USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An attributional analysis of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to occupational stress

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An attributional analysis of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to occupational stress
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Goh, Angeline
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Hostile attribution style
Psychosocial and nonsocial stressors
Machiavellianism
Negative affectivity (NA)
Trait anger
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of hostile attribution style (HAS) on the processes linking job stressors and CWB. Self and peer data were collected via online questionnaires from employed participants recruited from undergraduate classes and non-student employees. Using data from 147 dyads of employees and coworkers, the effects of HAS on three areas were examined: the influence of HAS on the appraisal of psychosocial (incivility, interactional justice, and interpersonal conflict) and nonsocial (organizational constraints and workload) stressors; HAS as a moderator of the link between stressors and CWB; and HAS as mediator of the link between CWB and the individual difference variables of negative affectivity (NA), trait anger, and Machiavellianism. Regarding appraisals, HAS was more strongly related to psychosocial stressors than to workload (nonsocial stressor).^ However, results regarding the comparisons of the HAS-psychosocial stressor correlations with the HAS-organizational constraints (nonsocial stressor) correlations were mixed. Moreover, contrary to what was hypothesized, correlations of HAS with interpersonal constraints and job context constraints were not significantly different in magnitude. HAS was shown to moderate the relationship between CWB and the stressors of interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints. Individuals high on HAS engaged in more CWB when stressors were high, whereas individuals low on HAS engaged in low levels of CWB overall. HAS partially mediated the relationship between NA and CWB, in addition to the relationship between trait anger and CWB. It fully mediated the relationship between Machiavellianism and CWB. The influence of Machiavellianism on the occupational stress process also was explored. It was expected that high Machiavellians would appraise and respond to stressors in a negative fashion.^ However, contrary to what was expected, Machiavellianism was positively associated with informational justice and negatively related to incivility and CWB. Furthermore, it was negatively associated with NA and HAS. An alternative explanation for the results regarding Machiavellianism was presented. Although all hypotheses regarding the effects of HAS were partially supported, results of this study were generally demonstrative of the merits of including attributional processes (i.e., hostile attribution style) in CWB research within the occupational stress framework.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Angeline Goh.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 113 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001925219
oclc - 191696590
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001895
usfldc handle - e14.1895
System ID:
SFS0026213:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

An Attributional Analysis of Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in Response to Occupational Stress by Angeline Goh A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D. Judith B. Bryant, Ph.D. Michael D. Coovert, Ph.D. Toru Shimizu, Ph.D. Joseph A. Vandello, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 21, 2006 Keywords: hostile attribution style, psychos ocial and nonsocial stressors, Machiavellianism, negative affectivity (NA), trait anger Copyright 2007, Angeline Goh

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements There are many individuals I would like to thank for their invaluable help and support throughout the process of completing my Doctor ate degree. First and foremost, I thank my mentor and advisor, Dr. Paul Spector. I am sincerely indebted to Paul for his continuous support and guidance, unconditional friendship, and et ernal patience. I also thank my committee members, Drs. Judy Bryant, Mike Coovert, Toru Shimizu, and Joe Vandello, for their valuable insights and suggestions for improving the quality of my dissertation. Lastly, I thank Iris, Chi, Tracie, and Geary, for their unconditional support and constant encouragement in pursuing my goals. Without them, I never would have made it this far.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 The Occupational Stress Process and CWB 1 An Attribution-Based Model of CWB 2 Attributions Versus Attributional Style 4 Attribution Research on the Occupational Stress Process 5 Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) 7 Forms of CWB 8 Psychosocial Stressors versus Nons ocial Stressors Related to CWB 11 Interpersonal Conflict at Work 12 Interpersonal Conflict and CWB 14 Incivility 16 Incivility and CWB 18 Interactional Justice 19 Interactional Justice and CWB 21 Organizational Constraints 23 Organizational Constraints and CWB 25 Workload 25 Workload and CWB 26 The Effects of Individual Differences in the Occupational Stress Process and on CWB 26 Hostile Attribution Style (HAS) 27 HAS and CWB 29 Machiavellianism 30 Machiavellianism and CWB 30 Machiavellianism and HAS 31 Negative Affectivity (NA) 31 NA and CWB 32 The Effect of NA on the Relationship Between Stressors and CWB 32 NA and HAS 33 Trait Anger 34 Trait Anger and CWB 34 The Effect of Trait Anger on the Relationship Between Stressors and CWB 34 Trait Anger and HAS 35 The Current Study 35 The Appraisal of Job Stressors 35 The Link Between Job Stressors and CWB 37

PAGE 4

ii The Link Between Other Individual Difference Variables with Negative Perceptual Tendencies and CWB 38 Summary 41 Chapter 2 – Method 43 Participants 43 Measures 45 Interpersonal Conflict 45 Incivility 45 Interactional Justice 45 Organizational Constraints 46 Workload 46 Hostile Attribution Style 47 Machiavellianism 47 Negative Affectivity 47 Trait Anger 47 Counterproductive Work Behavior 48 Demographics 48 Procedure 48 USF Sample 49 Snowball Sample 50 Chapter 3 – Results 51 Hypothesis 1: The Appraisal of Job Stressors 57 Hypothesis 2: The Link Between Job Stressors and CWB 59 Hypothesis 3: The Link Between Other I ndividual Difference Variables with Negative Perceptual Tendencies and CWB 68 Machiavellianism and the Occupational Stress Process 69 Chapter 4 – Discussion 71 The Appraisal of Job Stressors: Re lations of HAS with Psychosocial and Nonsocial Stressors 71 HAS as a Moderator of the Link Between Job Stressors and CWB 73 HAS as Mediator of the Link Between Othe r Individual Difference Variables With Negative Perceptual Tendencies and CWB 76 Machiavellianism and the Occupational Stress Process 77 Convergence between Self and Peer Reports 79 Limitations and Future Research Directions 80 Conclusion 82 References 83 Appendices 97 Appendix A: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS) 98 Appendix B: Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) 99 Appendix C: Colquitt’s (2001) Organizational Justice Measure 100 Appendix D: Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) 101 Appendix E: Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) 102 Appendix F: Workplace Hostile Attribution Bias Survey (WHABS) 103 Appendix G: Organizational M achiavellianism Scale (OMS) 104

PAGE 5

iii Appendix H: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) 105 Appendix I: Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) 106 Appendix J: Demographic Information 108 Appendix K: Employee Survey Cover Letter 109 Appendix L: Final Page Viewed By Participants (For Both Employees and Coworkers) 111 Appendix M: Email Sent to Coworker 112 Appendix N: Coworker Survey Cover Letter 113 About the Author End Page

PAGE 6

iv List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Sample Size Changes Due to Exclusion Criteria 44 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables 52 Table 3 Correlations amongs t Independent Variables 54 Table 4 Correlations amongs t Dependent Variables 55 Table 5 Correlations amongst Indepe ndent and Dependent Variables 56 Table 6 Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Incivility and HAS 60 Table 7 Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Informational Justice and HAS 61 Table 8 Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Interpersonal Justice and HAS 61 Table 9 Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Interpersonal Conflict and HAS 62 Table 10 Moderated Regressions of CWB ont o Organizational Constraints and HAS 65 Table 11 Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Workload and HAS 67 Table 12 Analysis of the Mediating Role of HAS 69

PAGE 7

v List of Figures Figure 1. HAS as Moderator of the Relati onship Between Interpersonal Conflict (Self) and CWB (Self) 63 Figure 2. HAS as Moderator of the Relati onship Between Interpersonal Conflict (Peer) and CWB (Self) 63 Figure 3. HAS as Moderator of the Relations hip Between Interpersonal Conflict (Self) and CWB (Peer) 63 Figure 4. HAS as Moderator of the Relations hip Between Interpersonal Conflict (Peer) and CWB (Peer) 64 Figure 5. HAS as Moderator of the Relationship Between Organizational Constraints (Self) and CWB (Self) 65 Figure 6. HAS as Moderator of the Relationship Between Organizational Constraints (Peer) and CWB (Self) 66 Figure 7. HAS as Moderator of the Relationship Between Organizational Constraints (Self) and CWB (Peer) 66 Figure 8. HAS as Moderator of the Relationship Between Organizational Constraints (Peer) and CWB (Peer) 66

PAGE 8

vi An Attributional Analysis of Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in Response to Occupational Stress Angeline Goh ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigat e the influence of hostile attribution style (HAS) on the processes linking job stressors and CWB. Self and peer data were collected via online questionnaires from employed participants recruited from undergraduate classes and nonstudent employees. Using data from 147 dyads of employees and coworkers, the effects of HAS on three areas were examined: the influence of HAS on the appraisal of psychosocial (incivility, interactional justice, and interpersonal conflict) and nonsocial (organizational constraints and workload) stressors; HAS as a moderator of the link between stressors and CWB; and HAS as mediator of the link between CWB and the indivi dual difference variables of negative affectivity (NA), trait anger, and Machiavellianism. Regardi ng appraisals, HAS was more strongly related to psychosocial stressors than to workload (nons ocial stressor). However, results regarding the comparisons of the HAS-psychosocial stresso r correlations with the HAS-organizational constraints (nonsocial stressor) correlations we re mixed. Moreover, contrary to what was hypothesized, correlations of HAS with interpersona l constraints and job context constraints were not significantly different in magnitude. HAS wa s shown to moderate the relationship between CWB and the stressors of interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints. Individuals high on HAS engaged in more CWB when stressors were high, whereas individuals low on HAS engaged in low levels of CWB overall. HAS par tially mediated the relationship between NA and CWB, in addition to the relationship between trait anger and CWB. It fully mediated the relationship between Machiavellianism and CWB. The influence of Machiavellianism on the

PAGE 9

vii occupational stress process also was explored. It was expected that high Machiavellians would appraise and respond to stressors in a negative fash ion. However, contrary to what was expected, Machiavellianism was positively associated with in formational justice and negatively related to incivility and CWB. Furthermore, it was negativ ely associated with NA and HAS. An alternative explanation for the results regarding Machia vellianism was presented. Although all hypotheses regarding the effects of HAS were partially supp orted, results of this study were generally demonstrative of the merits of including attribu tional processes (i.e., hostile attribution style) in CWB research within the occupational stress framework.

PAGE 10

1 Chapter 1 Introduction In recent years organizational scientists have examined counterproductive work behavior (CWB), or behavior that harms or intends to harm organizations and their stakeholders, within the occupational stress framework. However, this research (e.g., Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001) has focused mainly on CWB as an emotion-based strain response to job stressors. Although the strain response is contingent upon an individual’s appr aisal of environmental stressors, few studies have directly assessed people’s appraisal and attribu tional processes or explicitly examined their influence on the occupational stress process. Usi ng the occupational stress framework, the current study attempted to elucidate the influence of attributional processes on CWB. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of attributional style (i.e ., hostile attribution style) on the processes that link job stressors (e.g ., incivility and organizati onal constraints) with CWB. The Occupational Stress Process and CWB A job stressor is a condition or situation that requires an adaptive response on the part of an employee (Jex & Beehr, 1991). It can be anything an individual interprets as threatening to his or her psychological or physical well-being (Spect or, 2002). A job strain is an aversive reaction to a stressor (Jex & Beehr, 1991). Strains refer to the negative ways employees may respond to a stressor, and can be psychological, physical, or behavioral in nature (Jex, 1998; Jex & Beehr, 1991). Examples of psychological strains are anxiety, frustration, depression, job dissatisfaction, commitment, and intent to quit. Physical reacti ons include physical symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and stomach aches, and illnesses such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. Behavioral responses include substance abuse, ab senteeism, accidents, and turnover. Job stressors

PAGE 11

2 are linked to strains by an individual’s percepti on and interpretation (i.e., cognitive appraisal) of environmental conditions (e.g., L azarus, 1995). Appraisals are central to an individual’s “stress” response to stressors as it is the individual’s inte rpretation of the significance of an event for his well-being that determines whether a strain response will occur (Lazarus, 1982; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). An event that is not perceived as a threat to an individual’s well-being will not result in a stress reaction (Lazarus, 1995; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Spector (1998) and Spector and Fox (2002) developed a job stress/emotion/CWB model that suggests CWB is an emotion-based response to stressors at work. According to Spector and colleagues (1998, 2002), job stressors represent events that are interpreted as threats to well-being and result in negative emotional reactions, such as anger or anxiety. In addition, negative emotions mediate the relationship between job stressors and CWB, which is a behavioral manifestation of strain (Fox et al., 2001). Nega tive emotions, such as anger and anxiety, have been shown to mediate the relationship between CWB (both organizationa l and personal forms) and job stressors such as organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and procedural justice (Fox et al., 2001). Fox et al. (2001) also found evidence that negative emotions mediated the relationship between distributive justice and orga nizational CWB. Lee (2003) examined the effect of conflict source (supervisor vs. coworker) on CWB target (organizational vs. personal). She found some support that negative emotions mediated the relationship between conflict with one’s supervisor and organizational CWB. In contr ast, negative emotion partially mediated the relationship between conflict with coworkers and interpersonal CWB. An Attribution-Based Model of CWB Occupational stress researchers (e.g., Spector & Fox, 2002) generally use Lazarus’ (1995) transactional, appraisal-centered, approach when examining the relationships between job stressors and strains. Occupational stress resear ch, however, mainly focuses on the stressors and strains rather than the actual process that links them (Dewe, 1991). There exists some research on

PAGE 12

3 the emotional processes connecting stressors with strains (see Spector & Goh, 2001). However, research on the mental processes linking stressors to strains is lacking. For example, appraisals (i.e., the meanings people attribute to work even ts) are rarely assessed directly even though they are “an important mediating process in the occ upational stress process” (Spector & Jex, 1998, p. 359). Dewe (1991) examined the role of appr aisals (primary and secondary) and coping in stressful work encounters. He asked participants to describe an event or situation at work that had been stressful for them, and to answer a seri es of questions regarding the event that were quantified into measures of primary appraisal, se condary appraisal, and coping. Dewe found that primary appraisal was a significant predictor of two strains, tension (e.g., felt nervous or irritated as a result of the event) and constraints (e.g., fe lt frustrated with what goes on at work). Dewe’s research is significant in that it provided statistical evidence regarding the role of appraisals in the occupational stress process. However, his study di d not include a measure of attributions, which affect an individual’s appraisal processes (Segovis, Bhagat, & Coelho, 1985). Perrew and Zellars’ (1999) transactional attr ibutional model of the occupational stress process can be used as a framework to guid e research on the mental processes connecting stressors and strains. Their model incorporated attribution research (e.g., Weiner, 1985) with Lazarus’ (1991, 1995) transacti onal occupational stress model. Pe rrew and Zellars (1999) suggest that attributions play an important role in how people appraise and respond to situations. They affect threat assessment (i.e., significance of an event for one’s well-being) (Schaubroeck, 1999), experienced emotion, and the behavioral response to an event. For example, “the attributional antecedent for anger is an ascription of a negativ e, self-related outcome or event to factors controllable by others” (Perrewe & Zellars, 1999, p. 746). Therefore, upon receiving an insult, an individual may become angry and re taliate because he or she interp rets the insult as a threat to well-being. In contrast, another person may ignore the insult and not retaliate because he or she did not appraise it as a threat.

PAGE 13

4 Attributions versus attributional style Attributions refer to an individual’s perceptions of the causes behind other people’s behaviors (Baron & Byrne, 2003), whereas attributional style (or bias) refers to a person’s tendency to make certain type of attributions (Peterson, Semmel, Von Bayer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982). Generally, there are three dimensions along which behavior is explained: locus (interna l-external), stability (stable-unstable), and controllability (controllable-uncontrollable) (Weine r, 1985). An internal explanation focuses on one’s own traits, motives, and intentions, whereas an external one focuses on some aspect of the social or physical environment. A stable cause is perceived to be permanent or enduring, whereas an unstable cause is temporary or fluctuates. L astly, a controllable cause is under the volitional control of the individual, whereas an individual cannot change or influence when the cause is uncontrollable. Globality and intentionality are two other di mensions along which behavior might be explained (Weiner, 1985). Globality refers to whethe r the cause of an event is situation specific or generalizable to other settings (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Intentionality has to do with the difference between effort and strategy (Weiner, 1979). An individual can purposefully or knowingly exert insufficient effort, whereas one does not intentionally use an improper, bad strategy. Attribution styles influence the attributions people make for positive and negative events. For example, individuals with an optimistic e xplanatory style have the tendency to attribute positive events to internal, stable, and global causes, and to attribute negativ e events to external, unstable, and specific causes (Seligman, 1990). I ndividuals with a pessimistic explanatory style have the tendency to make attributions in th e exact opposite pattern. Within the organizational context, hostile attribution style has been defi ned as the tendency to attribute negative workplace events to external, stable, controllable, and intentional causes (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Other

PAGE 14

5 researchers have defined hostile a ttribution style as the te ndency “to interpret th e intent of others as hostile when social cues fail to indicate a clear intent” (Epps & Kendall, 1995, p. 161). Attribution research on the o ccupational stress process Zellars, Perrew, Ferris, and Hochwarter (2004) examined the role of attribu tions regarding stressors and emotions in the occupational stress process. Specifically, they inves tigated the effect of attributions regarding the cause of work-family conflict (experienced stress) on emotions and coping behaviors in a sample of female lawyers. They found that attributions to others (external, controllable) as the cause of felt stress (i.e., work-family conflict) were rela ted to negative emotions, such as frustration ( r = .31), shame ( r = .26), anger ( r = .22), and guilt ( r = .21), and with both emotion-focused ( r = .22) and problem-focused ( r = .23) coping behaviors. In additi on, attributions to organizational policies (external, controllable) as the cause of experienced stress (i.e., work-family conflict) were related to anger ( r = .44), shame ( r = .31), guilt ( r = .21), and emotion-focused coping behaviors ( r = .19). Harvey and Martinko (2005) recently examined the role of hostile attribution style in the experience of stress and turnover intentions. Th ey proposed that an individual’s hostile attributions regarding a negative outcome lead to increased levels of stress, and that stress mediates the relationship between attributions and increased turnover intentions. They found that hostile attribution style was positively related to e xperienced stress (psychological strain) and to turnover intentions. Moreover, stress was confir med as a mediator between hostile attributions and turnover intentions. Keashly and Harvey (2005), when discussi ng CWB research within the occupational stress framework, suggested that an instigator’s intent should be examined from the target’s perspective in addition to the role that attributions of the instigator’s intent play in appraisal and coping processes. For example, Keashly and Rogers (2001) found that targets perceived events as more threatening when they interpreted the ins tigator’s actions as containing malevolent intent.

PAGE 15

6 Similarly, Cortina, Magley, Williams, and Lang hout (2001) suggested that cognitive appraisal and attributions mediate the effects of workplace interpersonal mistreatment (e.g., incivility) on employee strains (psychological, physical, and behavioral). There is evidence regarding the influence of attributions and attribution styl e within the occupational stress framework (e.g., Harvey & Martinko, 2005; Zellars et al., 2004); how ever, there exists no research that directly examines the effect of attribution style (i.e., hos tile attribution style) on the relationship between job stressors (e.g., incivility and organizational c onstraints) and CWB. Therefore, the main goal of this study was to examine the influence of hostile attribution style on the processes that link job stressors with CWB. Support for the attributional approach can be found from attributional research on general aggression (e.g., Weiner, 1995). For example, Rudol ph, Roesch, Greitemeyer, and Weiner (2004) meta-analyzed the relationship of cognitions (i.e., attributions of controllability and responsibility) with emotional reactions (i.e., a nger) and aggressive behavi or. They found that perceptions of controllability we re related to both anger and a ggression (mean correlations of .61 and .49, respectively). In addition, anger was associated with aggression (mean correlation of .56). Using path analysis, Rudolph et al. (2004) also found that attributions of controllability and emotions were both proxima l determinants of aggressive behavior Attributions were also a distal determinant of aggression; emotions (i.e., ange r) mediated the relationship between cognitions (i.e., attributions of controll ability) and aggressive behavior. Similarly, Betancourt and Blair (1992) found that attributions (i.e ., perceptions of intentionality and controllability) for a conflict situation were related to the emotional reacti on of anger and violence level of an aggressive response. Attributions of intentionality ( r = .53) had a stronger relationship with violent reactions than perceptions of controllability ( r = .32). Furthermore, emotions (i.e., anger) were shown to mediate the relationship between a ttributions and violent reactions.

PAGE 16

7 Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) represents volitional acts that can be aimed at the organization itself or people in the organizati on (e.g., supervisor, coworker, subordinates) and either harm or are carried out with the explicit intention to harm (Spector & Fox, 2005). Keashly, Trott, and MacLean (1994), in their study of abusive behavior in the workplace (a form of CWB), found that all participants had experienced at l east one incident of nonsexual, nonphysical abusive behavior. Respondents also indicated that supe rvisors were the most common perpetrator, followed by coworkers and subordinates. Moreove r, they reported feeling more disturbed by abuse from supervisors than from coworkers (K eashly & Neuman, 2002). Relatedly, 32% of participants in Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Hje lt-Back’s (1994) study of harassment at work reported that they had observed others being mistreated. Respondents also indicated that individuals in superior positions harassed others in lower positions more often than those in lower positions harassed others in superior positions. In their study of employee aggression, Gree nberg and Barling (1999) found that 82%, 74%, and 76% of participants re ported having psychologically aggressed at least once against a coworker, subordinate, and supervisor, respectivel y. Gossiping about or arguing with the target were the most frequent forms of psychological a ggression. Less than 1% of participants reported engaging in physical aggression against a target. Psychological reactions to CWB include feeli ngs of depression and anxiety (Bjorkvist et al., 1994). Psychosocial problems (Kaukiainen, Salmivalli, Bjorkqvist Osterman, Lahtinen, Kostamo, & Lagerspetz, 2001); emotional exhaus tion (O’Brien & Vandello, 2005; Tepper, 2000); life dissatisfaction (Tepper, 2000); and decrem ents in emotional well-being (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Schat & Kelloway, 2000), sel f-esteem, and self-confidence (Price Spratlen, 1995) are other psychological strains. Work-related psychological reactions are job dissatisfaction, work-to-family conflict, family-t o-work conflict (Tepper, 2000), and decrements

PAGE 17

8 in job-related affect (Schat & Kelloway, 2003), normative commitment, and affective commitment (Tepper, 2000). Physical reactions include physical symptoms (Kaukiainen et al., 2001) and decrements in psychosomatic wellbeing (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Schat & Kelloway, 2003). Behavioral reactions to CWB include tu rnover (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002) and decrements in communication with supervisor s and productivity (Price Spratlen, 1995). More importantly, being the target of aggression is re lated to engaging in aggression (i.e., CWB). For example, participants in Baron and Neuman’s (1998) study of workplace aggression reported being the victim of aggression from their immediat e supervisor, other superiors, coworkers, and subordinates significantly more often than they aggressed against such persons. However, when the victims became perpetrators, participan ts reported aggressing towards coworkers most (44.5%), followed by immediate supervisors (31. 4%), other superiors (26.8%), and subordinates (22.2%). Moreover, respondents rated their aggressi on as being significantly more justified than that of fellow employees, regardless of the hierarchical status of the others (i.e., superior, coworker, or subordinate). Similarly, O’Brien and Vandello (2005) found that perceptions of mobbing (i.e., being victimized) were related to engaging in CWB ( r = .53). Forms of CWB. As early as 1978 Spector suggested that aggression in the workplace can be directed at either people or the organization itself. Organizational CWB represents acts directed at the organization as a whole (e.g., stealing money from the cash register), whereas personal CWB is directed at individuals within the organization (e.g., taking credit for a coworker’s idea). Evidence for this assertion can be found in Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) research on deviant workplace behaviors. Wor kplace deviance represents behaviors that are voluntary, violate organizational norms, and can potentially harm the organization (Bennett, Aquino, Reed, & Thau, 2005). Specifically, R obinson and Bennett (1995) found that deviant workplace behaviors vary along two dimensions: severity (minor vs. serious) and target

PAGE 18

9 (interpersonal vs. organizational). Deviant behaviors can be grouped into four distinct categories on the basis of the two dimensions: production deviance (e.g., leaving early or intentionally working slowly), property deviance (e.g., sabotaging equipment or lying about hours worked), political deviance (e.g., gossiping about or blam ing coworkers), and personal aggression (e.g., verbally abusing or stealing from coworkers). Buss’ (1961) taxonomy of aggression (physical vs. verbal; active vs. passive; and direct vs. indirect) also can be used to describe CWB. Verbal aggression harms the target through words (e.g., making a sarcastic remark about a subordina te), whereas physical aggression includes overt behavior that is intended to hurt the victim (e.g., pushing a coworker). Passive aggression harms the intended target by withholding behaviors or actions (e.g., not passing along information a coworker needs for a project), whereas active aggression harms by performing some behavior (e.g., refusing a subordinate’s request). Indirect aggression involves inflicting harm by attacking something or someone the person values (e.g., damaging a coworker’s personal laptop), whereas direct aggression directly harms the intended target (e.g., rescinding a promised promotion). Baron and Neuman (1996) applied Buss’ (1961) taxonomy when examining the incidence of experienced and witnessed aggression in a sample of full-time employees from organizations in both the public and private sectors. For both w itnessed and experienced aggression they found that verbal, passive, and direct forms of aggressi on were used significantly more frequently than physical, active, and indirect forms. Covert aggression consists of behaviors that a llow one to harm others with little risk of censure or retaliation from coworkers or the organization (Baron, 1996). Covert counterproductive job performance consists of interp ersonal, unobtrusive behavior that is difficult to detect, and includes interpersonal acts such as spreading false rumors, manipulating others, withholding important information from a coworker and taking credit for someone else’s work (Collins & Griffin, 1998). The person’s aggressive in tentions are disguised or the identity of the

PAGE 19

10 aggressor is concealed (Baron, 1996; Collins & Griffin, 1998). In contrast, overt counterproductive job performance is concrete and observable, and includes behaviors such as verbal harassment, physical assault, tardiness, absenteeism, and property theft or damage (Collins & Griffin, 1998). Research on workplace aggression has found that covert forms of aggression are used significantly more often than overt forms of aggression (Baron, Neuman, & Geddes, 1999). Baron et al. (1999) found that aggressive behavior consists of three dimensions: expressions of hostility, obstructionism, and overt aggression. Expressions of hostility are symbolic in nature and consist primarily of ve rbal behaviors (e.g., belittling a coworker’s opinion or giving a coworker dirty looks). Obstructionism is passive in nature a nd consists of behaviors intended to impede the target’s performance (e.g ., failing to return a coworker’s phone call or showing up late for a meeting). Overt aggression consists of behaviors typical of workplace violence (e.g., physically attacking a coworker). Research has shown that expressions of hostility and obstructionism are the two most frequently used forms of aggression, whereas overt aggression is used least (Baron et al., 1999; Baron & Neuman, 1998). Similarly, research by Spector and colleagues (Fox & Spector, 1999; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, & Kessler, 2006) has shown that behaviors such as threatening another employee with violence or physically attacking an employee occur infrequently. Recent research on the dimensionality of CWB h as shown that it can be divided into five categories: abuse against others, sabotage, productio n deviance, theft, and withdrawal (Spector et al., 2006). Abuse against others represents harm ful behaviors that can be psychological or physical in nature. Examples are making nast y comments about coworkers or undermining a coworker’s ability to work effectively (Spector et al., 2006). Sabotage affects physical property belonging to the organization (i.e., defacing or destroying the physical workplace), whereas production deviance represents behaviors that destroy the work process (e.g., purposefully

PAGE 20

11 performing one’s work incorrectly) (Spector et al., 2006). Moreover, production deviance is generally passive in nature, whereas sabotage is mo re active. Theft can be considered a form of aggression against the organization (Neuman & Bar on, 1997) even though it usually results from economic need, injustice, or job dissatisfacti on (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002). Withdrawal consists of behaviors that reduce the amount of time one works to less than what the organization requires (e.g., leaving early or taking longer breaks than allowed; Spector et al., 2006). Psychosocial Stressors versus Nonsocial Stressors Related to CWB Psychosocial factors represent “aspects of th e work environment having to do with interactions with other people” (Jex, 2002, pp. 180-181). Psychosocial stressors involve aspects of the more abstract social environment and ar ise in part or whole from interactions amongst employees (Spector, 2003; Spector & Jex, 1998). Interpersonal conflict refers to how well an individual gets along with others at work (e.g., ho w often others are rude, nasty, or yell at you) (Spector & Jex, 1998), and is one psychosocial stressor that has been associated with CWB (Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002). Incivility and organizational justi ce (i.e., interactional justice) also can be considered psychosocial job stressors (see Fox et al., 2001; Penney, 2002; Penney & Spector, 2005), and have been related to CWB as well (Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Penney, 2002). Incivility refers to relatively m ild, insensitive, rude, or discourteous behavior toward others at work (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001), whereas interactional justice refers to polite, respectful, or courteous behavior s hown by a supervisor during the enactment of organizational procedures (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999; Folger & Baron, 1996; LeBlanc & Barling, 2004). Incivility, interactional justice, and interpersonal conflict all involve perceptions of interpersonal mistreatment, but the perceived (b enign, benevolent, or malevolent) intent of the instigator varies with each. For example, th e underlying motive of incivility is ambiguous, whereas there is clear hostile intent with interp ersonal conflict (Penney & Spector, 2005). That is, conflict refers to volitional acts with the inte nt to harm, whereas acts of incivility represent

PAGE 21

12 harmful behaviors that are not necessarily intentio nal or malicious. Both incivility and conflict involve mistreatment from any member of an organization (i.e., superiors, coworkers, or subordinates), whereas interactional justice entails mistreatment only from a supervisor or others in authority. In addition, interactional justice is restricted only to situations involving the enactment of organizational procedures, wherea s both incivility and conflict are not limited to formal procedural contexts. Nonsocial stressors arise from the more concrete and objective aspects of the work environment. Organizational constraints refer to situ ations that interfere with an individual’s job performance (Spector & Jex, 1998), and are nonsocia l stressors that have been associated with CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999). Examples of constraint sources are lack of budgetary support, information, or materials and supplies necessar y for the job. Workload is another nonsocial stressor. It represents the amount of work an employee is required to do (Jex, 1998). However, research on workload has shown very weak suppor t for its relationship with CWB (see Chen & Spector, 1992). Interpersonal Conflict at Work Interpersonal conflict refers to negatively charged interactions with others in the workplace (Jex, 2002). Conflict ranges in severity from minor disagreements to physical fights (Spector & Jex, 1998). The conflict can be covert (e.g., spreading rumors about a coworker) or overt (e.g., yelling at a coworker) in nature. In a ddition, conflict can be broken into active (e.g., arguing with a coworker) or passive (e.g., delib erately not returning a coworker’s phone calls) forms (Jex, 2002). In a study of interpersonal mistreatment amongst university faculty and staff, 23% of respondents reported having been the victim of mistreatment during an 18-month period (Price Spratlen, 1995). Environmental mistreatment was the most common form of conflict experienced at work. Examples are being treated in a rude, hos tile, or demeaning manner; being talked down

PAGE 22

13 to in front of others; or being ignored. The ma jority of respondents also reported experiencing verbal mistreatment. Examples are being yelled or sworn at; receiving demeaning comments; being threatened with injury; or being verbally assaulted. Moreover, instigators of mistreatment were supervisors more often than coworkers. In 1985 Keenan and Newton asked engineers about incidents at work that had been stressful for them. Seventy-four percent of all ev ents reported included social interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates. Inte rpersonal conflict was the second most cited source of stress. These negative interpersonal encounters involved behaviors that can be classified as verbal aggression or covert hos tility. Narayanan, Menon, and Spector (1999b) also asked individuals in different occupa tional groups (academic, clerical, and sales) about stressful incidents at work. Interpersonal conflict was the most frequently reported source of stress for the academic and sales groups. In contrast, it was the third most cited source of stress for the clerical group. In a cross-cultural study of job stressors and strains for employees holding comparable jobs (i.e., clerical) in two countries, Naraya nan, Menon, and Spector (1999a) found that interpersonal conflict was the third most cited source of stress for American respondents. In contrast, it was the fourth most cited source of stress for Indian participants. In 2003 Liu conducted another cross-cultural study of stressors and strains for employees holding comparable jobs; however, she used Chinese and American empl oyees, and the sample consisted of university professors and administrative support staff. Chinese professors reported significantly higher levels of interpersonal conflict th an American ones. Similarly, they experienced higher levels of conflict with supervisors than American prof essors. Chinese professors also reported higher levels of conflict with coworkers; however, th e difference was not statistically significant. Liu (2003) also divided interpersonal conflict into direct and indirect forms. Direct conflict involves direct confrontation between peopl e, whereas indirect conflict involves indirect

PAGE 23

14 actions such as doing nasty things to so meone behind their back. Chinese respondents experienced significantly more indirect conflict than American ones. In contrast, American participants experienced significantly mo re direct conflict than Chinese ones. Reactions to interpersonal conflict include negative emotions (Fox et al., 2001) and other feelings such as anger (Chen & Spector, 1991), a nxiety, frustration (Spector, 1987), and being upset (e.g., discouraged, frightened, furious, and gloomy) (Spector et al., 2006). Other related psychological strains are perceptions of stress (Chen & Spector, 1991), depression (Heinisch & Jex, 1997), work anxiety (Jex & Spector, 1996), job dissatisfaction (Spector, 1987), and intent to quit (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Conflict also has been related to physical strains such as physical symptoms (Spector, 1987) and doctor visits (Chen & Spector, 1991). Frone (2000) examined the effects of interpersonal conflict, separated by source (supervisor vs. coworker), on various psychological and organizational strain s. Supervisor conflict was associated with increased job dissatisfaction and intent to quit and decreased organizational commitment. In contrast, coworker conflict was related to somatic symptoms, depression, and decreased selfesteem. Interpersonal conflict and CWB. Results of a survey conducted by Northwestern National Life (NWNL) that was reported in VandenBos a nd Bulatao (1996) showed that supervisors and coworkers accounted for 86% of all workplace harassment, 33% of threats, and 25% of workplace attacks. Furthermore, interpersonal c onflict was cited as the cause by 46% of victims of harassment and 27% of employees who had been threatened. Relatedly, 47% of respondents in Glomb’s (2002) study of workplace aggression c ited interpersonal conflict as the cause of an aggressive encounter. Bergmann and Volkema (1994) examined behavioral responses to interpersonal conflict at work. Responses such as avoiding the person; fo rming alliances; not talkin g with the person; or not cooperating with the person were more comm on when the source of conflict was a coworker

PAGE 24

15 versus a supervisor. In contrast, talking be hind the person’s back, getting even, or committing sabotage were more common when the source of conflict was a supervisor versus a coworker. Interpersonal conflict has been associated with an overall measure of CWB ( r = .19) (Miles et al., 2002) in addition to organizational ( r = .32) and personal ( r = .40) forms (Fox et al., 2001). Conflict has also been related to other dimensions of CWB such as abuse ( r = .54), production deviance ( r = .28), sabotage ( r = .26), theft ( r = .19), and withdrawal ( r = .14; Spector et al., 2006). Spector et al. (2006) noted that in terpersonal conflict had stronger relations with personal forms of CWB (i.e., abuse and person CW B) than with organizational forms of CWB (i.e., production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal). Interestingly, conflict was more strongly related to theft from fellow employees ( r = .26) than theft from the organization ( r = .17). Further evidence of the relationship between interpersonal conflict and CWB comes from multi-source studies of CWB. For example, Penney (2002) found selfand peer-reports of conflict to be related to both sel fand peer-reports of CWB. In addition, Goh, Bruursema, Fox, and Spector (2003) found self-reported interpers onal conflict to be associated only with selfreported, personal CWB, whereas it was related to both organizational a nd personal forms of CWB as reported by peers. Similarly, peer-repor ted conflict was related to self-reported, personal CWB, whereas it was associated with both organi zational and personal forms of CWB as reported by peers. For both selfand peer-reports, the rela tionship of interpersona l conflict with personal CWB was larger than that with organizational CWB. Bruursema (2004) examined the relationship between source of interpersonal conflict (supervisor vs. coworker) and CWB (organizationa l and personal). She found that conflict with supervisors was more strongly related to organizational CWB ( r = .46) than personal CWB ( r = .39). Conversely, conflict with coworkers was more strongly associated with personal CWB ( r = .41) than with organizational CWB ( r = .24). Lee (2003) also investigated the relationship

PAGE 25

16 between conflict source and form of CWB with selfand peer-reports. She found that selfreported, supervisor conflict was associated w ith organizational CWB as reported by both self and peers. Peer-reported, supervisor conflict was related to both orga nizational and personal forms of CWB as reported by peers. In general, supervisor conflict showed stronger relationships with organizational CWB than with personal CW B for both selfand peer-reports. Self-reported, coworker conflict was related to both organizati onal and personal forms of CWB as reported by both self and peers. Similarly, peer-reported, coworker conflict was associated with both organizational and personal forms of CWB as reporte d by both self and peers. Coworker conflict generally showed stronger relationships with personal CWB than with organizational CWB except when both coworker conflict and CWB were assessed with peer-report. Incivility Incivility represents a milder form of psycho logical mistreatment where the intention of the perpetrator is obscure (Cortina et al., 200 1). Specifically, Pearson et al. (2001) defined workplace incivility as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others” (p. 1397). Examples of incivility are speaking to someone in a demeaning manner; trea ting someone like a child; publicly undermining someone’s credibility; excluding someone from a meeting; not greeting someone; and cutting someone off when they are speaking (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Acts of incivility may occur when one desires to harm the target and/or the organization or to benefit oneself; however, uncivil acts can occur without any malevolent intent (Pearson et al., 2001). Incivility is a social interaction that can be interpreted differently by the parties involved because the intent of the harm-doer is ambiguous in the eyes of the target, observers, or even the instigator (Pearson et al., 2000). For example, an individual may perceive that his supervisor constantly cuts him off when he speaks at departmental meetings. However, the

PAGE 26

17 instigator may claim that any harm experienced was due to oversight or ignorance on his part (Pearson et al., 2000). Or, the instigator can deny harmful intent by claiming that the target has misinterpreted the behavior or that the target is hypersensitive. This is due to the fact that behavior “one person may perceive as cold brusque, or rude, another may view as a nononsense, competent, or efficient manner” (Johnson & Indvik, 2001, p. 458). Incivility can take non-escalating, spiraling, or cascading forms (Pearson et al., 2000). It can be a tit-for-tat exchange of behaviors of equal intensities (non-escalating, uncivil exchange) or it can escalate into a spiral of more aggressive behaviors with each exchange (escalating spiral of incivility). Alternately, incivility may be redi rected towards a coworker or subordinate (direct displacement of cascading pattern of incivility) when the victim does not dare to retaliate directly against the instigator. This often happens when the instigator is of higher status (i.e., one’s supervisor) than the victim. Alt hough the instigator of incivility can be at the same, higher, or lower level than the target (Pearson et al., 2001) instigators of incivility are three times more likely to be of higher status than the target (Pearson et al., 2000). Cortina et al. (2001) examined the inciden ce of workplace incivility in public-sector employees, and found that 71% of participants reported experiencing some form of incivility within the previous 5 years. Specifically, 39% re ported experiencing incivility once or twice, 25% responded sometimes, and 6% stated that they were often or many times the target of incivility. Furthermore, 10% of participants in a nationwide survey conducted by Pearson and Porath (2002) reported witnessing incivility on a daily basis, whereas 20% reported being the target of incivility at least once a week. Reactions to incivility include psychological strains such as feelings of psychological distress and decrements in psychological well-be ing and life satisfaction (Lim & Cortina, 2005). Work-related strains include feelings of job stress, job dissatisfaction, and intent to quit (Lim & Cortina, 2005). Burnfield, Clark, Devendorf, and Jex (2004) found that incivility had a stronger

PAGE 27

18 relationship with the threat component (e.g., feeli ng that the job is nerve-wracking) of work stress than with the pressure component (e.g., job dema nds are hectic). Incivility is also related to physical symptoms, which is one manifestation of physical strain (Burnfield et al., 2004). When examining the effect of customer incivility on in terpersonal deviance at work Burnfield, Clark, Thornbury, Lodato, Jex, and Christopher (2005) found that customer condescension was related to psychological strains such as emotional e xhaustion, depression, a nd job dissatisfaction. Incivility and CWB. Withholding full commitment, retribution, or emulating incivility are three ways Zauderer (2002) suggested that vict ims of incivility can cope. The other two are rationalization (e.g., this job is bad, but it’s pr obably worse elsewhere) and seeking change (i.e., telling the instigator about uncivil acts committed, hoping that he or she will stop). When an individual withholds commitment he or she gives less to the organization, by not staying late to meet a deadline or stopping efforts to come up w ith innovative ways to improve the organization, for example. With retribution, a victim may try to undermine the instigator by withholding important information from the manager or te lling coworkers about mistakes the manager has made. Lastly, a victim of incivility may start committing acts of incivility against other coworkers or subordinates. Participants in Pearson et al.’s (2000) st udy of workplace incivility reported committing intentional acts such as reducing efforts at work (25%) and reducing one’s organizational commitment (33%). Respondents also intentionall y avoided the instigator (25%), whereas some others decreased the amount of time spent at work Twelve percent of participants actually quit their jobs in response to uncivil acts. Furthermore, 5% of respondents stole property from the instigator as retaliation for unfair treatment, whereas another 5% stole property from the organization itself. Lastly, targets of incivility have reported displacing their ill will on a coworker or by directing it at no one in particular (Pearson et al., 2001).

PAGE 28

19 When a target of incivility is less powerful than his instigator he tends to avoid the instigator or makes attempts to damage the ins tigator’s reputation (Porath, Pearson, & Shapiro, 2002). A target may also direct his aggression towards the organization. Johnson and Indvik (2001) suggested that r ude behavior can lead to interpersonal conflict, which can be considered both a stressor and an example of escalatory aggression (i.e., result of an incivility spiral). Burnfield et al. (2004) found a strong relationship ( r = .65) between incivility and interpersonal conflict. Penney (2 002) also found that incivility was related to interpersonal conflict using both self( r = .49) and peer( r = .59) reports. Penney (2002) also examined the relations hip between incivility and CWB, using both selfand peer-reports. Both selfand peer-reports of incivility were related to self-reports of CWB, whereas peer-reports of incivility were associated only with peer-reports of CWB. Furthermore, she found that both selfand peer-re ports of incivility were associated with organizational and personal CWB as reported by self and peers. With self-reports, incivility was more strongly related to organizational than pe rsonal CWB. In contrast, the relationship of incivility to personal CWB was stronger than that with organizational CWB, as reported by peers. Incivility has been examined mainly as stemming from interactions with individuals internal to one’s organization (i.e., supervisor, coworkers, or subordinates). However, Burnfield et al. (2005) investigated the relationship betw een incivility from external customers and CWB (defined as deviance) at work (e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 1995). They found that customer condescension and customer insults were associated with interpersonal CWB ( r = .16 and .27, respectively). Interactional Justice Organizational justice refers to an employee’s perception of fair treatment on the job. There are three major forms of organizational justi ce: distributive, procedural, and interactional. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of decision outcomes. It is promoted by

PAGE 29

20 following appropriate norms (e.g., equity) for a llocating resources (e.g., pay raise) (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). Distributive justice outcomes are generally economical (e.g., bonus), but they can also be social (e.g., promotion; Tritschler & Steiner, 2005). Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures used to make decisions. It is maintained by making decisions in a consistent, accurate, and unbiased manner (C olquitt & Greenberg, 2003). Interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness of how orga nizational decision-makers enact decisions, and consists of two components (int erpersonal and informational). Th e interpersonal component is promoted with dignified and respectful treatment whereas the informational one is maintained with adequate and honest expl anations (Colquitt & Greenberg, 200 3). This is supported by Bies and Moag’s (1986) criteria for fair interpersonal tr eatment; in order to be considered just, there should be respect (courteousness), truthfulness ( candid, honest communication), justification (explanation of decisions), and propriety (avoidan ce of improper remarks or statements). It has been suggested that interpersonal justice affect s one’s reactions to decision outcomes, whereas informational justice alters one’s reactions to procedures (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Interactional justice refers to the interpers onal side of organizational practices, focusing on management’s interpersonal treatment of and communication with employees (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Specifically, it focuses on the sen sitivity and concern shown to individuals when distributing the outcomes they receive or enacting organizational procedures (Folger & Baron, 1996). It also refers to whether persons in authority (i.e., one’s supervisor) treat others with dignity, respect, and courtesy (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999; Folger & Baron, 1996). Fair interpersonal treatment is defined as “sincere communication between the supervisor and the employee and interacting with individuals in a polite and respectful manner” (Tritschler & Steiner, 2005, p. 15). Examples of unjust interp ersonal treatment are disregarding the feelings, needs and desires of others, or treating some one in an inconsiderate or unfriendly manner

PAGE 30

21 (Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990). It is not surprising that Burnfield et al. (2004) found perceptions of incivility, especially those related to abusiv e supervision, to be negatively associated with perceptions of interpersonal justice. Psychological reactions to interactional ju stice include increased job satisfaction and affective commitment and decreased turnover intentions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Perceptions of stress are also affected by th e interpersonal and informational components of interactional justice (Judge & Colquitt, 2004). Sp ecifically, Judge and Colquitt (2004) found that perceived stress had a stronger relationship with interpersonal justice than with informational justice. Interactional justice and CWB. In a study of workplace aggression episodes, Glomb (2002) found that 89% of responde nts cited unjust behavior as l eading to aggressive behavior. Furthermore, perceptions of organizational injusti ce (distributive, procedural, and interpersonal) have been shown to be associated with re ports of being the target of aggression ( r = .36) and having engaged in aggression ( r = .21; Glomb & Liao, 2003). Interactional justice has been found to be associated with genera l counterproductive behavior ( r = .21, Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Similarly, O’Brien and Vandello (2005) found that perceptions of organizational justice were related to an overall measure of CWB. However, Aquino, Lewis, and Bradfield (1999) found that perceptions of interactional justice were a stronger predictor of both organizational and interpersonal deviance than either distributive or procedural justice. Similarly, in their metaanalysis of organizational justice, Colquitt et al (2001) found that interpersonal and informational justice were the two strongest predictors of negative employee reactions, such as theft and organizational retaliatory behaviors (corrected m ean correlations of -.35 and -.33, respectively). In contrast, perceptions of procedural and distributive justice were the third and fourth strongest predictors of negative reactions (corrected me an correlation of -.31 and -.30, respectively).

PAGE 31

22 Perceptions of interactional injustice ha ve been shown to be associated with organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB; Skarlic ki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). In addition, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) foun d that at high levels of interactional justice (i.e., perception that supervisor is courteous a nd respectful), employers are more tolerant of a combination of distributive (e.g., inequitable bonuses) and procedural injustice (i.e., inconsistent compensation scales). In their study of retaliation in the workpl ace, Kickul, Neuman, and Parker (1999) found that interactional injustice was related to antic itizenship behavior, or negative and destructive actions and tactics used by employees (e.g., avoi ding work, talking back to the supervisor, or interfering with someone doing his job). Furthermor e, when examining the role of injustice in workplace sabotage, Ambrose, Seabright, and Sc hminke (2002) found that respondents cited retaliation as the main goal when the primary cause of injustice was interactional. Saboteurs were equally likely to target both the individual and the organization. Similarly, Aquino et al. (1999) found that interactional injustice was associat ed with both interpersonal and organizational deviance. The relationship of interactional justi ce with interpersonal de viance was stronger than that with organizational deviance. In contrast Aquino, Galperin, and Bennett (2004) found that interactional injustice was related to organiza tional deviance, but not interpersonal deviance. Furthermore, Aquino, Galperin, et al. (2004) fo und that the relationship between interactional justice and organizational deviance was stronger fo r employees with low hierarchical status (i.e., line staff) than those with high hierarchical status (i.e., managers and supervisors). Perceptions of interpersonal injustice have also been related to aggression against one’s supervisor and the organization (Inness & Barling, 2002). Aquino et al. (1999) suggested that retaliating against the organization is a way of ge tting back at one’s supervisor without incurring future retribution. However, Inness, Barling, a nd Turner’s (2005) study of supervisor-targeted aggression in employees with two jobs showed that perceptions of interactional justice were

PAGE 32

23 associated with aggression only towards the source (s upervisor) of injustice. That is, injustice from the first job was related onl y to aggression towards the supervisor of the first job, whereas injustice from the second job was associated only wi th aggression towards the supervisor of the second job. Similarly, Day and Hamblin (1964) f ound that punitive supervision was related to verbal aggression towards the s upervisor, and not coworkers. Baron et al. (1999) also examined the effect of an individual’s perception of fair treatment from one’s supervisor on subsequent workplace aggression. Respondents’ perceptions of injustice were related to reports of having been the victim of workplace aggression and having aggressed against both the supervisor and the organi zation. Participants also reported that they would target an immediate supervisor or cowo rker most frequently, followed by subordinates, and then the organization. Perceived injusti ce was related most strongly to expressions of hostility, followed by obstructionism and overt aggression. Organizational Constraints Organizational constraints are “situations or things that prevent employees from translating ability and effort into high levels of job performance” (Spector & Jex, 1998, p. 357). Peters and O’Connor (1988) defi ned eleven sources of organizatio nal constraints: job related information; budgetary support; required suppor t; materials and supplies; required services and help from others; task preparation; time availa bility; work environment; scheduling of activities; transportation; and job-relevant authority. Perform ance may be inhibited due to the unavailability, poor quality, or inadequacy (or some combina tion thereof) of a constraint source (Jex, 2002). Narayanan et al. (1999a) asked employees holding comparable jobs (i.e., clerical) in the United States and India about incidents at work that had been stressful for them. Equipment/situational constraints were the third most cited source of stress for Indian respondents; however, none of the incidents re ported by American participants contained constraints as a source of stress. Similarly, Liu (2003) examined job stressors and strains

PAGE 33

24 experienced by employees with comparable jobs (university professors and administrative support staff) in America and China. Organizati onal constraints, interpersonal conflict, and workload were the most frequently reported st ressors for both American and Chinese employees. For American employees, constraints and workload tied as the most frequently reported stressor, whereas conflict and autonomy (i.e., lack of c ontrol) tied as the second most cited source of stress. In contrast, constraints were the most frequently reported stressor for Chinese employees, followed by conflict and workload as the second and third most cited sources of stress, respectively. American employees experienced signi ficantly more organizational constraints than Chinese ones. Liu (2003) also divided constraints into two forms: interpersonal and job context. Interpersonal constraints are comprised of issu es related to one’s supervisor; other employees; inadequate help from others; and interruptions from other people. In contrast, job context constraints consist of issues related to conf licting job demands; lack of necessary information about what or how to do tasks; inadequate trai ning; incorrect instructions; poor equipment or supplies; lack of equipment or supplies; and or ganizational rules and procedures. Liu found that American employees experienced significantly more interpersonal constraints than Chinese ones. There were no significant differences between American and Chinese employees for job context constraints. Reactions to organizational constraints include negative emotions (Fox et al., 2001) and other feelings such as anger (Chen & Spector, 1991) anxiety, frustration (Spector et al., 1988), and being upset (e.g., discouraged, frightened, fu rious, and gloomy; Spector et al., 2006). Other psychological strains are perceptions of stress (Chen & Spector, 1991), job dissatisfaction, and intent to quit (Spector et al., 1988). Physical strains include physical symptoms and doctor visits (Spector et al., 1988). Work-related strains include absenteeism (Chen & Spector, 1991), turnover

PAGE 34

25 (O’Connor, Peters, Pooyan, Weekley, Frank, & Erenkrantz, 1984), and performance decrements (Spector et al., 1988). Organizational constraints and CWB Organizational constraints have been associated with an overall measure of CWB ( r = .36) in addition to organizational ( r = .37) and personal ( r = .26) forms (Fox & Spector, 1999). Constraints have also been related to other dimensions of CWB (Spector et al., 2006), specifically abuse ( r = .32), production deviance ( r = .23), sabotage ( r = .19), theft ( r = .15), and withdrawal ( r = .18). Goh et al. (2003) examined the relationship between constraints and CWB, using both selfand peer-reports. Self-reports of constraints we re related to self-reports of organizational and personal CWB. Peer-reports of constraints were associated with organizational and personal CWB as reported by self and peers. Constraints were more strongly rela ted to organizational CWB than personal CWB for both self-reports (self-s elf) and peer-reports (peer-peer). In contrast, constraints were more strongly associated with personal CWB than organizational CWB when constraints were peer-report and CWB was self-report. Workload Workload represents the volume of work required of an employee (Spector & Jex, 1998). Work overload can be quantitative or qualitative in nature (French & Caplan, 1973). Quantitative overload occurs when an individual has too mu ch to do during a time period, whereas qualitative overload occurs when job tasks are too difficult for the employee. In their study of stressful incidents at work in a sample of engineers, Keenan and Newton (1985) found that qualitative workload (too difficult vs. low level) and quantitative workload (too much or too little to do in a given time period) were the third and fourth most cited sources of stress. Liu (2003) examined job stressors and st rains experienced by employees with comparable jobs (university professors and administrative s upport staff) in America and China. Workload and

PAGE 35

26 constraints tied as the most frequently reported st ressor for American participants. In contrast, workload was the third most cited s ource of stress for Chinese respondents. Reactions to workload include negative emo tions (Miles et al., 2002) and other feelings such as anger (Chen & Spector, 1991) and frustration (Spector & O’Connell, 1994). Other psychological strains are depression (Fortunato, Jex, & Heinish, 1999), perceptions of stress (Chen & Spector, 1991), work anxiety (Spector & O’Connell, 1994), job dissatisfaction (Spector, 1987), and intent to quit (Spector et al., 1988). Workload also has been related to physical strains such as physical symptoms (Spector et al., 1988) and doctor visits (Chen & Spector, 1991). Regarding work-related strains, s upervisors’ ratings of incumbents ’ workload have been shown to be associated with their ratings of the incu mbents’ job performance (Spector et al., 1988). Workload and CWB Workload has been associated w ith an overall measure of CWB ( r = .21; Miles et al., 2002) and the hostility and complaints ( r = .13) dimension of CWB (Chen & Spector, 1992). The Effects of Individual Differences in the Occupational Stress Process and on CWB “Individual differences have an impact on both the perception of stressors and the reactions to these stressors” (Jex, 1998, p.8). This is because there exists a certain amount of ambiguity in the job situation that allows pe ople to interpret the context according to their (cognitive and affective) dispositions (Staw & Ro ss, 1985). Individual differences in attributional style (i.e., hostile attribution style) and affectiv e dispositions (i.e., trait anxiety/NA and trait anger) have been related to the perception of a nd reactions to job str essors (Fox et al., 2001; Harvey & Martinko, 2005). Although the influe nce of Machiavellianism on the occupational stress processes has not been examined, it is lik ely that the characteristics (i.e., cynicalness and distrustfulness; Christie & Lehmann, 1970; Geis Christie, & Nelson, 1970) of these individuals will affect their appraisals of and reactions to job stressors. Individuals high on Machiavellianism, trait anxiety/NA, and trait anger appear disparat e initially, however, they share, with individuals

PAGE 36

27 high on hostile attribution style, the core tendenc y to appraise the job environment in a negative fashion (Christie & Lehmann, 1970; Epps & Ke ndall, 1995; Speilberger, 1983, 1999; Watson & Slack, 1993). Moreover, hostile attributional style, Machiavellianism, trait anxiety/NA, and trait anger have all been associated with the tende ncy to commit CWB (Fox et al., 2001; Giacalone & Knouse, 1990; O’Brien & Vandello, 2005). Hostile Attribution Style (HAS) Regarding intentionality, the field of aggr ession research (general and workplace) has focused mainly on the actual intent of the instigator However, it is the intent (or lack of intent) perceived by the target that affects whether he or she responds aggressively. Innocent behaviors or actions may be misperceived as hostile, ma levolent, or aggressive, whereas actual hostile behaviors may be interpreted as benign or accidental or they may not be noticed at all (Neuman & Baron, 2005). Attributions refer to the perceptions of the reasons behind others’ be havior (Baron, 1996). A hostile attribution is a judgment that the person responsible for a provoking event acted out of hostility or ill will (Homant & Kennedy, 2003). A hostile attribution style (HAS), or bias, refers to “an individual’s tendency to perceive a neutra l or ambiguous stimulus as threatening or hostile when in reality it is not” (Williams, Lochman, Phillips, & Barry, 2003, p. 568). This hostile perception style is linked with the tendency to select aggressive behaviors as the appropriate response to perceived provocation (Dill, Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1997). Epps and Kendall (1995) studied hostile attri bution style in adults. As found in previous research with children and adolescents (e.g., Dodge 1980), participants inferred hostile intent in ambiguous situations. However, hostile attribution style was also found in clearly hostile and clearly benign situations. Based on these results, E pps and Kendall suggested that future research on hostile attribution style should not be restricted only to ambiguous situations.

PAGE 37

28 Nickel (1974) investigated the relationship be tween attributed intent and aggression in a laboratory study, and found that subjects retaliated against others with high shocks when they believed that the others intended to harm them Retaliation with high shocks occurred regardless of how much the subject was actually harmed (i.e ., shocked) by the other. In another study of attack-instigated aggression, Ohbuchi and Oku (19 79) suggested that an individual’s counteraggression is determined by the maliciousness of the intent he attributes to the instigator. However, even attributions of hostile intent in a chance situation are related to an aggressive response (Lovas, Frankovsky, & Baumgartner, 1994). For example, Lovas et al. (1994) found that participants who evaluated the behavior of a nother in an incident of chance content (i.e., unintentional damage done by one person to anot her) as hostile were significantly more likely to respond with aggression than those who in terpreted the behavior as non-hostile. VanOostrum and Horvath (1997) investigated the effects of attributions on adolescents’ aggressive responses in dyadic social interac tions where the intent of the antagonist was ambiguous. Specifically, they examined the influen ce of perceptions of hostile intentions, harm, and importance on aggressive behavior and le vel of aggressive responses. Of the three perceptions aforementioned, attri bution of hostile intent was the only variable that significantly predicted both the aggressive reaction and the level of aggressiveness displayed. Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, and Monshouw er (2002) meta-analyzed the relationship between hostile attribution of intent and aggression, and found a weighted mean correlation of .17 between hostile attribution style and general aggressi ve behavior. In addition, indirect support for the effect of hostile attribution on aggression can be found in Hudley and Graham’s (1993) study of aggressive children. They created a program aimed at reducing perceptions of intent and responsibility for a hostile act that was ambiguous in intent. Reduction of perceptions of hostile intent was shown to lessen both aggr essive response and anger experienced.

PAGE 38

29 HAS and CWB. Homant and Kennedy (2003) examined the effect of hostile attribution style on employees’ justification of workplace a ggression. They found that participants’ hostile attribution style predicted their support for wo rkplace aggression in both am biguous and definite (i.e., unambiguous) situations. Ho mant and Kennedy defined hostile attribution style as the tendency to attribute hostile intent to others in situations that don’t warrant it. Douglas and Martinko (2001) examined the role of attribu tion style in workplace aggression, and found that employees with a hostile attribution style had a highe r rate of aggression than those with a weaker tendency to attribute hostile intent. Hostile a ttribution style was defined as the tendency to attribute causality of negative workplace events to other employees or the organization, and to believe that these negative outcomes result from ex ternal, stable, controllable, and intentional causes. Douglas and Martinko found a strong relationship ( r = .60) between attribution style and incidence of workplace aggression. In a repli cation and extension of Douglas and Martinko’s (2001) study, Hepworth and Towler (2004) found that hostile attribution style was associated with aggressive workplace behaviors ( r = .24) for a sample of employees from a wide range of occupations. O’Brien and Vandello (2005) found that wo rk hostile attribution style was associated with self-reports of CWB ( r = .30). There was a non-significant correlation between work hostile attribution style and peer-reports of CWB, a lthough it was in the direction hypothesized. Moreover, O’Brien and Vandello found that work hostile attribution style contributed unique variance to the prediction of CWB over and beyo nd that explained by neuroticism or negative affect. Aquino, Douglas, and Martinko (2004) examin ed the moderator role of hostile attribution style on the relationship between outward expr essions of anger in the workplace and perceived victimization, which is an “an employee’s percepti on of having been the target of harmful actions emanating from one or more coworkers” (Aquino, D ouglas, et al., 2004, p. 152). The individual

PAGE 39

30 perceives that s/he has been exposed, either mo mentarily or repeatedly, to these aggressive acts (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000). Perceived victimiza tion can take direct (e.g., name-calling) or indirect (e.g., sabotaging work) forms. Aqui no, Douglas, et al. (2004) found that hostile attribution style was associated with outward expr essions of anger in the workplace and perceived victimization (both direct and indirect forms). Moreover, hostile attribution style moderated the relationship between direct perceived victimizati on and overt anger. Specifically, the relationship between direct victimization and overt expressi ons of anger was stronger for employees with hostile attribution styles than those with a w eaker tendency to make hostile attributions. Machiavellianism Machiavellians are cold, amoral, and po ssess a covertly aggressive willingness and ability to manipulate others (Geis, Christie, & Nelson, 1970). Furthermore, they are power oriented, guileful, critical, and distrustful of people in general. Machiavellians are cynical, possessing a negative view of the world and the nature of man (Christie & Lehmann, 1970). Given their belief that other people are lazy, vicious, and untrustworthy, they are always questioning their motives (Geis et al., 1970). Machiavellianism and CWB. Individuals high on Machiavellianism tend to demonstrate more aggressive behaviors (Repacholi, Slaught er, Pritchard, & Gibbs, 2003; Russell, 1974; Touhey, 1971). Similarly, McHoskey (1999) found that Machiavellianism was associated with self-reported antisocial behavior in a sample of undergraduate students. Furthermore, high Machiavellians are more likely to retaliate in response to aggressive behavior than low ones (Lake, 1967). Giacalone and Knouse (1990) examined employees’ justification for organizational sabotage and found that individuals high on Machiavellianism and hostility showed greater justification for sabotage methods related to in formation manipulation and control. Examples of behaviors endorsed are spreading rumors, altering or deleting data, and placing false orders. Other

PAGE 40

31 research on workplace aggression has found that M achiavellianism was associated with both interpersonal ( r = .39) and organizational ( r = .26) deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Machiavellianism and HAS. High Machiavellians are more suspicious of others (Edelstein, 1966) and tend to rate them as be ing less trustworthy (Christie, Gergen, & Marlowe, 1970) than individuals low on Machiavellianism. Du e to their cynical nature, Machiavellians may be more likely to perceive malevolent intent in the actions of others. For example, Repacholi et al. (2003) found that children high on Machiavellia nism attributed more negative intent to the actions of another in ambiguous situations. Furthe rmore, high Machiavellians were more likely to predict negative outcomes (e.g., arguments) from the ambiguous situations than those low on Machiavellianism. Negative Affectivity (NA) Trait anxiety represents the tendency to perceive a wide range of situations as threatening or dangerous, and to respond to these situations with increased state anxiety (Spielberger, 1983). Individuals high on trait anxiety are hyper-responsive primarily to psychosocial threats (Spielberger, 1972). Therefore, high trait anxious individuals are more likely to experience an elevation in state anxiety in response to situations that involve interpersonal relationships (i.e., psychosocial stressors) or that their threaten self-esteem. However, even a relatively benign situation may be interpreted as a threat to one’s self-esteem and well-being by an individual high on trait anxiety (Spector, 2003). Watson and Clark (1984) expande d the construct of trait anxiety by including more general negative emotions and re labeled it as negative affectivity (NA). Individuals high on NA tend to report higher levels of negative affect across time and situations. Negative mood states that high NA individuals tend to experience are a nger, anxiety, distress, fear, guilt, nervousness, sadness, and rejection (Watson & Clark, 1984; Wa tson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Individuals high on NA are nonconformists, distrustful, hostile, distant, or demanding, and are sensitive to

PAGE 41

32 minor irritations, frustrations, and failures (W atson & Clark, 1984). High NA individuals are negativistic, focusing on the negative side of ot hers and the world (Watson & Slack, 1993). Given their cognitive and affective tendencies, it is likely that high NA employees perceive and experience the job negatively, regardless of actual environmental conditions (Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger, 1986). NA and CWB Employees’ level of NA is related to their workplace aggressive behaviors (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Hepworth & Towler, 2004). Aquino et al. (1999) found that NA was related to both organiza tional and interpersonal forms of de viance. NA has been associated with an overall measure of CWB ( r = .36), in addition to organizational ( r = .40) and personal ( r = .20) forms (Fox & Spector, 1999). NA al so has been related to other dimensions of CWB such as work avoidance, work sabotage, abusive behavior threats, and overt acts (Fox, Spector, & Miles. 1999). The effect of NA on the relationship between stressors and CWB NA has been shown to moderate the relationship between interpers onal conflict and CWB (Penney, 2002). The relationship between conflict and CWB was stronger for high NA individuals than those low on NA. The moderator effect of NA on conflict held when CWB was broken into organizational and personal forms. Penney (2002) also found that NA moderate d the relationship between incivility and CWB, such that the relationship between the tw o variables was stronger for high NA individuals than those low on NA. Individuals high on NA repor ted more CWB when incivility was high than when incivility was low. Incivility did not aff ect CWB for low NA individuals; individuals low on NA engaged in low levels of CWB regardless of level of incivility. The moderator effect of NA on incivility held when CWB was broken into organizational and personal forms. Similarly, Burnfield et al. (2005) found that NA moderate d the relationship between three dimensions of customer incivility (customer frustration, condescen sion, and insults) and interpersonal deviance.

PAGE 42

33 NA also moderated the relationship between tw o dimensions of incivility (condescension and frustration) and organizational deviance. For both interpersonal and organizational deviance, the relationship between incivility and deviance was positive for high NA individuals, whereas there was no relationship between the two for individuals low on NA. NA has been shown to moderate the rela tionship between perceived injustice and organizational retaliatory behaviors (i.e., CWB; Sk arlicki et al., 1999). Specifically, Skarlicki et al. (1999) found that the combination of low inte ractional justice and low distributive justice was related to organizational retaliato ry behavior for high NA individuals. In contrast, the interaction between interactional and distributive justice was not a significant predictor of retaliatory behaviors for individuals low on NA. Relatedly, Aquino et al. (1999) found that negative affectivity contributed unique variance to the pr ediction of interpersonal deviance over and above that explained by interactional justice. Penney and Spector (2005) found that NA moderated the relationship between organizational constraints and CWB. The relati onship between constraints and CWB was stronger for high NA individuals than those low on NA. Similarly, Fox et al. (2001) found that NA moderated the relationship between organiza tional constraints and personal CWB. Higher constraints were associated with higher personal CWB for individuals high on NA. NA and HAS Researchers have suggested that indi viduals high on NA are more likely to possess a hostile attribution style, and that the tende ncy to make hostile attributions may lead to increased conflict, anger, and aggression for high NA individuals (Homant & Kennedy, 2003; Martinko & Zellars, 1998). Homant and Kennedy (2003) found that NA was related to hostile attribution style ( r = .23). Similarly, NA was associated with work hostile attribution style ( r = .31; O’Brien & Vandello, 2005).

PAGE 43

34 Trait Anger Trait anger represents the tendency to percei ve a variety of situations as annoying, frustrating, or provocative, and to respond to these situations with increased anger (Spector, 2003; Spielberger, 1999). Individuals high on trait anger often feel that they are treated unfairly by others and are likely to experience a great deal of frustration. In addition, high trait anger individuals experience state anger more often and with greater intensity than individuals low on trait anger. Trait anger can be divided into two factor s: angry temperament (T-Ang/T) and angry reaction (T-Ang/R; Spielberger, 1999). Individu als high on T-Ang/T readily express their angry feelings with little provocation, and often lack anger control. Individuals high on T-Ang/R are highly sensitive to criticism, and tend to expe rience intense anger in response to negative evaluation by others or perceived affronts. Trait anger and CWB Employees’ level of trait anger is related to their workplace aggressive behaviors (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Hepworth & Towler, 2004). Trait anger has been associated with an overall measure of CWB ( r = 59 ), in addition to organizational ( r = .57 ) and personal ( r = .50 ) forms (Fox & Spector, 1999). Fox and Spector (1999) found that both angry temperament (T-Ang/T) and angry reaction (T-Ang/R) were related to an overall measure of CWB ( r = .43 and .48, respectively). In addition, T-Ang/T was more strongly associated with personal CWB ( r = .42) than organizational CWB ( r = .39). In contrast, T-Ang/R was more strongly related to organizational CWB ( r = .48) than personal CWB ( r = .36). The effect of trait anger on the relationship between stressors and CWB Fox et al. (2001) found that trait anger moderate d the relationship between inte rpersonal conflict and personal CWB. Higher interpersonal conflict was associated with higher personal CWB for individuals high on trait anger.

PAGE 44

35 Trait anger and HAS Epps and Kendall (1995) found that an individual’s tendency to make attributions of hostile intent was related to his/her level of trait anger. Recently, Hazebroek, Howells, and Day (2001) examined how trait anger affects people’s cognitive processing of a provoking event. They found that individuals high on trait anger had greater tendencies to identify another person as an antagonist, to blame the antagonist, to identify the negative situation as being relevant to their own interests, and to r espond with greater anger. In addition, high trait anger individuals tended to experience greater ange r when the intent of the provocative situation was ambiguous; the anger intensity was close to that experienced in response to deliberate provocation. Trait anger has been relate d to work hostile attribution style ( r = .25; O’Brien & Vandello, 2005). The Current Study Spector and Fox (2005) suggested that indi vidual differences influence one’s perception, emotional responsiveness, and behavioral reacti ons to job stressors. Three potential areas where attributional style (i.e., hostile attribution style) might affect the processes linking job stressors and CWB were identified. The follo wing is a brief discussion of each. The appraisal of job stressors Individual differences affect a person’s sensitivity, or vulnerability, to certain events in addition to his or her interp retation and reactions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Moreover, the effect of indivi dual differences on how events are appraised is amplified under conditions of ambiguity (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). It has been suggested that the effect of individual differences on appraisal is stronger for “job stressors that involve aspects of the more abstract social environment rather than the more concrete and objective physical environment” (Spector, 2003, p. 34). Therefore, th e appraisal of psychosocial stressors should be influenced more by individual differences than nons ocial stressors. For example, trait anxiety has been shown to have a stronger relationship with stressors that have an interpersonal component (i.e., interpersonal conflict) than with more objective stressors su ch as workload (Spector, 2003).

PAGE 45

36 Incivility, interactional justice, and interper sonal conflict are all psychosocial stressors that involve perceptions of interpersonal mi streatment; however, the perceived (benign, benevolent, or malevolent) intent of the instig ator varies with each. For example, the underlying motive of incivility is ambiguous, whereas there is clear hostile intent with interpersonal conflict (Penney & Spector, 2005). Hostile attribution styl e represents the tendency to infer hostile intent in neutral and ambiguous situations (Williams et al., 2003). Individuals w ith a hostile attribution style are more likely to interpret ambiguous or slightly negative information as threatening. Therefore, hostile attribution style should be more strongly related to psychosocial stressors (i.e., incivility, interactional justice, and interp ersonal conflict) than nonsocial ones such as organizational constraints. Howeve r, organizational constraints can also be separated into social (interpersonal constraints) and nonsocial (job context constraints) forms (Liu, 2003). Inadequate help from others (e.g., coworkers) is an example of an interpersonal constraints source, whereas poor equipment or supplies is an example of a job context constraints source. Given that interpersonal constraints are due to aspects of th e abstract social environment, and that job context constraints reflect aspects of the objective physical environment, hostile attribution style should be more strongly related to interpersonal constraints than to job context constraints. It was expected that the relationship of hostile attri bution style with psychosocial (ambiguous) stressors would be stronger than that with nonsocial ( unambiguous) stressors. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 1: Hostile attribution style will be mo re strongly related to psychosocial stressors (i.e., incivility, interactional justice, and interpersonal conflic t) than to nonsocial stressors (i.e., organizational constraints and workload). Hypothesis 1a: Hostile attribution style will be mo re strongly related to interpersonal constraints (social) than to job context constraints (nonsocial).

PAGE 46

37 The link between job stressors and CWB. Hostile attribution style is associated with the tendency to attribute hostile intent in benign, ambiguous, and clearly hos tile situations (Epps & Kendall, 1995). In addition, it has been related to attributions of hostile intent in negative social interactions (Lovas et al., 1994; VanOostrum & Hovarth, 1997). Individuals with a strong tendency to attribute hostile intent have a highe r incidence of workplace aggression than those with a weaker tendency to ma ke hostile attributions (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Moreover, individuals with a hostile attribution style ha ve a greater tendency to respond to perceived aggressive events (i.e., perceived victimization, an individual’s perception that s/he has been the target of harmful actions from another employ ee; Aquino & Bradfield, 2000; Aquino, Douglas, et al., 2004) with aggression (Aquino, Douglas, et al., 2004). Incivility, interactional justice, and interpersonal conflict all involve perceptions of mistreatment; they refer to negative social interactions where the intent of the “instigator” is not necessarily evident. It was expected that individuals with a strong tendency to attribute hos tile intent would be more likely to respond to perceived mistreatment with CWB than tho se with a weaker tendency to make hostile attributions. However, individuals with a hostile attribution style also have the tendency to attribute hostile intent in beni gn, or unambiguous, situations. Therefore, it is possible that these individuals might attribute hostile intent to the source of an organizational constraint (e.g., the organization itself, a supervisor, or coworkers) and to respond with CWB. It was expected that individuals with a hostile attribution style would be more likely to respond to job stressors with CWB than those with a weaker tendency to make hostile attributions. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 2 : Hostile attribution style will mode rate the relationship between job stressors (incivility, interactional justice, interp ersonal conflict, organiza tional constraints, and workload) and CWB.

PAGE 47

38 Hypothesis 2a : The relationship between job stressors (incivility, interactional justice, interpersonal conflict, organiza tional constraints, and workload ) and CWB will be stronger for individuals with a stronger tende ncy to make hostile attributions than those with a weaker tendency to attribute hostile intent. The link between other individual differen ce variables with negative perceptual tendencies and CWB. Machiavellianism, NA, and trait ange r all share the core tendency to perceive and/or appraise the environment in a negative fashion. There are some similarities amongst these three variables. However, there ar e also distinct differences in terms of the cognitive and affective tendencies as sociated with each. Regardless all three seem to converge in their influence on an individual’s attributional tendencies. The following is a brief discussion of the linkages amongst Machiavellianism, NA, tra it anger, and hostile attribution style. Although different terms are used to char acterize Machiavellians and individuals high on NA, they have some tendencies in common. M achiavellians are described as being cold, whereas high NA individuals are described as being distant. Both terms describe an unfriendly and remote manner of interacting with others. In addition, Machiavellians are described as being cynical (Christie & Lehmann, 1970), whereas high NA indi viduals are described as being negativistic (Watson & Slack, 1993). As a result, both share a negative view of other people and the world. Both also are distrustful (Geis et al., 1970; Watson & Clark, 1984), questioning the motives of others. However, individuals high on Machiave llianism differ from those high on NA (and trait anger) in terms of their emotional detachment (Geis & Christie, 1970). They are not emotionally involved in their interactions with other people a nd, thus, are not affected by psychosocial threats (i.e., negative social information). NA and trait anger are similar in that pe rsons high on these affective dispositions are sensitive to social information and experience ne gative emotions as a result of their negative perceptual tendencies. For example, high NA individuals tend to experience anxiety in response

PAGE 48

39 to their interactions with other people (Spielberg er, 1972). Similarly, high trait anger individuals tend to experience anger in response to percei ved intentional slights, insults, or offenses (Spielberger, 1999). In addition, both tend to percei ve stressful, psychosocial situations in a negative fashion (Spielberger, 1983). For example, high NA individuals tend to perceive situations as threatening or dangerous (Spielbe rger, 1983), whereas high trait anger individuals tend to perceive situations as annoying, frustrati ng, or provocative (Spector, 2003; Spielberger, 1999). Machiavellianism, NA, and trait anger all have a negative cognitive orientation (i.e., negative perceptual tendency) as a common denomi nator. However, empirical evidence regarding the linkages amongst the three variables is mixe d. There is weak empirical support for the relationship between Machiavellianism and NA. For example, Machiavellianism (as measured with the Mach IV, Christie & Geis, 1970) was associated with NA in two separate studies (Christie, 1970; Nigro & Galli, 1985). However, so cial desirability affects people’s responses to the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), so Chris tie and Geis (1970) reassessed the relationship between the two variables using the Mach V (Chris tie & Geis, 1970). The Mach V is not affected by social desirability, and the relationshi p between Machiavellianism and NA became nonsignificant. I could not locate any empirical st udies linking Machiavellianism with trait anger. The lack of evidence regarding the relations hip between Machiavellianism and affective disposition (i.e., NA and trait anger) is not surpri sing, given the emotional detachment of high Machiavellians (Geis & Christie, 1970). However, there is empirical support for the relationship between NA and trait anger. Correlations between the two variables range in magnitude from .23 to .46 (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Fox et al., 2001; Fox & Spector, 1999; Hepworth & Towler, 2004; O’Brien & Vandello, 2005). In addition, Fox and Spector (1999) found that NA was associated with the angry temperament (T-Ang/T) and angry reaction (T-Ang/R) factors of trait anger ( r = .16 and .33, respectively).

PAGE 49

40 The negative cognitive orientation of Mach iavellians and individuals high on NA and trait anger appears to influence their attributiona l style. Specifically, research has shown that high Machiavellian, NA, and trait anger individuals have a stronger tende ncy to make attributions of hostile intent. For example, high Machiavellians have been shown to attribute negative intent to the actions of others in ambiguo us situations (Repacholi et al., 2003). In addition, NA and trait anger have both been related to hostile a ttribution style (O’Brien & Vandello, 2005). Cognitive styles associated with individual di fferences affect a person’s perception of situations (Cantor, 1990). An individual’s attribut ion style (i.e., hostile attribution style) affects his appraisal of an ambiguous situation (Segovi s et al., 1985). However, individuals with a tendency to make hostile attributions “may con tinually interpret a wide range of otherwise innocent social behaviors as threatening and prov ocative, and may consistently react to such behaviors as if they had been justifiabl y provoked” (Topalli & O’Neal, 2003, p. 169). Aggression that is in response to behavior th at is perceived as provocative is known as hostile, or reactive, aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Neuman & Baron, 2005). In contrast, aggression that is used as a way of obtaining so me desired end is known as instrumental, or proactive, aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Neuman & Baron, 2005). Dodge and Coie (1987) found that hostile attribution style was rela ted to reactive aggression (i.e., CWB) and not proactive aggression. They suggested that reactive, or retaliatory, aggression is a defense reaction to a perceived threatening stimulus (i.e., job st ressor) and a way to relieve the perceived threat (i.e., coping behavior; see Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This complements Penny and Spector’s (2005) supposition that CWB is used by some i ndividuals (e.g., those high on NA) as a way of coping with job stressors. It has been suggested that attributiona l processes mediate the relationship between individual difference variables and CWB (Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002). For example, Dodge (1985) proposed that individuals who are predisposed towards a ne gative affective state

PAGE 50

41 (i.e., NA) will be more likely to infer hostile in tent and to retaliate against a provocateur. Machiavellianism, NA, and trait anger are related to an individual’s tendency to make attributions of hostile intent (O’Brien & Vandello, 2005; Repacho li et al., 2003), and hostile attribution style is associated with the tendency to comm it CWB (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; O’Brien & Vandello, 2005). In addition, Machiavellianism, NA, trait anger, and hostile attribution style all have been directly related to CWB (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Fox & Spector, 1999; O’Brien & Vandello, 2005). Given the linkages amongst th ese variables, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 3 : Hostile attribution style will mediat e the relationship between individual difference variables with negative perceptual tendencies (i.e., Machiavellianism, NA, and trait anger) and CWB. Summary To summarize, the main objective of the current study was to examine the influence of hostile attribution style on the processes that link job stressors with CWB. Three areas were evaluated: the appraisal of job stresso rs, the link between job stressors and CWB, and the link between other individual difference vari ables with negative perceptual tendencies and CWB. The other purpose of this study was to e xplore the influence of Machiavellianism on the processes linking job stressors and CWB. Machia vellianism has been associated with CWB (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). However, its role in the occupational stress process has not been examined yet. Given Machiavellians’ cynical nature (Geis et al., 1970), it was expected that they would appraise and respond to stressors in a negative fashion. No other hypotheses were generated regarding Machiavelliani sm as it was included in this study for exploratory purposes. In general, research on attributional style (i .e., hostile attribution style) has been limited to single source participant reports. The use of self-report data is an efficient means of assessing individual perceptions and persona lity. However, data gathered with a cross-sectional, self-report methodology may be affected by some unmeasu red third variable, inflating the observed

PAGE 51

42 relationships (Lee, 1993). For example, the observe d relationships might be due to biases shared across measures, response sets, or unrecognized pers onal characteristics (Spector & Fox, 2005). All the individual difference variables included in this study involve negative perceptual tendencies. For example, hostile attribution style re flects the tendency to perceive hostile intent in others’ actions. It is possible that this negativ e perceptual tendency might affect relationships amongst perceived stressors and resulting experienced strains (e.g., CWB). Therefore, in attempt to integrate another, more objective source of da ta, this study utilized coworker reports of the incumbent’s job stressors and CWB.

PAGE 52

43 Chapter 2 Method Participants Participants were employed pe rsons taking courses at the University of South Florida (USF) and other employed individua ls who were invited to participate in the study with snowball sampling. All persons had to work a minimum of 20 hours per week in a single job and be between the ages of 18 and 64 in order to be elig ible to participate. Four hundred seventy-one employee surveys (419 USF and 52 snowball) and 180 coworker surveys (154 USF and 26 snowball) were submitted electronically. The overa ll response rate for coworkers was 38%; it was 37% for USF participants and 50% for the snowba ll sample. A response rate for the USF sample could not be calculated because it is impossible to know how many eligible students chose not to participate. Similarly, a response rate for the snowball sample could not be calculated because the vary nature of the methodology (i.e., individuals were asked to forward the employee survey link to other people) makes it is impossible to know how many eligible individuals who received the employee survey link chose not to participate. Both employee and coworker surveys were el iminated if they were incomplete (i.e., responses to more than half of the items on the entir e survey were missing) or if participants (both employees and coworkers) did not meet the age cr iterion (18 to 64 years old). Surveys were also eliminated if the participant (employee) had wo rked in their current job less than two months. Using the above criteria, 44 employee surveys (33 USF and 11 snowball) and 19 coworker surveys (15 USF and 4 snowball) were eliminated from the initial sample, leaving 427 employee surveys (386 USF and 41 snowball) and 161 cowo rker surveys (139 USF and 22 snowball).

PAGE 53

44 Therefore, 161 dyads of employee and coworker surveys (139 USF and 22 snowball) were available for analysis. Dyads were excluded from analysis if either the employee or coworker failed to complete the CWB scale in its entirety. Therefore, 14 dyad s (12 USF and 2 snowball) were excluded. There were 147 dyads of employee and coworker surveys (127 USF and 20 snowball) in the final sample. Table 1 summarizes the changes in sample size after the exclusion criteria were applied. Table 1. Summary of Sample Size Changes Due to Exclusion Criteria Employee Surveys Coworker Surveys USF SnowballTotal USF Snowball Total Dyads Surveys submitted electronically 419 52 471 154 26 180 N/A Surveys eliminated due to incompleteness (> half of items on entire survey missing responses), age (< 18 or > 64 years old), or tenure (worked < 2 months) 33 11 44 15 4 19 N/A Surveys remaining from initial sample 386 41 427 139 22 161 N/A Dyads available for analysis 139 22 161 139 22 161 161 Dyads excluded from analysis due to incomplete CWB scale 12 2 14 12 2 14 14 Dyads in final sample 127 20 147 127 20 147 147 The final employee sample was predominately female (83%), and 2 individuals did not indicate their sex. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 53 years (mean age = 23.76 years, median age = 22 years). The tenure of employees ranged from 2 months to 296 months (mean tenure = 30.58 months, median tenure = 19 months). Forty-three percent reported working 30 or more hours per week, and 86% described their position as non-managerial. The final coworker sample also was predomin ately female (63%), and 2 individuals did not indicate their sex. Coworkers ranged in ag e from 18 to 59 years (mean age = 28.12 years,

PAGE 54

45 median age = 25 years), and 2 individuals did not indicate their age. No other demographic information was collected from coworkers. Measures The employee (self) survey included measures of job stressors (interpersonal conflict, incivility, interactional justice, organizational constraints, and workload), individual differences (hostile attribution style, Machiavellianism, negative affectivity, and trait anger), and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). The co worker (peer) survey included measures of the employee’s job stressors (interpersonal conflict, incivility, organizati onal constraints, and workload) and CWB. Interpersonal conflict Spector and Jex’s (1998) 4-item Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS; see Appendix A) was used to me asure interpersonal conflict. This summated rating scale assesses how well respondents get along with others at work (e.g., how often respondents get into arguments with coworkers) Response options range from 1 (less than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per day) with high scores representing greater levels of conflict. Spector and Jex (1998) reported a coeffici ent alpha of .74 for this scale. Alpha for the conflict scale in this study was .76 for sel f-report, whereas it was .82 for peer-report. Incivility Cortina et al.’s (2001) 7-item Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS; see Appendix B) was used to measure incivility. This su mmated rating scale assesses how often participants experience disrespectful, rude, or condescending behaviors from superiors or coworkers. Response options range from 1 (never) to 5 (eve ry day), with high scores representing greater levels of experienced incivility. Cortina et al. reported a coefficient alpha of .89 for this scale. Alpha for the incivility scale in this study w as .91 for self-report, whereas it was .95 for peerreport. Interactional justice The interpersonal justice (4-ite ms) and informational justice (5items) subscales of Colquitt’s (2001) organizati onal justice measure (see Appendix C) were used

PAGE 55

46 to measure interactional justice. The interpers onal justice items assess Bies and Moag’s (1986) respect and propriety criteria, whereas the in formational items assess the truthfulness and justification criteria. Response options range from 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to a very large extent), indicating the extent to which an authority figure (e.g., one’s manager) has communicated sincerely with and treated the r espondent in a polite and respectful manner. High scores on both subscales represent greater perceived levels of interactiona l justice. Judge and Colquitt (2004) reported coefficient alphas of .96 for the interpersonal justice subscale and .90 for the informational justice subscale. Alphas for the interpersonal and informational justice subscales in this study were .92 and .90, respectively. Organizational constraints Spector and Jex’s (1998) 11-item Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS; see Appendix D) was used to measure organizational constraints. This summated rating scale is based on the constraint areas identified by Peters and O’Connor (1980). Participants are asked to indicate how often they find it difficult or impossible to do their job because of each constraint. Response options range from 1 (less than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per day), with high scores represen ting high levels of constraints. Spector and Jex (1998) reported a coefficient alpha of .85 for th is scale. The OCS was divided into two subscales based on Liu’s (2003) factor analysis of the elev en OCS items: interpersonal constraints (4 items) and job context constraints (7 items). Alphas fo r self-reported interpersonal constraints and job context constraints in this study were .78 a nd .85, respectively. Peer-reported interpersonal constraints had an alpha of .81, whereas it was .85 for job context constraints. Alpha for the total constraints scale was .90 for self-report and .89 for peer-report. Workload Spector and Jex’s (1998) 5-item Qu antitative Workload Inventory (QWI; see Appendix E) was used to measure workload. This summated rating scale assesses respondents’ perceptions of work in terms of volume and p ace. Response options range from 1 (less than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per da y), with high scores representing a high level of

PAGE 56

47 workload. Spector and Jex (1998) reported a coeffi cient alpha of .82 for this scale. Alpha for the workload scale in this study was .89 for both self-report and peer-report. Hostile attribution style. O’Brien and Vandello’s 10-item (2005) Workplace Hostile Attribution Bias Survey (WHABS; see Appendix F) was used to measure hostile attribution style. The WHABS assesses an individual’s tendency to attribute aggressive characteristics to other people or situations at work. Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with high scores representing higher leve ls of hostile attributi on style. O’Brien and Vandello reported a coefficient alpha of .72 and a test-retest reliability coefficient of .71. Alpha for the hostile attribution style scale in this study was .79. Machiavellianism. Bandelli, Kessler, Borman, and Nelson’s 19-item (2006) Organizational Machiavellianism Scale (OMS; see Appendix G) was used to measure Machiavellianism. The OMS assesses the degree to which an individual uses manipulation as a social strategy to achieve his/her desired ends in the context of the work environment. Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with high scores representing higher levels of Machiavellianism. Bandelli et al. re ported a coefficient alpha of .89 for this scale. Alpha for the Machiavellianism scale in this study was .88. Negative affectivity The 10-item NA scale from Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (1988) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; see Appendix H) was used to measure NA. This scale consists of words that describe negative emotions (e.g., irritable, upset, and scared). Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they generally feel each emotion, with response options ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). High scores indicate high levels of negative affect. Wa tson et al. (1988) reported a coefficient alpha of .87 and a testretest reliability coefficient of .71. Alpha for the NA scale in this study was .87. Trait anger The 10-item Trait Anger (T-Ang) scale from Spielberger’s (1999) State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2) was used to measure trait anger. This scale assesses

PAGE 57

48 how often people experience angry feelings over time. Participants are asked to indicate how they “generally feel,” with response options ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). High scores indicate high levels of trait anger. Spielber ger (1999) reported that coefficient alpha ranged from .84 to .86 for a normal adult population. Alpha for the trait anger scale in this study was .88. Counterproductive work behavior. The 33-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C; see Appendix I) (Spector et al ., 2006) was used to measure CWB. The CWBC is a behavioral checklist compiled from a number of existing measures (Fox & Spector, 1999; Hollinger, 1986; Knorz & Zapf, 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector, 1975). Respondent s indicate how often they engage in specific behaviors on the job. Response options range from 1 (never) to 5 (every day), with high scores representing higher incidence of CWB. In addition to the total scale, the CWB-C can be reduced to five subscales: abuse, production deviance, sa botage, theft, and withdrawal. Spector et al. (2006) reported that coefficient alphas ranged fro m .42 to .81 for the various subscales. Alphas for the self-reported CWB subscales in this study ranged from .69 to .89, whereas they ranged from .70 to .94 for the peer-reported CWB subscal es. Alpha for the total CWB scale was .92 for self-report and .96 for peer-report. Demographics. Information regarding employees’ sex, age, tenure, hours worked, and job type (managerial vs. non-managerial) were co llected (see Appendix J). Coworkers were asked to report only their sex and age. Procedure Both employee and coworker surveys were administered online via SurveyMonkey.com. The researcher chose to collect data with an inte rnet-based survey (IBS) in stead of the traditional paper-and-pencil survey (PPS) after reviewing r esearch that substantiated the comparability of IBS data and PPS data (e.g., Gosling, Vazire, Sr ivastava, & John, 2004; Hayslett & Wildemuth, 2004; Ritter, Lorig, Laurent, & Matthews, 2004). Regarding the psychometric properties of scales

PAGE 58

49 administered in IBS format, measures of internal consistency have been s hown to be similar to the scale reliabilities of data collected in PPS format (Pettit, 2002; Ritter et al., 2004; Yang, Levine, Xu, & Lopez Rivas, 2006). In addition, th e measurement equivalence of some scales has been demonstrated by comparing data from measures administered in both IBS and PPS formats (Buchanan & Smith, 1999; Cole, Bedeian, & Field, 2006). Regarding results, univariate statistics (i.e., means) for scales have been shown to be similar when comparing IBS data with PPS data (Pettit, 2002; Ritter et al., 2004). More importan tly, bivariate relationships (i.e., correlations) between variables measured in IBS format have b een shown not to be significantly different than the correlations amongst the same variables when data were collected in PPS format (Pettit, 2002; Yang et al., 2006). USF sample Undergraduate psychology majors at USF who met the participation criteria were provided with a link to the survey from ExperimenTrak, the Psychology Department’s online participant pool program. After particip ants accessed the employee survey, they were provided with information about the study and th eir rights regarding par ticipation (see Appendix K). Next, participants were asked to generate and enter a secret code (consisting of at least 6 digits, letters, or a combination of both), in add ition to entering their first name and last initial, and the email address of a coworker they worked closely with. Items were then presented along with detailed instructions for completing each sec tion of the survey. After participants submitted their survey, they were redirected to a website that thanked them for their participation and provided them with the researcher’s contact inform ation so they could request more information about the study (see Appendix L). The researcher sent an email invitation contai ning the participant’s first name and last initial, secret code, and the link for the cowork er survey to the email address entered by the participant (see Appendix M). After coworkers acce ssed the coworker survey, they were provided with information about the study and their right s regarding participation (see Appendix N). Next,

PAGE 59

50 coworkers were asked to enter the secret code created by the incumben t. Items were then presented along with detailed instructions fo r completing each section of the survey. After coworkers submitted their survey, they were redire cted to the same website as participants, which thanked people for their partic ipation and contained the researcher’s contact information (see Appendix L). Participation was voluntary and anonymous for the USF sample. Students at USF received extra credit in exchange for their participation. Snowball sample Employed individuals who are acquainted with the researcher were sent an email asking them to participate in the study. The email provided a link to the employee survey. The procedure was identi cal to what was described for the USF participants once people accessed the employee survey. Individuals were al so asked to forward the invitation email to people they know who they thought might be willing to participate in the study. Participation was voluntary and anonymous fo r the snowball sample. Individuals were not given anything in exchange for their participation.

PAGE 60

51 Chapter 3 Results Missing responses were examined in both employee and coworker surveys. Missing items were replaced with the mean value of th e participant’s responses to the non-missing items on each scale. This procedure was used as long as th e respondent answered at least two-thirds of the scale and for all variables except the scale me asuring CWB. A score was not computed for a CWB subscale/scale if any item was missing on th e subscale/scale, and dyads were excluded from analysis if either the employee or coworker failed to complete the CWB scale in its entirety. As a result, 14 dyads were excluded, leaving 147 dyads (127 USF and 20 snowball) in the final sample. Analyses were conducted to determine if it was appropriate to combine the responses of the USF sample ( N = 127) and the snowball sample ( N = 20). Mean scores for all study variables were calculated for each group and compared vi a independent samples t-tests. There were no significant differences between the two sampl es, with the exception of the CWB production deviance subscale, age, and tenure. The mean level of production deviance reported by USF participants ( M = 3.92) was significantly higher than the mean level reported by snowball participants ( M = 3.15; t (145) = -2.21, p < .05). The mean age of snowball participants ( M = 33.95 years) was higher than the mean age of USF participants ( M = 22.16 years; t (145) = 10.13, p < .01). The mean tenure of snowball participants ( M = 62 months) was higher than the mean tenure of USF participants ( M = 25.63 months; t (145) = 3.78, p < .01). Given that the differences between the two samples on the main variables were minor, they were combined for further analysis.

PAGE 61

52 Means, standard deviations, ranges (observe d and possible), and Chronbach’s coefficient alpha for all study variables are displayed in Table 2. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables N Mean SD Observed Range Possible Range Coefficient Alpha Incivility (S) 147 11.83 5.35 7 28 7 35 .91 Incivility (P) 147 11.78 6.43 7 35 7 35 .95 Informational Justice 147 18.54 4.31 6 25 5 25 .90 Interpersonal Justice 147 16.09 3.68 5 20 4 20 .92 Interpersonal Conflict (S) 147 5.95 2.48 4 16 4 20 .76 Interpersonal Conflict (P) 147 5.93 2.66 4 19 4 20 .82 Interpersonal Constraints (S) 146 8.75 3.86 4 19 4 20 .78 Interpersonal Constraints (P) 146 8.51 3.94 4 20 4 20 .81 Job Context Constraints (S) 146 12.34 5.35 7 33 7 35 .85 Job Context Constraints (P) 146 11.25 4.69 7 31 7 35 .85 Organizational Constraints (S) 146 21.08 8.66 11 49 11 55 .90 Organizational Constraints (P) 146 19.75 7.97 11 45 11 55 .89 Workload (S) 147 15.67 5.48 5 25 5 25 .89 Workload (P) 147 15.28 5.34 5 25 5 25 .89 Hostile Attribution Style 147 21.37 7.37 10 43 10 60 .79 Machiavellianism 147 92.90 11.10 57 114 19 114 .88 Negative Affectivity 147 16.40 5.61 10 38 10 50 .87 Trait Anger 147 18.44 5.82 10 40 10 40 .88 Abuse (S) 147 22.90 6.18 18 58 18 90 .89 Abuse (P) 147 22.65 8.12 18 62 18 90 .94 Production Deviance (S) 147 3.82 1.47 3 11 3 15 .74 Production Deviance (P) 147 3.51 1.24 3 10 3 15 .75 Sabotage (S) 147 3.52 1.17 3 12 3 15 .70 Sabotage (P) 147 3.44 1.10 3 9 3 15 .72 Theft (S) 147 5.69 1.33 5 16 5 25 .69 Theft (P) 147 5.52 1.75 5 15 5 25 .85 Withdrawal (S) 147 7.14 2.52 4 17 4 20 .74 Withdrawal (P) 147 5.95 2.17 4 16 4 20 .70 CWB (S) 147 43.06 10.53 33 110 33 165 .92 CWB (P) 147 41.07 12.93 33 106 33 165 .96 Note. (S) = Self-report, (P) = Peer-report.

PAGE 62

53 With the exception of some CWB subscales, all other measures displayed good internal consistency with reliabilities ranging from .76 (sel f-reported interpersonal conflict) to .95 (peerreported incivility). Internal consistency estimat es ranged from .69 (self-reported theft) to .94 (peer-reported abuse) for the CWB subscales. Co efficient alphas for CWB subscales of theft (self-reported), sabotage (self-reported), and withdr awal (peer-reported) were at or below the generally accepted minimum of .70 (Nunnally & Bern stein, 1994). However, it should be kept in mind that behavior checklists are considered cau sal indicator scales, and items in such scales are not interchangeable indicators of a single underl ying construct (Bollen & Lennox, 1991; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000). Therefore, causal indicator scales tend to display low in ternal consistencies because the items on these scales define the constr uct rather than being a reflection of the construct (Spector et al., 2006). Pearson zero-order correlations were computed amongst all study variables. Correlations amongst the independent variables are shown in Table 3, whereas correlations amongst the dependent variables are displayed in Table 4. Correlations amongst inde pendent and dependent variables are shown in Table 5. Tables 3, 4, and 5 collectively display correlations amongst all study variables.

PAGE 63

54 Table 3. Correlations amongst Independent Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. WIS (S) 2. WIS (P) .49** 3. Justice-I -.47** -.28** 4. Justice-P -.59** -.38** .77** 5. ICAWS (S) .59** .42** -.35** -.43** 6. ICAWS (P) .38** .55** -.19* -.28** .66** 7. OCS-P (S) .60** .32** -.48** -.45** .56** .39** 8. OCS-P (P) .34** .58** -.26** -.24** .38** .51** .45** 9. OCS-J (S) .55** .34** -.47** -.45** .48** .34** .76** .37** 10. OCS-J (P) .30** .48** -.24** -.26** .30** .43** .39** .71** .48** 11. OCS (S) .61** .36** -.50** -.48** .55** .38** .92** .43** .96** .47** 12. OCS (P) .35** .57** -.27** -.27** .37** .51** .45** .91** .46** .94** .49** 13. QWI (S) .37** .21** -.29** -.19* .36** .30** .60** .41** .45** .39** .55** .44** 14. QWI (P) .20* .31** -.12 -.07 .25** .28** .32** .58** .28** .50** .31** .58** .56** 15. WHABS .39** .27** -.26** -.38** .40** .23** .35** .17* .31** .16 .35** .18* .15 .11 16. OMS -.17* .06 .17* .15 -.16 -.02 -.11 .05 -.10 .09 -.11 .07 .10 .10 -.27** 17. PANAS .48** .18* -.33** -.43** .47** .32** .37** .18* .30** .16 .35** .18* .22** .05 .36** -.29** 18. T-Ang .26** .33** -.18* -.24** .30** .25** .28** .16 .32** .27** .32** .24** .24** .08 .27** .07 .33** WIS = Incivility, Justice-I = Informational Justice, JusticeP = Interpersonal Justice, IC AWS = Interpersonal Conflict, OCS-P = Interpersonal Constraints, OCS-J = Job Context Constraints, OCS = Organizational Constraints, QWI = Workload, WHABS = Hostile Attribution Style, OMS = Machiavelliani sm, PANAS = Negative Affectivity, T-Ang = Trait Anger Note. (S) = Self-report, (P) = Peer-report; = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 145 to 147.

PAGE 64

55 Table 4. Correlations amongst Dependent Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Abuse (S) 2. Abuse (P) .48** 3. Production Deviance (S) .65** .20* 4. Production Deviance (P) .26** .77** .20* 5. Sabotage (S) .72** .33** .71** .21* 6. Sabotage (P) .36** .80** .19* .73** .29** 7. Theft (S) .64** .37** .49** .30** .68** .39** 8. Theft (P) .30** .73** .17* .64** .30** .79** .42** 9. Withdrawal (S) .43** .14 .39** .18* .37** .19* .51** .11 10. Withdrawal (P) .22** .64** .11 .62** .17* .56** .30** .50** .32** 11. CWB (S) .94** .43** .75** .29** .81** .36** .77** .32** .65** .28** 12. CWB (P) .44** .98** .20* .83** .32** .86** .40** .81** .19* .75** .42** Note. (S) = Self-report, (P) = Peer-report; = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 147.

PAGE 65

56 Table 5. Correlations amongst Inde pendent and Dependent Variables Abuse Production DevianceSabotage Theft Withdrawal CWB (S) (P) (S) (P) (S) (P) (S) (P) (S) (P) (S) (P) Incivility (S) .52** .30** .26** .10 .33* .18* .24** .16 .11 .22** .43** .27** Incivility (P) .33** .54** .13 .33** .1 6 .32** .17* .21* -.02 .36** .24** .48** Informational Justice -.18* -.17* -.19* -.09 -.25** -.13 -.15 -.16 -.04 -.14 -.19* -.17* Interpersonal Justice -.27** -.20* -.22** -.09 -.26** -.13 -.17* -.18* -.06 -.16 -.25** -.20* Interpersonal Conflict (S) .56** .40** .30** .16 .44** .30** .34** .35** .00 .19* .46** .37** Interpersonal Conflict (P) .37** .55** .18* .33** .26** .34** .24** .34** -.07 .29** .29** .50** Interpersonal Constraints (S) .48** .30** .34** .12 .29** .20* .31** .18* .15 .21* .44** .27** Interpersonal Constraints (P) .32** .43** .21* .24** .23** .16 .17* .15 .08 .36** .29** .39** Job Context Constraints (S) .44** .26** .32** .12 .36** .21* .43** .20* .23** .19* .45** .25** Job Context Constraints (P) .32** .38** .21** .26** .28** .25** .29** .26** .12 .34** .32** .38** Organizational Constraints (S) .49** .30** .35** .13 .36** .22** .41** .21* .21* .21* .48** .28** Organizational Constraints (P) .35** .43** .23** .27** .28** .23** .25** .23** .11 .37** .33** .41** Workload (S) .29** .06 .22** -.07 .21* .00 .10 -.05 .07 -.01 .26** .03 Workload (P) .20* .11 .15 .02 .12 .02 .01 -.07 -.02 .02 .15 .07 Hostile Attribution Style .41** .19* .37** .12 .30** .14 .29** .13 .15 .03 .40** .17* Machiavellianism -.23** -.07 -.16 -.03 -.23** -.10 -.23** -.18* -.08 .01 -.23** -.08 Negative Affectivity .41** .25** .19* .09 .33** .20* .31** .21* .14 .17* .38** .24** Trait Anger .39** .18* .27** .01 .32** .10 .28** .04 .17* .14 .38** .15 Note. (S) = Self-report, (P) = Peer-report; = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 146 to 147.

PAGE 66

57Significant correlations (i.e., convergence) were found between selfand peer-reported stressors (see Table 3): incivility ( r = .49, n = 147), interpersonal conflict ( r = .66, n = 147), interpersonal constraints ( r = .45, n = 145), job context constraints ( r = .48, n = 145), organizational constraints ( r = .49, n = 145), and workload ( r = .56, n = 147). Convergence also was found between selfand peer-reported CWB (see Table 4): abuse ( r = .48, n = 147), production deviance ( r = .20, n = 147), sabotage ( r = .29, n = 147), theft ( r = .42, n = 147), withdrawal ( r = .32, n = 147), and overall CWB ( r = .42, n = 147). Hypothesis 1: The Appraisal of Job Stressors Hypothesis 1 predicted that hostile attributi on style would be more strongly related to psychosocial stressors (i.e., incivility, interacti onal justice, and interpersonal conflict) than to nonsocial stressors (i.e., organizational constrai nts and workload). The zero-order correlations between hostile attribution style and the stressors (psychosocial and nonsocia l) were examined in order to test this hypothesis. For self-reported stressors, HAS was most strongly related to interpersonal conflict ( r = .40), followed by incivility ( r = .39), interpersonal justice ( r = -.38), and informational justice ( r = -.26). Note that high scores on the informational and interpersonal justice subscales represent higher levels of pe rceived justice (not injustice), thus, negative relationships with HAS were expected. In contrast to the psychosocial stressors, HAS had slightly weaker associations with interpersonal constraints ( r = .35) and job context constraints ( r = .31), and a non-significant relationship with workload ( r = .15, n.s. ). For peer-reported stressors, HAS was most strongly related to incivility ( r = .27), followed by interpersonal conflict ( r = .23) and interpersonal constraints ( r = .17). In addition, HAS had non-significant relationships with job context constraints ( r = .16, n.s. ) and workload ( r = .11, n.s. ). The stressor-hostile attribution style corr elations were compared between the (psychosocial and nonsocial) stressor categories using the Hotelling-Williams t-test for dependent correlations (Williams, 1959) for both self-report a nd peer-report. For self-report, correlations of

PAGE 67

58 HAS with the psychosocial stressors of incivility [ t (144) = 2.77, p < .01], informational justice [ t (144) = -3.18, p < .01], interpersonal justice [ t (144) = -4.44, p < .01], and interpersonal conflict [ t (144) = 2.87, p < .01] were significantly stronger than the correlation of HAS with the nonsocial stressor of workload. In addition, the correlations of HAS with the psychosocial stressors of informational justice [ t (143) = -4.54, p < .01] and interpersonal justice [ t (143) = -5.68, p < .01] were significantly different than the correla tion of HAS with the nonsocial stressor of interpersonal constraints. The correlation of HAS with interpersonal constraints was stronger than the correlation of HAS with informational justi ce, whereas it was weaker than the correlation of HAS with interpersonal justice. Similarly, the co rrelations of HAS with the psychosocial stressors of informational justice [ t (143) = -4.22, p < .01] and interpersonal justice [ t (143) = -5.31, p < .01] were significantly different than the correlation of HAS with the nonsocial stressor of job context constraints. The correlation of HAS with job cont ext constraints was stronger than the correlation of HAS with informational justice, whereas it was weaker than the correlation of HAS with interpersonal justice. Moreover, for the psychoso cial stressors of incivility and interpersonal conflict, no significant differences were found between the HAS-psychosocial stressor correlations and the HAS-constraints (both nonsocia l stressors of interpersonal constraints and job context constraints) correlations. No signi ficant differences were found for peer-report. To summarize, hypothesis 1 predicted that hostile attribution style would be more strongly related to psychosocial stressors (i.e., inci vility, interactional justice, and interpersonal conflict) than to nonsocial stressors (i.e., organizational constraints and workload). This hypothesis was partially supported as, for self-repor t, the HAS-psychosocial stressor (incivility, informational justice, interpersonal justice, and interpersonal conflic t) correlations were significantly stronger than the HAS-workload (nons ocial stressor) correlation. In addition, the HAS-interpersonal justice (psychosocial stressor) correlation was significantly stronger than the HAS-constraints (both nonsocial stressors of interp ersonal constraints and job context constraints)

PAGE 68

59 correlations. However, the HAS-informational ju stice (psychosocial stressor) correlation was significantly weaker than the HAS-constraints (both nonsocial stressors of interpersonal constraints and job context constraints) correlations. Hypothesis 1a predicted that hostile attributio n style would be more strongly related to interpersonal constraints (social) than to job context constraints (nonsocial). For self-reported constraints, HAS was more strongly re lated to interpersonal constraints ( r = .35) than to job context constraints ( r = .31). For peer-reported constraints, HAS was positively associated with interpersonal constraints ( r = .17), whereas it had a non-significant relationship with job context constraints ( r = .16, n.s. ). The correlations of HAS with interpersonal and job context constraints were compared using the t-test for dependent correlations, and no significant differences were found for self-report [ t (143) = .74, n.s. ] or peer-report [ t (143) = .16, n.s. ]. Therefore, hypothesis 1a was not supported. Hypothesis 2: The Link Between Job Stressors and CWB Hypothesis 2 predicted that hostile attribu tion style would moderate the relationship between job stressors (incivility, interactional justice, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and workload) and CWB. Specifically it was expected that the relationship between job stressors (incivility, interactional justice, in terpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and workload) and CWB would be stronger for individuals with a stronger tendency to make hostile attributions than those with a weaker tendency to attribute hostile intent. These relationships were tested with moderated regression, wherein CWB was regressed on the predictor (incivility, interactional justice, interp ersonal conflict, organiza tional constraints, and workload), the moderator (hostile attribution styl e), and the product term of the predictor and moderator, respectively. Results were consistent with moderation when the beta for the product term was significant. Significant interactions were graphed according to Cohen, Cohen, West, and

PAGE 69

60 Aiken (2003). Specifically, simple effects equations using values 1 standard deviation above and below the mean were used to plot the interactions. HAS did not moderate the relationship betw een incivility (both selfand peer-report) and CWB when CWB was self-report or peer-report (see Table 6). No significant interaction effects were found between self-reported incivi lity and HAS when CWB was self-report ( = .18, n.s. ) or peer-report ( = -.19, n.s. ). In addition, the interactions be tween peer-reported incivility and HAS were not significant when CWB was self-report ( = .55, n.s. ) or peer-report ( = -.26, n.s. ). Table 6. Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Incivility and HAS Step B SEB R2 R2 Criterion: CWB (Self) 1 Incivility (Self) .39 .49 .20 .19** .19** 2 HAS .27 .25 .19 .25** .06** 3 Incivility (Self) x HAS .01 .02 .18 .25** .00 1 Incivility (Peer) -.43 .40 -.26 .06** .06** 2 HAS .16 .23 .12 .18** .12** 3 Incivility (Peer) x HAS .03 .02 .55 .20** .02 Criterion: CWB (Peer) 1 Incivility (Self) .91 .67 .38 .07** .07** 2 HAS .28 .34 .16 .08** .00 3 Incivility (Self) x HAS -.01 .03 -.19 .08** .00 1 Incivility (Peer) 1.34 .48 .66** .23** .23** 2 HAS .28 .27 .16 .23** .00 3 Incivility (Peer) x HAS -.02 .02 -.26 .24** .00 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficien t, SEB = Standard Error of B, = Standardized Coefficient. = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 147 The relationship between informational jus tice and CWB was not significantly moderated by HAS when CWB was self-report or peer-report (see Table 7). No significant interaction effects were found between informational ju stice and HAS when CWB was self-report ( = -.30, n.s. ) or peer-report ( = -.03, n.s. ).

PAGE 70

61 Table 7. Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Informational Justice and HAS Step B SEB R2 R2 Criterion: CWB (Self) 1 Informational Justice .24 .58 .10 .04* .04* 2 HAS .93 .49 .65 .17** .13** 3 Informational Justice x HAS -.02 .03 -.30 .17** .00 Criterion: CWB (Peer) 1 Informational Justice -.35 .77 -.12 .03* .03* 2 HAS .28 .64 .16 .05* .02 3 Informational Justice x HAS -.00 .03 -.03 .05 .00 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficien t, SEB = Standard Error of B, = Standardized Coefficient. = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 147 HAS did not moderate the relationship betw een interpersonal justice and CWB when CWB was self-report or peer-report (see Table 8). Th e interactions between interpersonal justice and HAS were not significant when CWB was self-report ( = -.26, n.s. ) or peer-report ( = .34, n.s. ). Table 8. Moderated Regressions of CW B onto Interpersonal Justice and HAS Step B SEB R2 R2 Criterion: CWB (Self) 1 Interpersonal Justice .20 .70 .07 .06** .06** 2 HAS .87 .46 .61 .17** .11** 3 Interpersonal Justice x HAS -.02 .03 -.26 .18** .00 Criterion: CWB (Peer) 1 Interpersonal Justice -1.40 .92 -.40 .04* .04* 2 HAS -.39 .61 -.22 .05* .01 3 Interpersonal Justice x HAS .04 .04 .34 .06* .01 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficien t, SEB = Standard Error of B, = Standardized Coefficient. = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 147 For self-reported CWB, significant interac tions were found between HAS and selfreported interpersonal conflict ( = .98, p < .01) and between HAS and peer-reported interpersonal conflict ( = .83, p <. 05; see Table 9). For both self-reported interpersonal conflict

PAGE 71

62 (see Figure 1) and peer-reported interpersonal conf lict (see Figure 2) the pattern of data showed that when HAS was high, the line depicting the relationship between inte rpersonal conflict and CWB (self) had a steeper slope than when HAS was low. For peer-reported CWB, no significant interactions were found between HAS a nd self-reported interpersonal conflict ( = -.27, n.s. ) or between HAS and peer-reporte d interpersonal conflict ( = -.05, n.s. ; see Table 9). Because moderator tests have low power, the mode rator effects of HAS with both self-reported interpersonal conflict (see Figure 3) and peer-repor ted interpersonal conflict (see Figure 4) on peer-reported CWB were graphed in order to determ ine if the relationships were in the expected direction. In contrast to results with self-reporte d CWB, the pattern of data did not suggest that HAS made any difference in the relationship between peer-reported CWB and both self-reported and peer-reported inte rpersonal conflict. Table 9. Moderated Regressions of CW B onto Interpersonal Conflict and HAS Step B SEB R2 R2 Criterion: CWB (Self) 1 Interpersonal Conflict (Self) -1.33 1.04 -.31 .21** .21** 2 HAS -.31 .26 -.22 .27** .06** 3 Interpersonal Conflict (Self) x HAS .11 .04 .98** .31** .04** 1 Interpersonal Conflict (Peer) -1.58 1.03 -.40 .08** .08** 2 HAS -.09 .27 -.06 .20** .12** 3 Interpersonal Conflict (Peer) x HAS .10 .04 .83* .23** .03* Criterion: CWB (Peer) 1 Interpersonal Conflict (Self) 2.85 1.42 .55* .14** .14** 2 HAS .26 .35 .15 .14** .00 3 Interpersonal Conflict (Self) x HAS -.04 .05 -.27 .14** .00 1 Interpersonal Conflict (Peer) 2.54 1.25 .52* .25** .25** 2 HAS .13 .33 .08 .25** .00 3 Interpersonal Conflict (Peer) x HAS -.01 .05 -.05 .25** .00 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficien t, SEB = Standard Error of B, = Standardized Coefficient. = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 147

PAGE 72

63Figure 1. HAS as moderator of the relationship between interpersonal conflict (Self) and CWB (Self). Figure 2. HAS as moderator of the relationship between interpersonal conflict (Peer) and CWB (Self). Figure 3. HAS as moderator of the relationship between interpersonal conflict (Self) and CWB (Peer). 30 40 50 60 70 LowHighInterpersonal Conflict (Self)CWB (Self) High HAB Low HAB 30 40 50 60 70 LowHighInterpersonal Conflict (Peer)CWB (Self) High HAB Low HAB 30 40 50 60 70 LowHighInterpersonal Conflict (Self)CWB (Peer) High HAB Low HAB

PAGE 73

64Figure 4. HAS as moderator of the relationship between interpersonal conflict (Peer) and CWB (Peer). For self-reported CWB, significant interac tions were found between HAS and selfreported organizational constraints ( = .63, p < .05) and between HAS and peer-reported organizational constraints ( = .65, p <. 05; see Table 10). For both self-reported organizational constraints (see Figure 5) and peer-reported organi zational constraints (see Figure 6) the pattern of data showed that when HAS was high, the line depicting the relationship between organizational constraints and CWB (self) had a st eeper slope than when HAS was low. For peerreported CWB, no significant interactions were found between HAS and self-reported organizational constraints ( = .23, n.s. ) or between HAS and p eer-reported organizational constraints ( = .06, n.s. ; see Table 10). Because moderator tests have low power, the moderator effects of HAS with both self-reported organizati onal constraints (see Figure 7) and peer-reported organizational constraints (see Figure 8) on p eer-reported CWB were graphed in order to determine if the relationships were in the expect ed direction. Similar to results with self-reported CWB, for both self-reported organizational c onstraints and peer-re ported organizational constraints, the pattern of data showed a steep er slope between organizational constraints and CWB (peer) when HAS was high than when HAS was low. 30 40 50 60 70 80 LowHighInterpersonal Conflict (Peer)CWB (Peer) High HAB Low HAB

PAGE 74

65 Table 10. Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Organizational Constraints and HAS Step B SEB R2 R2 Criterion: CWB (Self) 1 Organizational Constraints (Self) -.02 .24 -.02 .23** .23** 2 HAS -.10 .25 -.07 .29** .06** 3 Organizational Constraints (Self) x HAS .02 .01 .63* .31** .02* 1 Organizational Constraints (Peer) -.22 .27 -.17 .11** .11** 2 HAS -.04 .26 -.03 .23** .12** 3 Organizational Constraints (Peer) x HAS .03 .01 .65* .26** .03* Criterion: CWB (Peer) 1 Organizational Constraints (Self) .16 .35 .11 .08** .08** 2 HAS -.07 .35 -.04 .08** .01 3 Organizational Constraints (Self) x HAS .01 .01 .23 .09** .00 1 Organizational Constraints (Peer) .58 .35 .36 .17** .17** 2 HAS .11 .34 .06 .18** .01 3 Organizational Constraints (Peer) x HAS .00 .02 .06 .18** .00 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficien t, SEB = Standard Error of B, = Standardized Coefficient. = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 146 Figure 5. HAS as moderator of the relationship between organizational constraints (Self) and CWB (Self). 30 40 50 60 70 LowHighOrganizational Constraints (Self)CWB (Self) High HAB Low HAB

PAGE 75

66Figure 6. HAS as moderator of the relationship between organizational constraints (Peer) and CWB (Self). Figure 7. HAS as moderator of the relationship between organizational constraints (Self) and CWB (Peer). Figure 8. HAS as moderator of the relationship between organizational constraints (Peer) and CWB (Peer). 30 40 50 60 70 LowHighOrganizational Constraints (Peer)CWB (Self) High HAB Low HAB 30 40 50 60 70 LowHighOrganizational Constraints (Self)CWB (Peer) High HAB Low HAB 30 40 50 60 70 LowHighOrganizational Constraints (Peer)CWB (Peer) High HAB Low HAB

PAGE 76

67 HAS did not moderate the relationship between workload (both selfand peer-report) and CWB when CWB was self-report or peer-report (see Table 11). No significant interaction effects were found between self-reported worklo ad and HAS when CWB was self-report ( = .31, n.s. ) or peer-report ( = -.22, n.s. ). In addition, the interactions between peer-reported workload and HAS were not significant when CWB was self-report ( = .41, n.s. ) or peer-report ( = -.12, n.s. ). Table 11. Moderated Regressions of CWB onto Workload and HAS Step B SEB R2 R2 Criterion: CWB (Self) 1 Workload (Self) .00 .41 .00 .07** .07** 2 HAS .25 .30 .18 .20** .13** 3 Workload (Self) x HAS .02 .02 .31 .21** .01 1 Workload (Peer) -.33 .46 -.17 .02 .02 2 HAS .18 .32 .13 .17** .15** 3 Workload (Peer) x HAS .02 .02 .41 .18** .01 Criterion: CWB (Peer) 1 Workload (Self) .34 .56 .15 .00 .00 2 HAS .54 .41 .31 .03 .03* 3 Workload (Self) x HAS -.02 .02 -.22 .03 .00 1 Workload (Peer) .32 .62 .13 .01 .01 2 HAS .42 .43 .24 .03 .03 3 Workload (Peer) x HAS -.01 .03 -.12 .03 .00 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficien t, SEB = Standard Error of B, = Standardized Coefficient. = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 147 To summarize, hypothesis 2 predicted that hos tile attribution style would moderate the relationship between job stressors (incivility, in teractional justice, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and workload) and CW B. This hypothesis was partially supported as HAS was found to moderate the relationship between CWB and stressors of interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints. For self-reports of both stressors (interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints), significant interac tions were found only for self-reported CWB, not peer-reported CWB. The interaction effects held even when the stressors (interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints) were peer-report. Hypothesis 2a predicted that the relationship

PAGE 77

68 between job stressors (incivility, interactional justice, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and workload) and CWB would be st ronger for individuals with a stronger tendency to make hostile attributions than those with a weaker tendency to attribute hostile intent. This hypothesis was partially supported. For both interp ersonal conflict and orga nizational constraints the slopes of the regression lines depicting the re lationship between the stressor and CWB were steeper for individuals high on HAS than individuals low on HAS. Hypothesis 3: The Link Between Other Indivi dual Difference Variables with Negative Perceptual Tendencies and CWB Hypothesis 3 predicted that hostile attribution style would mediate the relationship between individual difference variables w ith negative perceptual tendencies (i.e., Machiavellianism, NA, and trait anger) and CWB. Baron and Kenney’s (1986) procedure was used to test for mediation. Three regression m odels were examined: regression of (1) the criterion (CWB) on the predictor (Machiavellianism, NA, an d trait anger), (2) the proposed mediator (hostile attribution style) on the predictor, and (3) the criterion on both the predictor and mediator. The regression of the criterion onto the predictor (Model 1) was compared with the regression of the criterion onto both the predictor and mediator (Model 3). If the beta of the predictor was significant in the first model, but substantially reduced or non-significant in the combined model (Model 3), then results were consis tent with mediation. In addition, the Aroian version (1944/1947) of the Sobel test (1982) was performed to further test the significance of the mediation effect. Support for the mediating role of HAS in th e relationship between Machiavellianism and self-reported CWB was found (see Table 12). Machiavellianism ( = -.23, p < .01) became nonsignificant ( = -.13, p > .05) when HAS was entered into the equation ( = .36, p < .01), providing evidence for full mediation. Results of the Sobel test ( z = -2.69, p < .01) also supported full mediation.

PAGE 78

69 Results supported HAS as a partial mediator between NA and self-reported CWB (see Table 12). Specifically, the beta weight associated with NA decreased from .38 ( p < .01) to .27 ( p < .01) when HAS was entered into the equation ( = .30, p < .01). Results of the Sobel test ( z = 2.92, p < .01) also supported partial mediation. For trait anger, evidence for partial medi ation also was found (see Table 12). The beta weight associated with trait anger decreased from .38 ( p < .01) to .29 ( p < .01) when HAS was entered into the equation ( = .32, p < .01). Results of the Sobel test ( z = 2.58, p < .05) also supported HAS as a partial mediator betw een trait anger and self-reported CWB. Table 12. Analysis of the Mediating Role of HAS Step (Predictor) (Mediator) R R2 Criterion: CWB (Self) 1 Machiavellianism -.23** .23 .05** 2 Machiavellianism, HAS -.13 .36** .42 .18** 1 Negative Affectivity .38** .38 .14** 2 Negative Affectivity, HAS .27** .30** .47 .22** 1 Trait Anger .38** .38 .14** 2 Trait Anger, HAS .29** .32** .49 .24** = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 147 To summarize, hypothesis 3 predicted that hostile attribution style would mediate the relationship between individual difference variab les with negative perceptual tendencies (i.e., Machiavellianism, NA, and trait anger) and CWB. Evidence for full mediation was found with Machiavellianism, whereas evidence for partial me diation was found for both NA and trait anger. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Machiavellianism and the Occupational Stress Process In addition to the proposed hypotheses, the influence of Machiavellianism on the occupational stress process was explored. It w as expected that high Machiavellians would appraise and respond to job stressors in a negativ e fashion. However, examination of the zeroorder correlations of Machiavellianism with st ressors and CWB revealed the opposite pattern.

PAGE 79

70 Regarding job stressors, Machiavellianism was ne gatively related to self-reported incivility ( r = .17). In addition, it was positively associated with self-reported informational justice ( r = .17). It should be noted that high scores on the informati onal justice subscale represents higher levels of perceived justice, not injustice. For self-r eported CWB, Machiavellianism was negatively associated with abuse ( r = -.23), sabotage ( r = -.23), theft ( r = -.23), and overall CWB ( r = -.23). For peer-reported CWB, it was nega tively related only to theft ( r = -.18). The zero-order correlations of Machiavellianism with other individual difference variables with negative perceptual tendencies also were examined. M achiavellianism was negatively related to hostile attribution style ( r = -.27) and NA ( r = -.29). It had a non-significant association with trait anger ( r = .07, n.s. ).

PAGE 80

71 Chapter 4 Discussion The main objective of this study was to inv estigate the influence of hostile attribution style on the processes that link job stressors w ith CWB. Specifically, three areas were examined: the appraisal of job stressors, the link between job stressors and CWB, and the link between other individual difference variables with negative pe rceptual tendencies and CWB. The other purpose of the current study was to explore the influe nce of Machiavellianism on the occupational stress process. Specifically, Machiavellians’ appraisal of and reactions to job stressors were examined. The Appraisal of Job Stressors: Relations of HAS with Psychosocial and Nonsocial Stressors It was expected that hostile attribution style would be more strongly related to psychosocial stressors (i.e., incivility, interacti onal justice, and interpersonal conflict) than to nonsocial stressors (i.e., organizational constrai nts and workload). Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. The HAS-psychosocial stressor (incivility, informational justice, interpersonal justice, and interpersonal conflict) co rrelations were significantly stronger than the HAS-workload (nonsocial stressor) correlation for self-report. The HAS-interpersonal justice (psychosocial stressor) correlation also was significantly stronger than the HAS-constraints (both nonsocial stressors of interpersonal constraints and job context constraints) correlations for self-report. However, the HAS-informational justice (psych osocial stressor) correlation was significantly weaker than the HAS-constraints (both nonsocial st ressors of interpersonal constraints and job context constraints) correlations for self-report. The results regarding the comparisons of the HAS-psychosocial stressor (incivility, informational justice, interpersonal justice, and interpersonal conflict) correlations with the HASworkload (nonsocial stressor) co rrelation were consistent with previous research, which showed

PAGE 81

72 the relationship between job stressors and other individual difference variables with the tendency to appraise the job environment in a negative f ashion (i.e., NA and trait anger). For example, Spector and Jex (1998) found that NA was most strongly related to interpersonal conflict, followed by organizational constraints and worklo ad (mean correlations of .33, .30, and .13, respectively). Similarly, Miles et al. (2002) found that trait anger was most strongly associated with organizational constraints, followed by interpersonal conflict and workload ( r = .28, .25, and .21, respectively). In all cases, the relationship between individual differences and job stressors was stronger for abstract, social (i.e., psychosocial ) stressors such as interpersonal conflict than for more concrete, objective (i.e., nonsocial) ones such as workload. At first, it was surprising that the HAS-inf ormational justice (psychosocial stressor) correlation was significantly weaker than the HAS-constraints (both nonsocial stressors of interpersonal constraints and job context constr aints) correlations. However, these results are understandable given that some items used to me asure informational justice easily could have been used to measure organizational constraint s: explained the procedures thoroughly; provided you with reasonable explanations regarding the procedures; and communicated details in a timely manner. They appear to complement organizati onal constraints items such as inadequate help from others (interpersonal); incorrect instructions (job context); and lack of necessary information about what to do or how to do it (job context). For self-reported incivility and interpersona l conflict, no significant differences were found between the HAS-psychosocial stressor (inciv ility and interpersonal conflict) correlations and the HAS-constraints (both nonsocial stressors of interpersonal constraints and job context constraints) correlations. However, the pattern of correlations was consistent with previous research, which showed the relationship between job stressors and other individual difference variables with negative perceptual tendencies (i .e., NA). For example, Penney (2002) found that NA was most strongly related to interpersonal c onflict, followed by incivility and organizational

PAGE 82

73 constraints ( r = .26, .24, and .13, respectively). Similarly, for peer-reported stressors, no significant differences were found between the (p sychosocial and nonsocial) stressor categories when the HAS-stressor correlations were compared. In all cases, the correlations were not significantly different in magnitude. However, th ey were in the expected direction (i.e., HASpsychosocial stressor correlations were gene rally larger than the HAS-nonsocial stressor correlations), providing some support for the suppos ition that the appraisal of psychosocial stressors should be influenced more by hostile attribution style than nonsocial stressors. It also was expected that hostile attributi on style would be more strongly related to interpersonal constraints (social) than to job c ontext constraints (nonsocial). Hypothesis 1a was not supported. No significant differences were found between the HAS-interpersonal constraints correlation and the HAS-job context constraints co rrelation for self-report or peer-report. For both self-report and peer-report, the correlations were not significantly different in magnitude; however, they were in the expected direction, providing some support for the distinction between interpersonal constraints and job context constraints. HAS as a Moderator of the Link Between Job Stressors and CWB It was expected that hostile attribution styl e would moderate the relationship between job stressors (incivility, interactional justice, interp ersonal conflict, organiza tional constraints, and workload) and CWB. Hypothesis 2 was partially sup ported. Hostile attribution style was found to moderate the relationship between CWB and th e stressors of interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints. For self-reports of both stressors (interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints), significant interac tions were found only for self-reported CWB, not peer-reported CWB. Significant interaction eff ects also were found for self-reported CWB, but not peer-reported CWB, when both stressors (interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints) were peer-report. When the stresso rs and CWB were self-report (self-self), peerreport (peer-peer), or mixed report (self-peer or p eer-self), there was no support for the moderator

PAGE 83

74 effect of hostile attribution style on the relations hip between CWB and the stressors of incivility, interactional justice (informational justice and interpersonal justice), or workload. It also was expected that the relationship between job stressors and CWB would be stronger for individuals with a stronger tendency to make hostile attributions than those with a weaker tendency to attribute hostile intent. Hy pothesis 2a was partially supported. For both interpersonal conflict and organiza tional constraints, the pattern of data showed that the line depicting the relationship between the stressor a nd CWB had a steeper slope for individuals high on HAS than the line for individuals low on HAS. Wh en low levels of interpersonal conflict or organizational constraints were perceived, indivi duals engaged in low levels of CWB overall. In contrast, when high levels of stressors (interpe rsonal conflict or organiza tional constraints) were perceived, individuals with a stronger tendency to make hostile attributions engaged in much higher levels of CWB than those with a w eaker tendency to attribute hostile intent. The results regarding hostile attribution styl e were consistent with previous research, which showed the moderator effect of other individual difference variables with negative perceptual tendencies (i.e., NA and trait anger) on the relationship between job stressors and CWB. For example, NA has been shown to m oderate the relationship between CWB and the stressors of interpersonal conflict (Penney, 2002) and organizational constraints (Penney & Spector, 2005). Similarly, Fox et al. (2001) fo und that trait anger m oderated the relationship between interpersonal c onflict and personal CWB. Hostile attribution style was not found to moderate the relationship between CWB and the stressors of incivility and interactional justi ce (informational justice and interpersonal justice). This was inconsistent with previous research, which showed the moderator effect of NA on CWB for the stressors of incivility (Penney, 2002) and interactional justice (Skarlicki et al., 1999). It is possible that individuals high on hostile attributi on style tend to experience interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints as being more adverse than inciv ility or interactional justice.

PAGE 84

75 Getting into heated arguments with others at work (i.e., interpersonal conflict) and having lack of information/equipment impede your performance (i.e ., organizational constraints) are concrete situations/events with negative implications for one’s well-being. However, incivility (e.g., paid little attention to your statement) and interacti onal justice (e.g., treated you in a polite manner) both ask about behaviors that may or may not ha ve been perceived as rude or disrespectful and are subjective in terms of their (positive or ne gative) significance to one’s well-being. It is possible that an individual may interpret anothe r’s actions as being rude or disrespectful (i.e., uncivil or interactionally unjust), but s/he ma y not perceive malevolent intent behind those behaviors. For example, rude behaviors such as showing little interest in another’s opinion (i.e., incivility) or making “improper” remarks or co mments (i.e., interactional justice) could be attributed to idiosyncratic tendencies of another ra ther than the malicious attempt to inflict harm by the “perpetrator.” Therefore, it appears that be haviors classified as incivility and interactional justice were not sufficient (in terms of implied th reat to one’s well-being) to provoke individuals high on hostile attribution style to engage in CWB. Lack of support for the moderator effect of hostile attribution style might have been due to the possibility that the effect occurs in the perception of the environment, and not postperception (i.e., when the perception is assessed). That is, hostile attribu tion style moderates the relationship between the environmental stressor a nd the perceived stressor rather than between the perceived stressor and CWB. The current study also might have lacked su fficient power to detect significant moderator effects. Moderator tests suffer from low statistical power (Aguinis, 1995; McClelland & Judd, 1993), and data were available for only 147 pairs of employees and coworkers. Therefore, it is possible that the sample size for this study mi ght not have been large enough to allow for the detection of significant moderator effects in some cases. More research with larger samples is

PAGE 85

76 needed in order to accurately determine the mode rator effect of hostile attribution style on the relationship between CWB and both incivility and interactional justice. HAS as Mediator of the Link Between Oth er Individual Difference Variables With Negative Perceptual Tendencies and CWB It was expected that hostile attribution style would mediate the relationship between individual difference variables with negative pe rceptual tendencies (i.e., Machiavellianism, NA, and trait anger) and CWB. Hypothesis 3 was par tially supported. Hostile attribution style was found to fully mediate the relationship between Machiavellianism and CWB. It was found to partially mediate the relationship between NA and CWB, in addition to the relationship between trait anger and CWB. Results regarding NA and trait anger were s upportive of Dodge’s (1985) supposition that individuals who are predisposed towards a negativ e affective state (i.e., NA and trait anger) will be more likely to infer hostile intent and to retaliate against a provocateur. Results regarding Machiavellianism also appear to support Martinko et al.’s (2002) proposition that attributional processes mediate the relationship between indivi dual difference variables and CWB. However, it is possible that results regarding Machiavellianism were due to the choice of the scale used to assess Machiavellianism (i.e., Organizational M achiavellianism Scale, OMS; Bandelli et al., 2006). A brief discussion of the OMS is presente d in the following section on Machiavellianism and the occupational stress process. Hostile attribution style was shown to par tially mediate the relationship between CWB and individual difference variables with negativ e perceptual tendencies and the concomitant predisposition towards negative emotional states (i .e., NA and trait anger). Given the negative perceptual tendencies of individuals with a hostile attribution style, it would be interesting if future research examines the relationships amongs t hostile attribution style, emotions, and CWB. Previous research on hostile attribution style an d emotions has shown that negative emotions

PAGE 86

77 (e.g., angry, annoyed, or irritate d) are a significant predictor of attributions of hostile intent (Topalli & O’Neal, 2003). However, it would be interesting to examine whether hostile attribution style leads to negative emotional reac tions (e.g., anger) and whether emotions mediate the relationship between hostile attribution styl e and CWB. For example, Betancourt and Blair (1992) found that anger mediated the relationshi p between attributions of intentionality for a conflict situation and the violence level of an aggressive response. Machiavellianism and the Occupational Stress Process The influence of Machiavellianism on the occ upational stress process also was explored. It was expected that high Machiavellians w ould appraise and respond to job stressors in a negative fashion. Regarding the appraisal of stressors, Machiavellianism was negatively associated with self-reported incivility and pos itively related to self -reported informational justice. That is, high Machiavellians were less lik ely to experience incivility and more likely to perceive that organizational decision-makers provided adequate and honest explanations. Regarding reactions to stressors, Machiavellianism was negatively related to abuse, sabotage, theft, and overall CWB for self-report, whereas it was negatively associated with only theft for peer-report. That is, high Mach iavellians were less likely to engage in CWB than those low on Machiavellianism. Results regarding CWB were c onsistent with those from a study by Kessler, Bandelli, Penney, and Spector (2006). Kessler et al. also used the Organizational Machiavellianism Scale (OMS; Bandelli et al., 200 6) to measure Machiavellianism and found a negative relationship between Machia vellianism and CWB. This is contrary to previous research regarding the effects of Machiavellianism on ge neral aggression (Repacholi et al., 2003; Russell, 1974; Touhey, 1971) and workplace aggression (i .e., CWB; Bennett & Robinson, 2000), which used Christie and Geis’ (1970) Machiavellia nism measure (i.e., Mach IV or Mach V). The relationship of Machiavellianism with other individual difference variables with negative perceptual tendencies also was examin ed. Machiavellianism was negatively associated

PAGE 87

78 with NA and hostile attribution style, whereas it had a non-significant relationship with trait anger. That is, high Machiavellians were less likel y to experience higher levels of negative affect or to attribute hostile intent. Results regarding NA were inconsistent with previous research, which found a positive relationship between Machia vellianism (as measured with the Mach IV) and NA (Christie, 1970; Nigro & Galli, 1985). Howeve r, Christie and Geis (1970) found a nonsignificant relationship between the two variables us ing the Mach V. Similarly, results regarding hostile attribution style were contradictory of previous research, which found that high Machiavellians attributed more negative intent to the actions of another in ambiguous situations (Repacholi et al., 2003). Given the inconsistency of results with prev ious research regarding the relationship of Machiavellianism with aggression (general and wor kplace), NA, and hostile attribution style, it is possible that construct validity was an issue. The Organizational Machiavellianism Scale (OMS; Bandelli et al., 2006) is a new instrument with limited evidence regarding its validity as a measure of Machiavellianism (Bandelli et al., 200 6). The OMS measures the degree to which an individual uses manipulation as a social strategy to achieve his/her desired ends in the context of the work environment. In contrast, Christie and Geis’ (1970) Machiave llianism measure (i.e., Mach V) assesses an individual’s agreemen t with Machiavelli’s (2003) ideas regarding interpersonal manipulation and cynical attitudes. Pe rhaps different results regarding the influence of Machiavellianism on the occupational stress pr ocess may be found if future researchers use Christie and Geis’ (1970) Machiave llianism measure (i.e., Mach V). Of interest will be the results regarding the effect of Machiavellianism on the ap praisal of psychosocial stressors (e.g., incivility and informational justice) due to high Machiavellia ns’ cynical beliefs regarding the nature of man (Christie & Lehmann, 1970). Also of interest w ill be the relationship of Machiavellianism with counterproductive behaviors related to sabotage b ecause previous research has shown that high

PAGE 88

79 Machiavellians tend to endorse organizational sa botage more than those low on Machiavellianism (Giacalone & Knouse, 1990). Convergence between Self and Peer Reports The majority of research on hostile attribu tion style and CWB has been limited to single source participant reports. While self-report is the most practical means of assessing perceptions of environmental conditions and CWB, it is po ssible that the observed relationships may be inflated due to biases shared across measur es, response sets, or unrecognized personal characteristics (Spector & Fox, 2005). Therefore, the current study utilized coworker reports of the incumbent’s job stressors and CWB in an atte mpt to integrate another, more objective source of data. Self(incumbent) and peer(coworker) repor ts showed good convergence for all study variables for which multiple data sources were collected. Regarding job stressors, the highest convergence was found for interpersonal conflict. For CWB, the highest convergence was found for abuse. People who work closely together, ther efore, appear to be the best judges of one another’s public, interpersonal behaviors. In fact, the correlations between peer-reports of stressors and overall CWB were larger than those of self-reports for stressors involving interpersonal behaviors (i.e., interpersonal conf lict and incivility). However, coworkers may not be privy to more private behaviors such as pur posely wasting the employer’s materials/supplies (i.e., sabotage) or purposely doing one’s work incorr ectly (i.e., production deviance). Therefore, it is not surprising that production deviance and sabotage had the lowest levels of convergence. In general, variables that were significan tly related to self-reported, overall CWB also were significantly associated with peer-reporte d, overall CWB, and vice versa. The exceptions were workload, Machiavellianism, and trait ange r. These findings appear to address the criticism that significant findings could be due to method variance shared among the measures rather than true relationships among the variables. Howeve r, moderator effects were found only with self-

PAGE 89

80 reported overall CWB, and not p eer-reported overall CWB. While the significant results with self-reported CWB could be attributed to common method variance, the fact that the moderator effects also were found with peer-reported str essors (interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints) suggests that this was not the case. Cross-source (self-peer) correlations also were generally smaller than the within source (selfself) correlations for the same variables. For example, hostile attribution style (self-report) had a .17 correlation w ith peer-reported overall CWB, whereas it had a correlation of .40 wh en overall CWB was self-report. One possible interpretation is that peer-ratings of CWB may be a deficient indicator of incumbents’ actual level of CWB. An alternative explanation has to do with lack of power. Moderator tests are low power, and data were available for only 147 peers. Theref ore, a significant moderator effect might have been harder to detect, especially if peer-rati ngs of CWB were less accurate than self-reports. Limitations and Future Research Directions The current study had several limitations that might have affected the results. First, the sample consisted mainly of employed undergradua te students. Aside from age, tenure, and reports of production deviance, no differences were f ound between the employed students (USF sample) and the non-student employees (snowball sample). Similarly, Fox et al. (2001) compared employed students and non-student employees, and no differences between the samples were found regarding correlations of CWB with stresso rs (interpersonal conf lict and organizational constraints) and personality (NA and trait anger). Regardless, it is unknown whether the responses of students would have been representativ e of other employed populations. Therefore, additional studies with different employed groups are needed in order to address concerns regarding generalizability of study results. Response rates for both employees and coworkers might have been another factor. It is unknown how many employees or coworkers in both the USF and snowball samples chose not to participate for fear of being identified by the researcher (an issue especially with the snowball

PAGE 90

81 sample) and due to the sensitive nature of th e behaviors addressed. I had to access information regarding the employee’s first name and last initia l and the coworker’s email address in order to email the coworker survey link to the individual chosen by the participant. Future online research could use an automated survey system whereb y the coworker email is generated and sent automatically. Therefore, the researcher would not see information (e.g., email address) that could be used to identify the individual. Perh aps this sense of anonymity may increase response rate for both employees and coworkers. It is possible that the nature of the relationship between the employee and coworker might have affected reports of stressors experi enced and CWB displayed by the employee. Due to limited demographic data collected from coworker s, it was not possible to determine how long the employee and coworker had worked together and the amount of time they actually interacted with each other on a daily basis. Furthermore, it is possible that the employee chose a coworker who s/he got along with well to fill out the coworker survey instead of one who had the best opportunity to observe his/her behavior. In order to address this issue, future researchers may want to randomly select coworkers to provide peer ratings of the employees’ behaviors. Lastly, the cross-sectional nature of the data might have limited the inferences regarding the effects of hostile attribution style on the causal flow between stressors and CWB. Future research could use a more longitudinal design wh ereby information is collected on personality, stressors, and CWB at various points in time. In addition, the research design of the current study did not allow for causal conclusions to be made. For example, in this study, CWB was examined as theoretically resulting from job stressors a nd the individual difference variables of hostile attribution style, Machiavellianism, NA, and trait anger. However, it is possible that people who engage in CWB may be rationalizing and/or jus tifying their actions by reporting hostile motives in others. Therefore, more research is needed to determine the true directionality of the relationships between the variables th at were explored in this study.

PAGE 91

82 There exists evidence regarding the emo tional processes linking job stressors and CWB (e.g., Fox et al., 2001), and the current study provided evidence of the influence of attributional processes (i.e., hostile attribution style) on CWB. Ho wever, there exists no research that examines the joint effects of emotions and attributional style on CWB. Therefore, future researchers could concurrently examine the influence of both em otional and attributional processes on CWB. In addition, future studies could use a model testing procedure such as structural equation modeling to assess the viability of the proposed linkages. Conclusion To summarize, the current study examined th e effects of hostile attribution style on the processes linking job stressors and CWB. Hostile attribution style was shown to differentially relate to the appraisal of psychosocial and nonsoc ial stressors. It also was shown to moderate the relationship between CWB and the stressors of interpersonal conflic t and organizational constraints. In addition, evidence was found to supp ort the possibility that hostile attribution style mediates the link between CWB and the individual difference variables of NA, trait anger, and Machiavellianism. Overall, this study provi ded good support for the inclusion of hostile attribution style in CWB research within the occ upational stress framework. It is believed that this attribution-based approach will complement current emotion-based models of CWB (e.g., Spector & Fox, 2002) and, thus, deepen researchers’ understanding of the cognitive and emotional processes related to CWB.

PAGE 92

83 References Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdal e, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87 49-74. Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power probl ems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21 1141-1158. Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89 947-965. Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organizational Science, 11 525-537. Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. (200 4). Overt anger in response to victimization: Attributional style and organizational norms as moderators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9 152-164. Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between in teractional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 1001-1029. Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (199 9). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 1073-1091. Aroian, L. A. (1944/1947). The probability func tion of the product of two normally distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18 265-271. Bandelli, A. C., Kessler, S. R., Borman, W. C., & Nelson, C. E. (2006). Identifying the corporate Machiavellian: The development and validation of an organizational based Machiavellianism scale Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Baron, R. A. (1996). Interpersonal relations in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 334-370). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2003). Social psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The modera tor-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra tegic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 1173-1182.

PAGE 93

84 Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22 161-173. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1998). Wor kplace aggression—The iceberg beneath the tip of workplace violence: Evidence of its forms, frequency, and targets. Public Administration Quarterly, 21 446-464. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25 281-296. Bennett, R. J., Aquino, K., Reed, A., & Thau, S. (2005). The normative nature of employee deviance and the impact of moral identity. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: In vestigations of actors and targets (pp. 107-125). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Deve lopment of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 349-360. Bergmann, T. J., & Volkema, R. J. (1994). I ssues, behavioral responses and consequences in interpersonal conflicts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15 467-471. Betancourt, H., & Blair, I. (1992). A cognition (a ttribution)-emotion model of violence in conflict situations. Personality and Social P sychology Bulletin, 18 343-350. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional ju stice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20 173-184. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wi sdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110 305-314. Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25 607-631. Bruursema, K. (2004). Leadership style and the link with counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An investigation using the job-stress/CWB model Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Using th e internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the world wide web. British Journal of Psychology, 90 125-144. Burnfield, J. L., Clark, O. L., Devendorf, S. A., & Jex, S. M. (2004, April). Understanding workplace incivility: Scale development and valid ation. In V. Fortunato & J. L. Burnfield (Chairs), Current issues in the con ceptualization and measurement of workplace incivility Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of th e Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

PAGE 94

85 Burnfield, J. L., Clark, O. L., Thornbury, E., Lodato, M. A., Jex, S. M., & Christopher, J. (2005, April). “The customer is always right,” but at what price? Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA. Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression New York: John Wiley and Sons. Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Hav ing” and “doing” in the study of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735-750. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative a ffectivity as the underlying cause of correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 398-407. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relati onships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 177-184. Christie, R. (1970). Relationships between Mach iavellianism and measures of ability, opinion, and personality. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 35-52). New York: Academic Press. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism New York: Academic Press. Christie, R., Gergen, K. J., & Marlowe, D. (1970). They Penny-dollar caper. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 173-189). New York: Academic Press. Christie, R., & Lehmann, S. (1970). The structure of Machiavellian orientations. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 359-387). New York: Academic Press. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88 278-321. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/Correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., & Feild, H. S. ( 2006). The measurement equivalence of web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transforma tional leadership: A multinational test. Organizational Research Methods, 9 339-368. Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The ps ychology of counterproductive job performance. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (pp. 219-243). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 386-400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Port er, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizationl justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 425-445.

PAGE 95

86 Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizati onal justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 165-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6 64-80. Day, R. C., & Hamblin, R. L. (1964). Some eff ects of close and punitive styles of supervision. The American Journal of Sociology, 69 499-510. Dewe, P. (1991). Primary appraisal, secondary apprai sal and coping: Their role in stressful work encounters. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64 331-351. Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1997). Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 31 272-292. Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51 162-170. Dodge, K. A. (1985). Attributional bias in a ggressive children. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 4, pp. 73-110). New York: Academic Press, Inc. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social -information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 1146-1158. Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Expl oring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 547-559. Edelstein, R. (1966). Risk-taking, age, sex, and Machiavellianism Unpublished manuscript, New York University. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On th e nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5 155-174. Epps, J., & Kendall, P. C. (1995). Ho stile attribution bias in adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19 159-178. Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence a nd hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R. Va ndenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51-85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fortunato, V. J., Jex, S. M., & Heinish, D. A. ( 1999). An examination of the discriminant validity of the strain-free negative affectivity scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 503-522.

PAGE 96

87 Fox. S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 915-931. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (1999, April). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justi ce: The moderator effect of autonomy and emotion traits Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: So me mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 291-309. French, J. R. P., & Caplan, R. D. (1973). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A. J. Marrow (Ed.), The failure of success (pp. 30-66). New York: AMACOM. Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at wo rk and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 246-255. Geis, F., & Christie, R. (1970). Overview of experi mental research. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 285-313). New York: Academic Press. Geis, F., Christie, R., & Nelson, C. (1970). In sear ch of the Machiavel. In R. Christie & F. L. Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 76-95). New York: Academic Press. Giacalone, R. A., & Knouse, S. B. (1990). Justifying wrongful employee behavior: The role of personality in organizational sabotage. Journal of Business Ethics, 9 55-61. Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and aggressi on: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7 20-36. Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersona l aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46 486-496. Goh, A., Bruursema, K., Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2003, April). Comparisons of self and coworker reports of counterproductive work behavior Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial an d Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59 93-104. Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predic ting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of pe rson behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 897-913. Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2005, April). Hostile attribution style as a predictor of stress sand turnover Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

PAGE 97

88 Hayslett, M. M., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2004). Pixels or pencils? The relative effectiveness of web-based versus paper surveys. Library and Information Science Research, 26 73-93. Hazebroek, J. F., Howells, K., & Day, A. (2001). Cognitive appraisals associated with high trait anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 31-45. Heinisch, D. A., & Jex, S. M. (1997). Negative affectivity and gender as moderators of the relationship between work-related st ressors and depressed mood at work. Work and Stress, 11 46-57. Hepworth, W., & Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and charismatic leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9 176-185. Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7 53-75. Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (2003). Hostile attribution in perceived justification of workplace aggression. Psychological Reports, 92 185-194. Hudley, C., & Graham, S. (1993). An attributional intervention to reduce peer directed aggression among African-American boys. Child Development, 64 124-138. Inness, M., & Barling, J. (2002). Situational specificity and individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression Manuscript submitted for publication. Inness, M., & Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005) Understanding supervisor-targeted aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 731-739. Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach New York: John Wiley and Sons. Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 311-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Jex, S. M., & Spector, P. E. (1996). The impact of negative affectivity on stressor-strain relations: A replication and extension. Work and Stress, 10 36-45. Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel Management, 30 457-465. Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizati onal justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 395-404. Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Bjorkqvist, K ., Osterman, K., Lahtinen, A., Kostamo, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2001). Overt and covert aggr ession in work settings in relation to the subjective well-being of employees. Aggressive Behavior, 27 360-371.

PAGE 98

89 Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2005). Emotional abuse in the workplace. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 201-235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2002, August). Exploring persistent patterns of workplace aggression. In P. J. Moberg (Chair), Workplace abuse, aggression, bullying and incivility: Conceptual integration and empirical insights Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO. Keashly, L., & Rogers, K. A. (2001). Aggressive behaviors at work: The role of context in appraisals of threat Unpublished manuscript, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. ( 1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9 341-357. Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful even ts, stressors and psychological strains in young professional engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6 151-156. Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Does the organiational Machiavellian commit more counterproducti ve work behavior? A reexamination of previously held views Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Kickul, J. R., Neuman, G., & Parker, C. (1999, April). Retaliation in the workplace: Do psychological contract breach and organizationa l injustices predict an ticitizenship behavior? Paper presented at the annual meeting of th e Midwest Academy of Management, Lincoln, NE. Knorz, C., & Zapf, D. (1996). MobbingEine ex treme Form sozialer Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz, [MobbingAn extreme form of soci al stressors in the workplace]. Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits-und Organisationaspsychologie, 40 12-21. Lake, D. L. (1967). Impression formation, Machiavellianism, and interpersonal bargaining Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teacher’s College, Columbia University, New York. Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37 1019-1024. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. L. Perrewe (Ed.), Handbook on job stress [Special Issue], Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 1-13. Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Occupational stress: A handbook (pp. 3-14).Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping New York: Springer Publishing Company. LeBlanc, M. M., & Barling, J. (2004). Workplace aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 9-12.

PAGE 99

90 LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Pr edictors and outcomes of workplace violence and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 444-453. Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, V. B. (2003). The impact of different sources of interpersonal conflict at work on the target of counterproductive work behaviors Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harrassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 483496. Liu, C. (2003). A comparison of job stressors and job strains among employees holding comparable jobs in western and eastern societies Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Lovas, L., Frankovsky, M., & Baumgartner, F. (1 994). Correlation between evaluation of another person’s behavior and choice of response in a chance situation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 32 69-77. Machiavelli, N. (2003). The prince and other writings New York: Fine Creative Media, Inc. Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 647-660. Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10 36-50. Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Towa rd a theory of workplace violence and aggression: A cognitive appraisal perspective. In R. W. Gri ffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violence and deviant behavior (pp. 1-42). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statis tistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 114 376-390. McHoskey, J. W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsi c versus extrinsic goals, and social interest: A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23 267-283. Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20 133-149. Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10 17.

PAGE 100

91 Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Wo rkplace theft: An analysis of student-employee offenders and job attitudes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27 111-127. Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999a ). A cross-cultural comparison of job stressors and reactions among employees holding co mparable jobs in two countries. International Journal of Stress Management, 6 197-212. Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999b). Stress in the workplace: A comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 63-73. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24 391-419. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005) Aggression in the workplace: A Social-psychological perspective. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 13-40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Nickel, T. W. (1974). The attribution of intention as a critical factor in the relation between frustration and aggression. Journal of Personality, 42 482-492. Nigro, G., & Galli, I. (1985). On the relati onship between Machiavellianism and anxiety among Italian undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 56 37-38. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill. O'Brien, K. E., & Vandello, J. (2005, April). Development and validation of the workplace hostile attribution bias scale Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Ps ychology, Los Angeles, CA. O'Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., Pooyan, A., Week ley, J., Frank, B., & Erenkrantz, B. (1984). Situational constraint effects on performance, affective reactions, and turnover: A field replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 663-672. Ohbuchi, K., & Oku, Y. (1979). Aggressive behavior as a function of attack pattern and hostility. Psychologia, 23 146-154. Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and a ggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73 916-934. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29 123-137.

PAGE 101

92 Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54 1387-1419. Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2002). Rude awakening: Detecting and curtailing workplace incivility London, ON: Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario. Penney, L. M. (2002). Workplace incivility and counterpr oductive workplace behavior (CWB): What is the relationship and does personality play a role? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): the moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777-796. Perrew, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An exam ination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 739-752. Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. (1980). Th e behavioral and affective consequences of performance-related situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25 79-96. Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. (1988). Measu ring work obstacles: Procedures, issues, and implications. In F. D. Schoorman & B. Schneider (Eds.), Facilitating work effectiveness (pp. 105-123). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Peterson, C., Semmel, A., Von Bayer, C., Abrams on, L., Metalsky, G., & Seligman, M. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6 287-300. Pettit, F. A. (2002). A comparison of worl d-wide web and pape r-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34 50-54. Porath, C. L., Pearson, C. M., & Shapiro, D. (2002). The consequences of incivility: Who reacts, how, and when? Los Angeles: Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. Price Spratlen, L. (1995). Interpersonal conflic t which includes mistreatment in a university workplace. Violence and Victims, 10 285-297. Repacholi, B., Slaughter, V., Pritchard, M., & Gibbs, V. (2003). Theory of mind, Machiavellianism, and social functioning in childhood. In. B. Repacholi & V. Slaughter (Eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind: Implications for typical and atypical development (pp. 67-98). New York: Psychology Press. Ritter, P., Lorig, K., Laurent, D., & Matthews, K. (2004). Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6 Article e29. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e29/ Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38 555-572.

PAGE 102

93 Rudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & We iner, B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributiona l perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18 815-848. Russell, G. W. (1974). Machiavellianism, lo cus of control, aggression, performance and precautionary behaviour in ice hockey. Human Relations, 27 825-837. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 386-402. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8 110-122. Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Should the subjective be the objective? On studying mental processes, coping behavior, and actual exposure in organizational stress research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 753-760. Segovis, J. C., Bhagat, R. S., & Coelho, G. V. (1985). The mediating role of cognitive appraisal in the experience of stressful events: A reconcep tualization. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations (pp. 213241). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism New York: Pocket Books. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 434-443. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999) Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42 100-108. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indir ect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organi zational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 635-637. Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustrati on: A model and review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31 815-829. Spector, P. E. (1987). Interactive effects of pe rceived control and job stressors on affective reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work and Stress, 1 155-162. Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153-169). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Spector, P. E. (2002). Employee control and occupational stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 133-136.

PAGE 103

94 Spector, P. E. (2003). Individual differences in hea lth and well-being in organizations. In D. A. Hofmann & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Health and safety in organi zations: A multilevel perspective (pp. 29-55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 11-19. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work beha vior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resources Management Review, 12 269-292. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are a ll counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 446-460. Spector, P. E., & Goh, A. (2001). The role of emo tions in the occupational stress process. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well being: Exploring theoretical mechanisms and perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 195-232). Oxford, UK: JAI. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3 356-367. Spector, P. E., & O'Connell, B. J. (1994). Th e contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to th e subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67 1-11. Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 23-49). New York: Academic Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y) Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc. Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-trait anger expression inventory-2 (STAXI-2): Professional manual Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 469-480. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Conseque nces of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43 178-190. Topalli, V., & O'Neal, E. C. (2003). Retaliatory motivation enhances attributions of hostility when people process ambiguous social stimuli. Aggressive Behavior, 29 155-172.

PAGE 104

95 Touhey, J. C. (1971). Machiavellians and social mobility. Psychological Reports, 29 650. Tritschler, D. J., & Steiner, D. D. (2005, April). Validation of the four-factor model of organizational justice in France Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Ps ychology, Los Angeles, CA. VandenBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. (Eds.). (1996). Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. VanOostrum, N., & Horvath, P. (1997). The effects of hostile attribution on adolescents’ aggressive responses to social situations. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13 48-59. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative aff ectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96 465-490. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 1063-1070. Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1986). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8 141-157. Watson, D., & Slack, A. (1993). General factors of affective temperament and their relation to job satisfaction over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54 181202. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 3-25. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92 548-573. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundatio n for a theory of social conduct New York: Guilford Press. Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 21 396-399. Williams, S. C., Lochman, J. E., Phillips, N. C., & Barry, T. D. (2003). Aggressive and nonaggressive boys’ physiological and cognitive processes in response to peer provocations. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32 568-576. Yang, L., Levine, E. L., Xu, X., & Lopez Rivas, G. E. (2006). Surveying via the net vs. hard copy: A cautionary note Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Zauderer, D. G. (2002). Workplace incivilit y and the management of human capital. The Public Manager, 31 36-42.

PAGE 105

96 Zellars, K. L., Perrew, P. L., Ferris, G. R ., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2004). A preliminary examination of the role of attributions and emotions in the transactional stress model: An examination of work-family conflict. In. M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions (pp. 151-172). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

PAGE 106

97 Appendices

PAGE 107

98Appendix A: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS) How often do the following events occur in your present job? _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Less than once per month or never 2 = Once or twice per month 3 = Once or twice per week 4 = Once or twice per day 5 = Several times per day _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. How often do you get into arguments with others at work? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How often do other people yell at you at work? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often are people rude to you at work? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often do other people do nasty things to you at work? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 108

99Appendix B: Workplace In civility Scale (WIS) In your CURRENT JOB, have you been in a situation where any of your superiors or coworkers : _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Never 2 = Once or twice 3 = Once or twice a month 4 = Once or twice a week 5 = Every day _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Put you down or was condescending to you 1 2 3 4 5 2. Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion 1 2 3 4 5 3. Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you 1 2 3 4 5 4. Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately 1 2 3 4 5 5. Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie 1 2 3 4 5 6. Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 7. Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 109

100Appendix C: Colquitt’s (2001) Organizational Justice Measure When decisions are made about your job, to what extent has your supervisor … _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = to a very small extent 2 = to a small extent 3 = neutral 4 = to a large extent 5 = to a very large extent _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. treated you in a polite manner? 1 2 3 4 5 2. treated you with dignity? 1 2 3 4 5 3. treated you with respect? 1 2 3 4 5 4. refrained from improper remarks or comments? 1 2 3 4 5 5. been candid in his/her communications with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6. explained the procedures thoroughly? 1 2 3 4 5 7. provided you with reasonable explanations regarding the procedures? 1 2 3 4 5 8. communicated details in a timely manner? 1 2 3 4 5 9. seemed to tailor his/her communications to individuals’ specific needs? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 110

101Appendix D: Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) How often do you find it difficult or impossible to do your job because of …? _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Less than once per month or never 2 = Once or twice per month 3 = Once or twice per week 4 = Once or twice per day 5 = Several times per day _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Poor equipment or supplies 1 2 3 4 5 2. Organizational rules and procedures 1 2 3 4 5 3. Other employees 1 2 3 4 5 4. Your supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 5. Lack of equipment or supplies 1 2 3 4 5 6. Inadequate training 1 2 3 4 5 7. Interruptions by other people 1 2 3 4 5 8. Lack of necessary information about what to do or how to do it 1 2 3 4 5 9. Conflicting job demands 1 2 3 4 5 10. Inadequate help from others 1 2 3 4 5 11. Incorrect instructions 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 111

102Appendix E: Quantitative Wo rkload Inventory (QWI) How often do the following events occur in your present job? _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Less than once per month or never 2 = Once or twice per month 3 = Once or twice per week 4 = Once or twice per day 5 = Several times per day _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. How often does your job require you to work very fast? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How often does your job require you to work very hard? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often does your job leave you with little time to get things done? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often is there a great deal to be done? 1 2 3 4 5 5. How often do you have to do more work than you can do well? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 112

103Appendix F: Workplace Hostile Attr ibution Bias Survey (WHABS) Please indicate the amount that you agree with each of the statements below using the following scale: _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Moderately disagree 3 = Slightly disagree 4 = Slightly agree 5 = Moderately agree 6 = Strongly agree _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. If a coworker ignores me, it is probably not on purpose. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. When coworkers leave me out of social events, it is to hurt my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. If coworkers do not appreciate me enough, it is because they are self-centered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. If coworkers work sl owly on a task I assigned them, it is because they don’t like me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. If people are laughing at work, I think they are laughing at me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. If coworkers bump into me, it is an accident. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. When coworkers leave me out of social events, there is a good reason. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. If coworkers ignore me, it is because they are being rude. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Coworkers deliberately make my job more difficult. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. When my things are missing, they have probably been stolen. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 113

104Appendix G: Organizational Machiavellianism Scale (OMS) Please indicate the amount that you agree with each of the statements below using the following scale: _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Moderately disagree 3 = Slightly disagree 4 = Slightly agree 5 = Moderately agree 6 = Strongly agree _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. An effective individual builds a powerbase of strong people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. A wise individual in power remains on the alert for dishonest employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. When acquiring a new company it is important to spend time in it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. In order to keep power, it is important to establish one's power base on his/her own merits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. A person should read about the successful people an d emulate their actions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. A person should take care to always appear to be merciful, upright, and humane. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. A smart leader is the face behind any decisions that bring excessive grace to the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. A person in power should throw parties at appropriate times of the year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. It is important to recognize dishonest intentions at the beginning of any situation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Effective individuals do what the situation calls for, not necessarily what they wish to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. A wise person behaves kindly when possible, but must be prepared to act mercilessly when necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Even the most insightful observers tend to judge others based on first impressions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. A person in power who consistently neglects his/her employees should fear repercussions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. It is important that an individual recognizes valuable opportunities when they present themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. One must know how to effectiv ely deal with those who seek to take his/her position of power. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. It is important to be both compassionate and ruthless, when appropriate, towards other people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. It is important to consistently maintain one's authority. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. A minor disagreement should not get in the way of an otherwise strong alliance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Sometimes acting severely is necessary to preserve good order within an organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 114

105Appendix H: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) How often do you generally feel ...? _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Very slightly or not at all 2 = A little 3 = Moderately 4 = Quite a bit 5 = Extremely _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. scared 1 2 3 4 5 2. afraid 1 2 3 4 5 3. upset 1 2 3 4 5 4. distressed 1 2 3 4 5 5. jittery 1 2 3 4 5 6. nervous 1 2 3 4 5 7. ashamed 1 2 3 4 5 8. guilty 1 2 3 4 5 9. irritable 1 2 3 4 5 10. hostile 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 115

106Appendix I: Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C) How often have you done each of the following things on your present job? _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Never 2 = Once or twice 3 = Once or twice a month 4 = Once or twice a week 5 = Every day _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Purposely wasted your employer’s materials/supplies. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Told people outside the job what a lousy place you work for. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Purposely did your work incorrectly. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Came to work late without permission. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you weren’t. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Purposely dirtied or littered your place of work. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Stolen something belonging to your employer. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Started or continued a damaging or harmful rumor at work. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Been nasty or rude to a client or customer. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Purposely worked slowly when things needed to get done. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Taken a longer break than you were allowed to take. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Purposely failed to follow instructions. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Left work earlier than you were allowed to. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Insulted someone about their job performance. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Made fun of someone’s personal life. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Took supplies or tools home without permission. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 116

107Appendix I: (Continued) How often have you done each of the following things on your present job? _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 = Never 2 = Once or twice 3 = Once or twice a month 4 = Once or twice a week 5 = Every day _____________________________________________________________________________________ 18. Put in to be paid for more hours than you worked. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Took money from your employer without permission. 1 2 3 4 5 20. Ignored someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 21. Blamed someone at work for an error you made. 1 2 3 4 5 22. Started an argument with someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Stole something belonging to someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 24. Verbally abused someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 25. Made an obscene gesture (the finger) to someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 26. Threatened someone at work with violence. 1 2 3 4 5 27. Threatened someone at work, but not physically. 1 2 3 4 5 28. Said something obscene to someone at work to make them feel bad. 1 2 3 4 5 29. Did something to make someone at work look bad. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Played a mean prank to embarrass someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 31. Looked at someone at work’s private mail/property without permission. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Hit or pushed a person at work. 1 2 3 4 5 33. Insulted or made fun of someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 117

108Appendix J: Demographic Information Sex: ___ Male ___ Female Age: ___ How long have you worked at your current job? ____ years ____ months Do you work: ___ 20-29 hrs a week ___ 30-39 hrs a week ___ 40 or more hours a week Is your job: _____ Managerial _____ Non-managerial

PAGE 118

109Appendix K: Employee Survey Cover Letter Dear Participant: This survey forms the basis of a study of how people perceive and respond to the conditions of their jobs. The purpose of this study is to lo ok at how people's perceptions of th eir workplace affect their feelings about their jobs and influence the various ways they behave at work. To participate you must curren tly work a minimum of 20 hour s per week in a single job If you have two or more jobs, please answer questions with regards to the job that you work 20 hours or more per week in. Please fill out the “Employee Survey” yourself based on your experiences on your present job It will take between 10 and 20 minutes to complete. Please begin by entering a secret code, consisting of at least 6 letters, numbers, or a combination of both, in the space provided below. Next, select a coworker in your workgroup or department to rate your workplace conditions and behavior s. This person should be someone that you work with fairly closely on a regular basis (i .e., s/he should be someone familiar with your daily activities and conditions at wo rk). Please enter the email address of the coworker you se lected in the space provided below. Because of the prevalence of email spam you will be asked to enter a name (first name and last initial ONLY) that your coworker will recognize. An email will be sent to the address you provided. It will contain your name (first name and last initial), secret code, and the link to the “Coworker Survey”. Information regarding your name and coworker’s email address will not be retained. Only the secret code will be kept. It will be used to match your answers to the answ ers of your coworker. Please enter your own secret code in the blank space belo w (The code should be at least 6 letters, numbers, or a combination of both). Secret code _________________ Please enter the email address of your coworker in the blank space below. Coworker’s email address _________________ Please enter a name (first name and last initial ONLY ) for yourself that your coworker will recognize in the blank space below. Name _________________ Please let your coworker know that s/he will be sent an email containing a link to the “Coworker Survey" and the secret code that you created. The subject line of the email will contain the following information: “ Your first name and last initial has asked you to participate in the Workplace Behavior Study being conducted at the University of Sout h Florida”. Please ask your coworker to answer all questions regarding your working conditions based on his/her observations, experiences, impressions, and conversations with you on your present job The “Coworker Survey” is a shorter version of the “Employee Survey” and should take the coworker between 5 and 10 minutes to complete. Do not discuss these questions with your coworker before both of you have completed filling out the survey.

PAGE 119

110Appendix K: (Continued) If you have already filled out a “Coworker Survey” for someone else in your workgroup or department, please do not fill out this “Employee Survey”. Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you can discontinue participation at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are en titled if you choose not to participate. Your responses will not be tracked to you as an individual or to your workgroup. Thank you in advance for your participation. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Angeline Goh, M.S. Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 agoh@mail.usf.edu 650.255.8588

PAGE 120

111Appendix L: Final Page Viewed By Participants (For Both Employees and Coworkers) Thank you for participating in our study of work behavior! If you have any questions or would like to receive a copy of the study results when they become available, please email me at: agoh@mail.usf.edu Angeline Goh, M.S. Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 agoh@mail.usf.edu 650.255.8588

PAGE 121

112Appendix M: Email Sent to Coworker From: agoh@mail.usf.edu To: Coworker’s email address that the incumb ent provided in the “Employee Survey” Subject: Incumbent’s first name and last initial has asked you to participate in the Workplace Behavior Study being conducted at the University of South Florida Greetings! Your coworker, incumbent’s first name and last initial has volunteered to participate in a study of workplace behavior at the University of South Florida. As part of this st udy, s/he has requested that you fill out a short survey regarding his/her behavioral reactions to his/her job conditions and work environment. Below you will find a link to the “Coworker Survey”, hosted on SurveyMonkey.com. The survey itself will take between 5 and 10 minutes to complete. To access the survey, please click on the link below or copy and paste the web address into your web browser: SurveyMonkey “Coworker Survey” Link You will be asked to enter a secret code before begi nning the “Coworker Survey”. The secret code that your coworker created is secret code that the incumbent created in the “Employee Survey” Please do not identify yourself or your coworker (i.e., do not provide either your or your coworker’s full first name and last name). The information that your coworker provided regarding his/her name (first name and last initial ONLY) and your email address will not be retained. Only the secret code will be kept. It will be used to match your answers to the answers of your coworker. Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you can discontinue participation at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are en titled if you choose not to participate. Your coworker will not see your answers. Your responses will not be trac ked to you as an individual or to your workgroup. Thank you in advance for your participation. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Angeline Goh, M.S. Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 agoh@mail.usf.edu 650.255.8588

PAGE 122

113Appendix N: Coworker Survey Cover Letter Dear Coworker: This survey forms the basis of a study of how people perceive and respond to the conditions of their jobs. The purpose of this study is to lo ok at how people's perceptions of th eir workplace affect their feelings about their jobs and influence the various ways they behave at work. You have been asked to fill out this survey by a co worker in your workgroup or department. Please begin by entering the secret code th at your coworker created in th e space provided below. Next, please answer how you see YOUR COWORKER’S job conditions and behaviors based on your observations, experiences, impressions, and conversations with YOUR COWORKER Please answer the questions by yourself, without discussing them w ith your coworker. It will take between 5 and 10 minutes to complete. Please enter the secret code created by your coworker in the blank space below. Secret code _________________ Please do not identify yourself or your coworker (i.e., do not provide either your or your coworker’s full first name and last name). The information that your coworker provided regarding his/her name (first name and last initial ONLY) and your email address will not be retained. Only the secret code will be kept. It will be used to match your answers to the answers of your coworker. Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you can discontinue participation at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are en titled if you choose not to participate. Your coworker will not see your answers. Your responses will not be trac ked to you as an individual or to your workgroup. Thank you in advance for your participation. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Angeline Goh, M.S. Doctoral Candidate, Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 agoh@mail.usf.edu 650.255.8588

PAGE 123

About the Author Angeline Goh received a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from San Francisco State University (SFSU) in 1998. She graduated with College and University Honors from SFSU in 2000, where she was awarded a Master’s degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. In 2000, Angeline was accepted into the Industrial/Org anizational Psychology doctoral program at the University of South Florida (USF). She taught a variety of courses while attending USF, and was awarded the Eve Levine Graduate Teaching Award in 2004. Angeline’s research interests include job satisfaction, occupational stress, counterproductive work behavior, and employee well-being. She has published research in the J ournal of Vocational Behavior, the Journal of Criminal Justice, and the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. She currently resides in the San Francisco Bay Area.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001925219
003 fts
005 20080130093742.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080130s2006 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001895
035
(OCoLC)191696590
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (ONLINE)
1 100
Goh, Angeline.
3 245
An attributional analysis of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to occupational stress
h [electronic resource] /
by Angeline Goh.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2006.
520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of hostile attribution style (HAS) on the processes linking job stressors and CWB. Self and peer data were collected via online questionnaires from employed participants recruited from undergraduate classes and non-student employees. Using data from 147 dyads of employees and coworkers, the effects of HAS on three areas were examined: the influence of HAS on the appraisal of psychosocial (incivility, interactional justice, and interpersonal conflict) and nonsocial (organizational constraints and workload) stressors; HAS as a moderator of the link between stressors and CWB; and HAS as mediator of the link between CWB and the individual difference variables of negative affectivity (NA), trait anger, and Machiavellianism. Regarding appraisals, HAS was more strongly related to psychosocial stressors than to workload (nonsocial stressor).^ However, results regarding the comparisons of the HAS-psychosocial stressor correlations with the HAS-organizational constraints (nonsocial stressor) correlations were mixed. Moreover, contrary to what was hypothesized, correlations of HAS with interpersonal constraints and job context constraints were not significantly different in magnitude. HAS was shown to moderate the relationship between CWB and the stressors of interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints. Individuals high on HAS engaged in more CWB when stressors were high, whereas individuals low on HAS engaged in low levels of CWB overall. HAS partially mediated the relationship between NA and CWB, in addition to the relationship between trait anger and CWB. It fully mediated the relationship between Machiavellianism and CWB. The influence of Machiavellianism on the occupational stress process also was explored. It was expected that high Machiavellians would appraise and respond to stressors in a negative fashion.^ However, contrary to what was expected, Machiavellianism was positively associated with informational justice and negatively related to incivility and CWB. Furthermore, it was negatively associated with NA and HAS. An alternative explanation for the results regarding Machiavellianism was presented. Although all hypotheses regarding the effects of HAS were partially supported, results of this study were generally demonstrative of the merits of including attributional processes (i.e., hostile attribution style) in CWB research within the occupational stress framework.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 113 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Adviser: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D.
653
Hostile attribution style.
Psychosocial and nonsocial stressors.
Machiavellianism.
Negative affectivity (NA).
Trait anger.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1895