Control Scale (GLSCS; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev, 1993). To create the new scale, we first asked SMEs (seven industrial-organizational psychology Ph.D. students) to rate the extent to which items from the above three sources reflect Hirschi and Gottfredson’s (1994) definition of trait self-control—‘the tendency to avoid acts whose long-term costs exceed their momentary benefits’ (p. 4). Twenty of these 92 items had a SME rating greater than 5.0 on a 7-point scale (1 5 Not very well; 7 5 Very well) and an Absolute

A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that all 66 CWB items had positive factor loadings on a general CWB factor. These standardized loadings ranged from 0.15 to 0.88 and each were statistically significant (p < .01). The single latent factor accounted for 39.86% of the variance in the model. Consistent with Gruys and Sackett (2003), the single factor CFA had mixed results in terms of model fit, with some indicators like the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA 5 .10) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR 5 .08) showed marginally acceptable fit, while other indicators including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI 5 .59) and the Chi-Square Test of model fit (v2 5 10 777.22, p < .01) show poor fit.

4 | RESULTS 4.1 | Descriptive statistics

Deviance of Means score of less than 1.17 (see Cohen, Doveh, &

We report the means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s as, and correla-

Nahum-Shani, 2009). A pilot study (N 5 94) of these 20 items identified

tions for each study variable in Table 1. As shown in the table, the

BRAGG

AND

TA BL E 2

|

BOWLING

5

conducted a series of z-tests comparing dependent correlations (see

Comparisons of dependent correlations for trait

aggression

Lee & Preacher, 2013; Steiger, 1980). We report the results of those analyses in Tables 2–5.

Aggression’s r with CWB facet

Aggression’s r with overall CWB

z

4.2.1 | Analysis for trait aggression

Property destruction

.17**

.30**

24.76**

We expected trait aggression would predict (a) property destruction,

Inappropriate verbal actions

.35**

.30**

1.94

(b) inappropriate verbal actions, and (c) inappropriate physical actions

Inappropriate physical actions

.14**

.30**

26.05**

Poor attendance

.30**

.30**

0.00

Poor quality work

.29**

.30**

20.29

Unsafe behavior

.29**

.30**

20.28

We expected trait industriousness would predict (a) poor attend-

Theft and related behavior

.22**

.30**

22.94**

ance, (b) poor work quality, and (c) unsafe behavior better than it

Misuse of information

.30**

.30**

0.00

would predict overall CWB (Hypothesis 2). As shown in Table 3, we

Misuse of time and resources

.29**

.30**

20.24

found no support for Hypothesis 2. In fact, trait industriousness

Alcohol use

.27**

.30**

20.99

attendance.

Drug use

.20**

.30**

23.56**

4.2.3 | Analysis for trait deceptiveness

better than it would predict overall CWB (Hypothesis 1). As shown in Table 2, we found no support for Hypothesis 1. In fact, trait aggression predicted overall CWB significantly better than it predicted either property destruction or inappropriate physical actions.

4.2.2 | Analysis for trait industriousness

predicted overall CWB significantly better than it predicted poor

Note. N 5 404. *p < .05; **p < .01. Bold font indicates counterproductive work behavior facet expected to yield correlations that are higher than those of overall counterproductive work behavior.

We expected trait deceptiveness would predict (a) theft and related behaviors, (b) misuse of information, and (c) misuse of time and resources better than it would predict overall CWB (Hypothesis 3). As shown

personality scales were all related to each other and the CWB facets

in Table 4, we found no support for Hypothesis 3.

were all related to each other. Furthermore, each personality trait

4.2.4 | Analysis for trait self-control

yielded significant (p < .01) correlations with its conceptually overlap-

We expected trait self-control would predict overall CWB better than

ping CWBs. Specifically, trait aggression yielded significant uncorrected correlations with property destruction (r 5 .17), inappropriate verbal actions (r 5 .35), and inappropriate physical actions (r 5 .14); trait industriousness yielded significant uncorrected correlations with poor

it would predict any narrow-bandwidth CWB facet (Hypothesis 4). As Comparisons of dependent correlations for trait industriousness

T AB LE 3

attendance (r 5 2.14), poor quality work (r 5 2.25), and unsafe behavior (r 5 2.30); trait deceptiveness yielded significant uncorrected correlations with theft and related behaviors (r 5 .28), misuse of information

Industriousness’ r with CWB facet

Industriousness’ r with overall CWB

z

(r 5 .31), and misuse of time and resources (r 5 .28); and trait self-

Property destruction

2.10*

2.27**

6.17**

control yielded significant uncorrected correlations with each of the 11

Inappropriate verbal actions

2.14**

2.27**

4.88**

Inappropriate physical actions

2.09

2.27**

6.75**

strong correlations with CWBs that we judged to be conceptually dis-

Poor attendance

2.14**

2.27**

4.03**

similar (e.g., industriousness correlated more strongly with misuse of

Poor quality work

2.25**

2.27**

0.57

time and resources than it did with any other CWB facet). Likewise,

Unsafe behavior

2.30**

2.27**

20.84

Theft and related behavior

2.24**

2.27**

1.10

Misuse of information

2.28**

2.27**

20.42

Misuse of time and resources

2.35**

2.27**

21.95

Alcohol use

2.13**

2.27**

4.55**

Drug use

2.12*

2.27**

5.29**

narrow-bandwidth CWB facets. Note, however, that we observed several unexpected patterns within Table 1. Specifically, some personality traits yielded relatively

some CWB facets yielded their strongest correlations with personality traits that provided no obvious conceptual overlap (e.g., we expected poor attendance to yield a particularly strong relationship with industriousness; however, it yielded a stronger relationship with aggression). Also of note, each personality trait predicted organizational CWBs better than it predicted interpersonal CWBs.

4.2 | Tests of the study hypotheses In order to compare each personality trait’s relationships with narrowbandwidth CWB facets with its relationship with overall CWB, we

Note. N 5 404. *p < .05; **p < .01. Bold font indicates counterproductive work behavior facet expected to yield correlations that are higher than those of overall counterproductive work behavior.

6

|

BRAGG

AND

BOWLING

And in no instances did these personality traits predict narrow-

Comparisons of dependent correlations for trait deceptiveness

TA BL E 4

bandwidth CWB facets better than they predicted overall CWB. These findings are inconsistent with the principles of conceptual overlap (see

Deceptiveness’s r with CWB facet

Deceptiveness’s r with overall CWB

z

Property destruction

.11*

.30**

26.94**

Inappropriate verbal actions

.27**

.30**

21.14

Inappropriate physical actions

.12*

.30**

26.80**

Poor attendance

.14**

.30**

24.99**

focus on narrow, low base rate CWBs (see Bennett & Robinson, 2003;

Poor quality work

.29**

.30**

20.29

Hanisch & Hulin, 1990). The potential benefits of the broad-bandwidth

Unsafe behavior

.40**

.30**

Theft and related behavior

.28**

.30**

Misuse of information

.31**

.30**

0.43

Misuse of time and resources

.28**

.30**

20.48

Alcohol use

.26**

.30**

21.32

The current research offers insights into the prediction of CWB.

Drug use

.16**

.30**

24.97**

Specifically, we found that narrow-bandwidth personality traits

Note. N 5 404. *p < .05; **p < .01. Bold font indicates counterproductive work behavior facet expected to yield correlations that are higher than those of overall counterproductive work behavior.

predicted overall CWB better than they predicted narrow-bandwidth

Binning & Barrett, 1989; Lievens et al., 2008; Warr, 2000) and bandwidth-fidelity (see Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). We do not believe, however, that researchers should abandon the conceptual overlap and bandwidth-fidelity principles when studying personality predictors of other types of behavior. The broad-bandwidth approach may be unusually beneficial when measuring CWBs because it helps avoid range restriction that may occur if researchers were to

2.89** 20.74

approach to measuring CWBs may thus outweigh any benefits provided by enhanced conceptual overlap and matched predictor-criterion bandwidth that occur when researchers assess narrow-bandwidth CWB facets.

5.1 | Practical and theoretical implications

CWB facets. These findings support the common practice of assessing CWB by summing participants’ responses to heterogeneous item sets (e.g., Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Marcus

shown in Table 5, we found some support for Hypothesis 4. Specifi-

et al., 2016).

cally, trait self-control predicted overall CWB significantly better than it predicted either (a) property destruction, (b) inappropriate physical actions, (c) unsafe behavior, (d) theft and related behavior, and (e) drug use.

5 | DISCUSSION

5.2 | Limitations and future research The current study used a cross-sectional design; thus, we were unable to examine the causal relationships between personality traits and T AB LE 5

Comparisons of dependent correlations for trait self-control

Recent research has generally used CWB scales formed by summing heterogeneous item sets. Although this approach has merit for

Self-control’s r with CWB facet

Self-control’s r with overall CWB

z

studying broad-bandwidth CWB (see Bennett & Robinson, 2000;

Property destruction

2.16**

2.35**

7.05**

Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), its use would

Inappropriate verbal actions

2.32**

2.35**

1.17

Inappropriate physical actions

2.13**

2.35**

8.42**

of the predictor (narrow personality facets) to the specific CWB

Poor attendance

2.36**

2.35**

20.32

facets (see Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). In doing so, we used the

Poor quality work

2.30**

2.35**

1.48

principle of conceptual overlap (Binning & Barrett, 1989; Lievens

Unsafe behavior

2.28**

2.35**

1.99*

Theft and related behavior

2.22**

2.35**

4.84**

Misuse of information

2.31**

2.35**

1.74

Misuse of time and resources

2.30**

2.35**

1.22

Alcohol use

2.36**

2.35**

20.34

Drug use

2.23**

2.35**

obscure differential relationships that could exist for more specific CWB facets (Bolton et al., 2010; Spector et al., 2006). The current study, therefore, adopted an approach that matched the bandwidth

et al., 2008; Warr, 2000) as the basis for predicting which perpetrator personality traits would yield especially strong relationships with which specific forms of CWB. Our study thus extends previous research linking perpetrator personality traits to broad conceptualizations of CWB (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Contrary to our predictions, we found that narrow-bandwidth personality traits in some instances predicted overall CWB better than they predicted conceptually matched narrow-bandwidth CWB facets.

Note. N 5 404. *p < .05; **p < .01.

4.34**

BRAGG

AND

BOWLING

CWBs. We should note, however, that in theory a causal effect from personality to CWB is more likely than one from CWB to personality. This is because personality traits represent enduring individual differences that are posited to cause behavior within various life domains. CWB represents behavior from one specific domain. Despite this, future research should use longitudinal designs to examine whether prior personality scores predict subsequent CWB. We should also note that the current study used self-reports to assess perpetrator personality traits and CWBs. As a result, our findings could have been influenced by common-method variance (CMV). Note, however, that we observed many small correlations in our dataset (see Table 1); this suggests that CMV could not have greatly inflated our results. That being said, we encourage future research that does not rely exclusively on self-report measures. Indeed, research suggests that although self-reports provide effective measures of CWB (Berry et al., 2012), personality measurement can be enhanced by using otherreports (Connelly & Ones, 2010). Future research may thus benefit from using other reports of personality to predict self-reported CWB. Finally, we used ad hoc measures to assess trait industriousness, trait deceptiveness, and trait self-control. Although each of these measures were derived from existing scales, future research should attempt to replicate our findings using more established measures.

|

7

behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424. Binning, J. F., & Barrett, G. V. (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A conceptual analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 478–494. Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Big five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 537–541. Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 91–103. Bowling, N. A., & Gruys, M. L. (2010). Overlooked issues in the conceptualization and measurement of counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 54–61. Burton, J. P., Taylor, S. G., & Barber, L. K. (2014). Understanding internal, external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(6), 871–891. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459.

6 | SUMMARY Research conducted since 2000 has generally assessed CWB by summing participants’ responses to heterogeneous item sets. Unfortunately, this approach obscures any differential relationship that may exist for specific types of CWB (see Bolton et al., 2010; Spector et al., 2006). The current study therefore examined perpetrator personality traits’ relationships with 11 specific forms of CWBs identified by Gruys and Sackett (2003). We used the principles of bandwidth-fidelity (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996) and conceptual overlap (Binning & Barrett, 1989; Lievens et al., 2008; Warr, 2000) to predict which personality traits would be related to which CWBs. Contrary to our hypotheses, we found that narrow-bandwidth personality traits often predicted overall CWB better than they predicted narrow-bandwidth CWB facets. Further research is needed to identify when the use of broad-bandwidth measures do and do not outweigh the benefits of conceptual overlap and matched predictor-criterion bandwidth.

RE FE RE NCE S Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., . . . De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personalitydescriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359–368. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present and future of workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational

Cohen, A., Doveh, E., & Nahum-Shani, I. (2009). Testing agreement for multi-item scales with the indices rWG(J) and ADM(J). Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 148–164. Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Turan, N. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt proneness. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 45–53. Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. De Vries, R. E. (2013). The 24-item brief HEXACO inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 871–880. DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. Everitt, B., & Skrondal, A. (2002). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics (Vol. 106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fernandes, R., Job, R. S., & Hatfield, J. (2007). A challenge to the assumed generalizability of prediction and countermeasure for risky driving: Different factors predict different risky driving behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 38(1), 59–70. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., . . . Gough, H. C. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42.

8

|

BRAGG

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60–78. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1994). The generality of deviance. In T. Hirschi and M.R. Gottfredson (Eds.), The generality of deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 154–166. Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 1–38. Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013, September). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org. Lievens, F., Corte, D., W., & Schollaert, E. (2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 268–279. MacCann, C., Duckworth, A. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Empirical identification of the major facets of conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 451–458. Marcus, B.. (2003). An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(4), 674–706. Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647–660. Marcus, B., Taylor, O. A., Hastings, S. E., Sturm, A., & Weigelt, O. (2016). The structure of counterproductive work behavior: A review, a structural meta-analysis, and a primary study. Journal of Management, 42(1), 203–233. Med-edović, J. (2012). Topography of dishonesty: Mapping the opposite pole of honesty–humility personality domain. Primenjena Psihologija, 5(2), 115–135. Retrieved from: http://primenjena.psihologija. edu.rs/index.php?je5en&godina52012&broj52&str5115-135. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609–626. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

AND

BOWLING

Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). The association between impulsivity, trait anger, and the perpetration of intimate partner and general violence among women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(13), 2681–2697. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. Stanek, K. C., & Ones, D. S. (2018). Taxonomies and compendia of cognitive ability and personality constructs and measures relevant to industrial, work, & organizational psychology. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The Sage handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (pp. 366–407). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. Warr, P. (2000). Indirect processes in criterion-related validity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 731–745. Webster, G. D., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T., Jonason, P. K., Le, B. M., . . . Bator, R. J. (2014). The brief aggression questionnaire: Psychometric and behavioral evidence for an efficient measure of trait aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 40(2), 120–139. Weller, J. A., & Tikir, A. (2010). Predicting domain-specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 180–201. Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via selfreport. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 205–219.

How to cite this article: Bragg CB, Bowling NA. Not all forms of misbehavior are created equal: Differential personality facet– counterproductive work behavior relations. Int J Select Assess. 2018;26:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12200

BRAGG

AND

|

BOWLING

A P P E N DI X 1: I T EM S F O R I N D U S TR I OU S N ES S, D EC E P TI V EN E SS , A N D SE L F - CON T R OL SCA L E S Items by Scale

Original item source

Industriousness I accomplish a lot in a typical day. I am always prepared. I do just enough to get by (reverse-scored). I do more than what is expected of me. I do too little on most days (reverse-scored). I make an effort. I push myself very hard to succeed. I put little time and effort into my daily responsibilities (reverse-scored). I work hard to complete my personal chores. I work hard at everything I do.

MacCann et al. 2009 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “

Deceptiveness If I knew that I would never get caught, I would be willing to steal a million dollars. I would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large (reverse-scored). I would be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it. I do not think of myself as tricky or sly (reverse-scored). I get a ‘kick’ out of conning someone. I lie to get myself out of trouble. I can be trusted to keep my promises (reverse-scored).

De Vries, 2013 “ “ Williams et al. 2007 “ Goldberg et al. 2006 “

Self-control I often do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal (reverse-scored). Sometimes I cannot stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong (reverse-scored). I am more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run (reverse-scored). I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun (reverse-scored). I refuse things that are bad for me. I am good at resisting temptation. When I was a teenager, when the weather was good, I would take off and skip school or work (reverse-scored). I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think (reverse-scored). I sometimes drink or use drugs to excess (reverse-scored). I often act without thinking through all the alternatives (reverse-scored). Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done (reverse-scored). I have driven a car or motorcycle after drinking alcohol (reverse-scored). I have been late for school or at work because I stayed out too late the night before (reverse-scored). I spend too much money (reverse-scored). In the mood, I have drunk more than I could handle (reverse-scored). I have drunk so much that I had a black out the next day (reverse-scored).

Grasmick et al. 1993 Tangney et al. 2004 Grasmick et al. 1993 Tangney et al. 2004 Tangney et al. 2004 Tangney et al. 2004 Marcus, 2003 Grasmick et al. 1993 Tangney et al. 2004 Tangney et al. 2004 Tangney et al. 2004 Marcus, 2003 Marcus, 2003 Tangney et al. 2004 Marcus, 2003 Marcus, 2003

9