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 001914886
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071029s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001996
How individual values and trait boredom interface with job characteristics and job boredom in their effects on counterproductive work behavior
h [electronic resource] /
by Kari Bruursema.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine relationships among individual values, trait boredom, job boredom, job characteristics, and CWB. Job boredom and trait boredom were expected to be positively related to CWB. Individual values and job characteristics were expected to moderate the relationship between boredom and different types of CWB. Completed online questionnaires were received from 211 participants, and 112 co-worker matches also submitted online surveys. The Schwartz Value Survey, Job Descriptive Index, Job Boredom Scale, and Boredom Proneness Scale were used to assess independent variables. The Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist measured the dependent variable. Results were analyzed using correlation and moderated regression. Both trait boredom and job boredom showed large significant correlations with all forms of CWB. Additionally, co-worker reported job boredom showed significant correlations with some forms of CWB. Values showed small and mostly non-significant relationships with CWB and no moderating effects on the boredom/CWB relationship. Job characteristics showed relationships with some forms of CWB but did not interact with boredom in its effects on CWB. In general, moderating effects were not found in the relationships among boredom, values, job characteristics, and CWB. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 103 pages.
Advisor: Paul Spector, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
How Individual Values and Trait Boredom In terface with Job Characteristics and Job Boredom in Their Effects on C ounterproductive Work Behavior by Kari Bruursema 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 Spector, Ph.D. Tammy Allen, Ph.D. Michael Brannick, Ph.D. Jonathan Rottenberg, Ph.D. Joseph Vandello, Ph.D. Date of Approval: 30 March 2007 Keywords: deviance, withdrawal, abuse, sabotage, benevolence, universalism, selfdirection, hedonism, tradition, power, stimulation, conformity, security Copyright 2007, Kari Bruursema
Dedication For the many and varied people in my life. Some of us share the same values across nearly all situa tions, and some of us are polar opposites almost all the time, but how boring life would be without the full circle. For those who are not yet in my life, my strong openness to experience values may one day lead me to you, but if not, I wish for you: to be fully present in each moment, never apathetic, listless, or dazed, and to be fully engaged in each endeavor. Both the experience of boredom and its effects are toxic; try to remember Â– this is the moment of your life.
Acknowledgements First and foremost, thank you to the USF psychology department for providing me with a solid foundation in I/O psychology that is hi ghly reputable in both the academic and business realms of our field. A big thank you to Paul Spector whose work in CWB became my focus in graduate school; he is a great mentor and outstanding I/O psychologist. Thank you also to the USF gr aduate school for presenting me with the honor and the reward of the Presidential Doct oral Fellowship; it was part of my decision to attend USF, and I am certainly glad that I did so. Further, thank you to all my friends, fam ily, and even strangers who helped with data collection. For me, data collection was the most diffi cult and harrowing part of the dissertation, giving me countless hours of worry and anguish. Particular thanks to Lora Levett, Courtney Dean, Stacey Kessler, Iwona Misiuta, Sarah Greathouse, Richard Vigil, Kelly Thompson, Terrie Bruursema, Becky Pa niwozik, Kimberly O'Brien, David Walsh, Gary Bruursema, Kevin Bruurse ma, Marty and Alison Montpetit, and Amy Black all of whom went out of their way to help me recr uit additional participants; I truly could not have gathered enough data without all of your help. Thank you especially to Lora Levett a nd Richard Vigil, and also to Stacey Kessler, Sarah Greathouse, Becky Paniwozik, Courtney Dean, and Marty Montpetit for getting it, for having faith in me, for pushi ng me when I needed it, for offering kindness and commiseration when I really wanted it. Your love was instrumental and deeply appreciated.
Thank you to my boss at Merck, Eric Braverman, for being supremely supportive of my dissertation efforts, giving me tim e off to collect additional data, offering encouragement and advice, and giving me inva luable applied experience while I worked toward this goal. Moreover, thank you to al l the people in my ar ea at Merck for being supportive during data collection an d congratulatory at completion. And a big thank you to the teachers and professors who believed I could accomplish great things with my mind. Fi rst, my high school AP psychology teacher, Sandy Strobel Johnson, for setting me on the path to a Ph.D. in I/O psychology when I didn't even know what either was. To my faculty advisor at Grand Valley, Michael Costello, who suggested that I minor in a pplied statistics and st udy for the GREs if I wanted to be an I/O psychologist. To John Adamopoulos whose brilliance made me interested in values as a basis for compatibility and confrontation among people and groups. To Heather Gavlas, my calculus prof essor, who said, "Don't be afraid to go somewhere good for your Ph.D. You're sm art enough." To Tom Herzog and Neal Rogness who wrote letters of recommendation and gave me great advice during decision time about graduate school Â– thank you. It has been a long journey, and I am pl eased with where it has led me. Thank you even to those I have not mentioned for maki ng the trip easier, bette r, sweeter, and, of course, more fun and less boring. And last but certainly not least, thank you to Ian Addy for being such a positive force in my life throughout this process. T hough there is no such thing as time, timing is everything, and I am blessed that you came along when you did Â– Â“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.Â” Thank you.
i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. .iii List of Figures................................................................................................................ .iv Abstract....................................................................................................................... ......v Chapter One Introduction............................................................................................................. ....1 CWB.................................................................................................................. .....2 Measuring CWB.............................................................................................3 CWB in perspective: Its impact on organizations...........................................5 Individual differences antecedents of CWB...................................................7 Situational antecedents of CWB.....................................................................8 Values.............................................................................................................. ....11 The rela tionship of values w ith other variables............................................16 Individual values & CWB...................................................................................21 Trait boredom...................................................................................................... 26 Job boredom........................................................................................................ 32 Job characteristics...............................................................................................3 6 The current study................................................................................................42 Chapter Two Method................................................................................................................... ...44 Participants....................................................................................................... ...44 Procedure.......................................................................................................... ..45 Measures........................................................................................................... ..45 Demographics..............................................................................................46 Individual values..........................................................................................4 7 Trait boredom............................................................................................... 48 Job boredom................................................................................................. 49 Job characteristics........................................................................................5 0 Counterproductive work behaviors..............................................................51 Chapter Three Results.................................................................................................................. .....53 Chapter Four
ii Discussion.............................................................................................................. ..65 Hypothesis 1: Conf ormity, security, & tr adition with CWB..............................66 Hypothesis 2: Self transcendence values and CWB...........................................69 Hypotheses 3 & 4: Boredom proneness & CWB................................................70 Interaction between trait & job boredom on abuse.............................................73 Hypotheses 5-8: Job boredom & CWB..............................................................74 Added CWB items: Horseplay............................................................................77 Hypotheses 9-13: Valu es and job characteristics as moderators........................78 Co-worker report issues......................................................................................80 Theoretical implications......................................................................................81 Practical implications..........................................................................................82 Limitations........................................................................................................ ..83 Conclusions........................................................................................................ .84 References..................................................................................................................... ..86 Appendices..................................................................................................................... .96 About the Author.................................................................................................End page
iii List of Tables Table 1 Values and their motivational definitions...............................................13 Table 2 Job categories of participants..................................................................44 Table 3 Descriptive statisti cs for all study variables............................................53 Table 4 Zero order Pearson correlations among values.......................................54 Table 5 First order partial corre lations among values and CWB.........................55 Table 6 Zero order Pearson corre lations among boredom and CWB..................56 Table 7 Results for trait boredom, job boredom, abuse moderated regression analysis..................................................................................57 Table 8 Results for non-significa nt interactions on sabotage..............................58 Table 9 Results for non-significant interaction on production deviance.............59 Table 10 Intercorrelations among job characteristics............................................60 Table 11 Correlations with j ob characteristics and CWB......................................60 Table 12 Moderated regression of benevolence and task significance on CWBO................................................................................................63 Table 13 Summary of all study hypotheses...........................................................63 Table 14 Correlations between job boredom and all facets of CWB controlling for trait boredom...................................................................76
iv List of Figures Figure 1. SSA map of observed rela tions among values in Portuguese student sample.........................................................................................16 Figure 2. Interaction between trai t and job boredom on CWB-abuse....................58 Figure 3. Interaction between ta sk significance and benevolence on CWBO.....................................................................................................63
v How Individual Values and Trait Boredom In terface with Job Characteristics and Job Boredom in Their Effects on C ounterproductive Work Behavior Kari Bruursema Abstract The purpose of this study was to examin e relationships among individual values, trait boredom, job boredom, j ob characteristics, and CWB. Job boredom and trait boredom were expected to be positively re lated to CWB. Individual values and job characteristics were expected to moderate the relationship between boredom and different types of CWB. Completed online questionnaires were received from 211 participants, and 112 co-worker matches also submitted online surv eys. The Schwartz Value Survey, Job Descriptive Index, Job Boredom Scale, a nd Boredom Proneness Scale were used to assess independent variables. The Count erproductive Work Behavior Checklist measured the dependent variable. Results we re analyzed using correlation and moderated regression. Both trait boredom and job boredom showed large significant co rrelations with all forms of CWB. Additiona lly, co-worker reported job boredom showed significant correlations with some forms of CWB. Valu es showed small and mostly non-significant relationships with CWB and no moderating e ffects on the boredom/C WB relationship. Job characteristics showed relationships with some forms of CWB but did not interact with boredom in its effects on CWB. In ge neral, moderating eff ects were not found in
vi the relationships among boredom, values, job ch aracteristics, and CWB. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
1 Chapter One Introduction The problems associated with boredom at work have been examined by several researchers (e.g. Kass, Vodanovich, & Ca llender, 2001; Lee, 1986; MacDonald & MacIntyre, 1997; Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh, & Kessler 2006). In short, this research has demonstrated that boredom is associated with negative outcomes such as diminished job satisfaction, higher self-re port and objective-report absenteeism and tardiness, and significantly different workplace outcomes than are associated with other negative emotional states such as anger or disgust. Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB), or volitional behavior engaged in by employees that harms organizations and/or or ganizational stakeholde rs including clients, coworkers, supervisors, or employees (Spect or & Fox, 2005), is an outcome variable of interest to organizational researchers because of the great harm it has caused organizations. As an example, the Nationa l Retail Security Survey states that $31.3 billion was lost to inventory shrinkage in 2001, half of which was due to employee theft. The research evidence linking boredom and CWB has been scant and generally limited to withdrawal behaviors like absenteeism and theft. Furthermore, research to date has not examined the potential impact of job boredom on CWB while simultaneously examining other individual difference and environmental characteristics that could impact the relationship.
2 Individual values, or deeply entrenched criteria people use to evaluate everything (Schwartz, In press, a), may impact what a pe rson finds boring and how they react to that boredom, for instance. As well, trait bor edom, or boredom proneness, may influence how a boring work situation is evaluated by an individual job incu mbent. Finally, the actual characteristics of the j ob itself may provide a good or poor fit with an individualÂ’s values and preferences and thereby influence if the work situation is evaluated as boring and whether or not to respond to it negatively by engaging in CWB. Purpose of this study The purpose of this study was to exam ine the counterproductive work behaviors engaged in by individuals who hold boring jobs and who possess different internal characteristics. The main idea was that indi viduals who have certain characteristics will not react negatively to their boring jobs. So, in essence, this study addressed the incidence of CWB as a function of particular characteristics of the individual, namely individual values and trait bor edom, and certain aspects of th e job itself, specifically the characteristics of the job and how boring it is Thus, this study examined both situational and environmental precursors to CWB. In ad dition, and as recommended in the literature (Sackett & Devore, 2001; Spector, Fox, Penne y, Bruursema, Goh, Kessler, in press), CWB was looked at comprehensively, as bot h a total score on a single measure and as scores on multiple indices, each measuring different components of CWB. CWB CWB is volitional behavior by employ ees that harms organizations and/or organizational stakeholders including client s, coworkers, customers, and supervisors (Spector & Fox, 2005). Examples of CWB ra nge from ignoring someone at work to
3 sabotaging equipment. Counterproductive beha vior in the workplac e has been studied under many different labels and from nume rous theoretical perspectives including organizational aggression (Neuman & Baron, 19 98), antisocial behavior in organizations (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1998), organizational delinque ncy (Hogan & Hogan, 1989), revenge (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer 1997), organizational retali ation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and workplace deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). The common thread among the aforementioned research is that all of the behavior is engaged in by employees of the organization and is detr imental in its effects. The focus of the present study was both overall CWB and various sub-facets of the construct. Therefore, the following review will center on CWB gene rally and the specific facets of CWB that are of interest in this study. First, the literature pe rtaining to the measurement of CWB will be reviewed, then I will detail the outco mes associated with CWB, and finally I will discuss antecedents of CWB. Measuring CWB. The factor structure of CWB was first examined by Spector (1975). Using as a theoretical basis, Dolla rd, Doob, Miller, Mowrer and SearsÂ’s (1939) Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis, which holds that a situation interferes with individual goal attainment resulting in frustration which leads to a ggression, Spector devised a study linking frustration at work to a checklist of CWBs. He then factor analyzed the CWB items in his questionnaire, resulting in six interpretable factors: (1) aggression against others (e.g. being rude or na sty to others), (2) sabotage (e.g. damaging property belonging to the employer), (3) wasting of time and ma terials (e.g. daydreaming), (4) interpersonal hostility and complaining (e.g. speaking ill of the job), (5) interper sonal aggression (e.g.
4 starting an argument with a co-worker), (6) apathy about the job (e.g. intentionally doing work incorrectly). In 1983, Hollinger and Clark developed a wide-ranging list of counterproductive behaviors and provided a con ceptual framework that divi ded the behaviors into two categories: production deviance, violating organizational norms about how and when to do work; and property deviance, breaki ng or misusing organizational assets. Robinson and Bennett (1995) expanded on the ideas of Hollinger and Clark by adding interpersonally counterproductive beha viors. Using a multi-dimensional scaling technique, they created a typology of devian t behavior. Workplace deviance was defined by the researchers as voluntary behavior that violates orga nizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization, its memb ers, or both. Their results indicated a typology with two dimensions and therefore f our quadrants; deviant behaviors could be divided on the organizational/interpersona l dimension and on the minor/serious dimension. Taking a cue from Hollinger and Clark (1983), they named the four quadrants as follows: property deviance (org anizational Â– serious), production deviance (organizational Â– minor), pers onal aggression (interpersonal Â– serious), and political deviance (interpersonal Â– minor). An example of a behavior in the minor organizational deviance quadrant is taking excessive breaks. An example behavior in the major deviant organizational behavior quadrant is de stroying property. Likewise, a minor interpersonally deviant act is blaming coworkers for errors while a serious interpersonally deviant act is verbal abuse. A decade later, Spector et al. (2006) published a paper summarizing research results regarding the dimensionality of a be havioral CWB checklist. Like Robinson and
5 BennettÂ’s scale, this measure distinguishes between organizational (CWBO) and personal CWB (CWBP). Spector et al. further found th at 33 of the 45 items could be sorted by subject matter experts into 5 distinct dimensions: (1) abus e against others; (2) production deviance; (3) theft; (4) withdrawal; and (5) sa botage. Abuse against others consists of either physically or psychologically harmful be haviors directed toward coworkers. These behaviors range in severity from ignori ng someone to hitting or pushing someone. Production deviance is the purposeful failure to perform job tasks effectively. An example would be purposely working slow ly. Sabotage is defacing or destroying someone elseÂ’s property. For example, purposely damaging a piece of equipment belonging to the organization is a form of sa botage. Theft, willfully taking someone elseÂ’s property, can be either organizationa l or personal CWB depending on the target. Finally, withdrawal encompasses any behavior that restricts time spent working to less than what is required by the organization. Th e benefit of looking at these behaviors as separate categories rather than in total is that given the different behaviorsÂ’ variations in both target and degree, they may have very different antecedents. CWB in perspective: It s impact on organizations. Until recently, the scope of the organizational effects of the CWB problem had not been empirically examined. Instead, researchers relied on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Chamber of Commerce, and Occupational Safety & Health Administration data involving theft, assaults, and failing businesses in estimating the prevalence of the problem. Although statistics from these sources do shed some light on the scope of probl ems in the workplace, the trouble is that they often do not distinguish between for instance, violence and homicides perpetuated by co-workers and those committed by customers or other outsiders. As CWB is
6 concerned with behaviors performed by empl oyees, many of the cases included in the statistics are outside the purvi ew of the CWB construct. A few studies have reported descriptive statistics on the pe rcentage of people who admit stealing from their employers or experiencing verbal aggr ession at work (e.g. Geddes & Baron, 1997; McGurn, 1988). However, these are essentially samples of CWB behaviors and do not address in a systematic way the larger i ssue of how widespread and da maging the problem of CWB is to the organization as a whole. Recently, Dunlop and Lee (2004) sought to specifically address this question: How damaging is individual CWB at the organi zational level? The researchers referred to the construct as workplace deviant be havior (WDB) according to Robinson and BennettÂ’s terminology, but the construct space is essentially the same as CWB. The study concurrently looked at the effects of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) on business unit performance. The research ers found that WDB negatively impacted both supervisor (subjective) and fina ncial (objective) indicators of business unit performance. Additionally, they found that OCB exerted mu ch smaller to non-significant effects on unit performance. Finally, they found that the ratios of be tween-unit variance to withinunit variance were much greater for the WDB va riables than for the OCB variables. This means that individuals within the same work group showed c onsiderably more similarity in how much deviant behavior they engaged in than in how much citizenship behavior they engaged in. The authors explained th is in the context of experimental gaming literature whereby competitive, exploitative behaviors are more contagious than cooperative behaviors in the s hort term. In other words, WDB is extremely damaging not
7 just due to its own monetary effects and due to organizations not operating at peak efficiency but also because WDB tends to ca tch on in others witne ssing the behavior. Individual Differences Antecedents of CWB. In identifying antecedents of CWB, researchers generally distinguish betw een individual difference variables and environmental/situational variables. Resear chers are even somewhat divided on which antecedents they prefer to study with some stating that individual difference models are of limited utility or even misguided attempts at understanding the problem (e.g. OÂ’LearyKelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996; Robinson & Green berg, 1998). In this study, I examined individual values and trait boredom as poten tial individual differe nce CWB precursors. Therefore, in this section, I will review th e major findings with respect to relevant individual difference precursors to CWB; in the next section, I will describe the research on situational precursors. No empirical work to date has examined the impact of indivi dual values or trait boredom on CWB; however, re searchers have examined various other individual difference variables and their effects on CW B. First, integrity tests have shown promising correlations with CWB. In a series of papers, Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993a, b, & c; 1994) reported that inte grity tests predict substance abuse, broad non-theft based CWB behaviors, aggressive be havior, and absence (c orrected correlation coefficients range from .13 to .46). These findings are especi ally significant because in their meta analysis, Ones and colleagues (1993c ) only used studies in which an applicant sample was used that employed a predictive design with non-self report of the criterion variable.
8 Aside from the research on integrity and CWB, researchers have also examined effects of trait anger and ot her negative personal traits with CWB. Fox and Spector (1999) found that both trait a nger and trait anxiety correlate d with CWB (r = .59 and r = .36 respectively). In the study, both a ngry reaction to provocation and angry temperament were related to CWB. Mile s, Borman, Spector, and Fox (2002) found a slightly lower but still significant correlati on between trait anger and CWB (r = .38) using a different sample and theoretical appro ach. Similarly, Douglas and Martinko (2001) found that trait anger, attitude toward revenge, hostile attributional st yle, self control and negative affect correlated significantly w ith incidence of workplace aggression. Correlations ranged from .21 for negative affect to .68 for trait anger and attitude toward revenge. In a related vein, Neuman and Baron (1998) indicated that ho stile attributional style, Type A behavior patterns, and lo w self-monitoring play important roles in predicting aggressive workplace behaviors. Further, Penney (2002) found that nonclinical narcissism relates to self-reports of CWB and incivility at work. Finally, Penney and Spector (2005) found positive relationships between negative affectivity and several forms of CWB. Taken as a whol e, this research runs counter to assertions that individual difference variables are poor predictors of CWB. Instead, the aforementioned studies give credibility to the idea that personal ity variables are useful in deepening our understanding of CW B and its causes. Situational Antecedents of CWB. In this study, I examined a specific component of the environment, namely job charact eristics, and a personal reaction to the environment, job boredom, and their relations hips with CWB. Some prior work has
9 examined both of these variables with respect to CWB. That work will be reviewed in this section along with other key situational variables and their relationships with CWB. Two major streams of research that take a situational approach to CWB are the organizational justice and the emotion/stresso r perspectives. The organizational justice perspective, whose major proponents include Greenberg (Greenberg, 1990) and Skarlicki and Folger (1997), view CWB as a cognitive-ba sed response to unfairness, based in part on AdamsÂ’ (1965) Equity Theory. More expl icitly, these studies s how that CWB is a response to injustice in the environment. This injustice could be dist ributive (f airness of outcomes and reward distribution; this is th e type that is based on Equity Theory), procedural (process by which decisions a bout reward allocations are made), or interactional (quality of treatment fr om organizational members while enacting organizational procedures). Several other studies have s hown this link between various types of injustice in the or ganizational environment and CWB (e.g., Barlin g & Phillips, 1993; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; G oh, Bruursema, Fox, & Spector, 2003). The emotion/stressor approach as articul ated by Spector (1998) and Spector and Fox (2002) looks at CWB as an emotional resp onse to a stressful environment (i.e. job stressors) that results in beha vioral strain (in this case, CWB). Many situational factors have been examined through this job stre ss/emotion-centered lens. Organizational constraints (Peters & OÂ’Connor, 1980) are s ituations at work that inhibit task performance. Examples are an ill-equipped office and inadequate training. Correlations between organizational constrai nts and CWB are in the .26 to .32 range (e.g. Goh et al., 2003; Miles et al., 2002). Supporting the job st ress model, studies have shown partial (Fox et al., 2001) to full (Bruursema & Sp ector, 2005) mediation of the relationship
10 between constraints and CWB by negative emo tion. Other situational variables showing very similar relationships with negative emotions and CWB are job autonomy (e.g. Bruursema & Spector, 2005), tr ansactional leadership st yle (Bruursema & Spector, 2005), and workload (Miles et al., 2002). Conf lict with both supervisors and co-workers at work shows one of the strongest relati onships with CWB (Bruk & Spector, 2006) and is only partially mediated by negative emotions Finally, organizationa l justice also fits within the theoretical approach of the j ob stress model as show n by Fox and colleagues (2001). In that study, procedur al justice was related to CWB and mediated by negative emotions. Additionally Bruursema and Spect or (2005) found that both procedural and distributive justice showed significant relati onships with CWB and provided evidence for full mediation by negative emotion. To sum, the literature on s ituational variables supports the idea that situational antecedents of CWB ar e important in understanding the construct. More specific to this study, some resear ch has examined the relationships between job characteristics and CWB. Hackman a nd OldhamÂ’s (1976) Job Characteristics Model states that a set of core job characteristics (skill variety, ta sk identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback) lead to set of cri tical psychological stat es (e.g. experienced meaningfulness of the work), which lead to a set of job and life-re lated outcomes. One study that has examined the impact of job characteristics on CWB is by Rentsch and Steele (1998). The researchers found a rela tionship between job ch aracteristics scores and objective measures of attendance. The correlations were between -.2 and -.25 for skill variety, task identity, and autonomy. This indicates that there is a meaningful relationship between the vari ety of job duties, ownership of work outcomes, and
11 independence in completing job tasks and withdr awal behavior. In other research on job characteristics, Klein, Leong, and Silva (1996) found links between self-reported sabotage and autonomy scores. Those indivi duals reporting that their supervisors watched them too closely and did not allow th em to complete their work according to their own plans reported more counterproductive behaviors. Also germane to this study, some work has looked at the effects of job boredom on CWB. Kass, Vodanovich, and Callender ( 2001) found that individuals high on job boredom also showed significantly higher scor es on an objective measure of absenteeism, which is a form of withdrawal. In a separa te study using a truck driver sample, Drory and Ben-Gurion (1982) found that self reports of job boredom were related to objective personnel file reports of reduced work effectiveness. Although reduced work effectiveness is not CWB per se, it is relate d to the occurrence of CWB. Jointly, these two studies provide preliminary support fo r a link between job boredom and CWB. Taken together, the research literature on individual difference and situational antecedents of CWB show that both factors are important in predicting CWB and gives credence to the idea that the individual and situational variables included in this study are viable antecedents of CWB. The rema inder of the introduction is devoted to understanding the four independe nt variables in more detail and laying out the rationale for their projected rela tionships with CWB. Values Values are criteria people use to evaluate actions, people (including the self), and events (Schwartz, In press, a). Elsewhere, Rokeach (1973) gives a similar definition of values as desirable, transsituational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding
12 principles in peopleÂ’s lives. In 1968, Rokeach, one of the first psychologists to talk about values, predicted that there w ould be a high degree of intere st in values in the social psychology literature. However, the 1970s th rough early 1990s saw an explosion of research in attitudes, attributions, social cognition, and group processes, while values were largely ignored (Oishi, Schimmack, Di ener, & Suh, 1998). Then, starting in 1992, Schwartz and his colleagues began large scal e, cross-cultural studies of the nature, content, and structure of hu man values. As SchwartzÂ’s work has become a dominant individual values paradigm to the present day, his theoretical appr oach and study results will be emphasized here. After over a decade of research, Schwartz (In press, a) concludes the following about the nature of individual values: (1) Valu es are beliefs tied inextricably to emotions, (2) Values are motivational, referring to desira ble goals people strive to attain, (3) Values transcend specific actions and situations, (4) Va lues are standards that guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events, and (5) Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. Theref ore, values differ from norms and attitudes since these terms refer to specific actions, obj ects, or situations while values refer to overarching policies to govern choices a nd behavior across all situations. Explaining where values come from and what purpose they serve, Schwartz (In press, a) explains that they are inherent fr om an evolutionary viewpoint and motivated by three major needs: (1) needs of individuals as biological or ganisms, (2) requirements of coordinated social interac tion, and (3) the survival a nd welfare needs of groups. Succinctly, values exist to help the indi vidual survive Â– by helping to meet the
13 individualÂ’s biological needs, get along with others, and protect groups to which the individual belongs. Schwartz proposes a unifying theory of va lues for the field of human motivation (see Schwartz, In press, a, for a review). Essentially, through research on 64,271 people drawn from samples from 67 different countri es located on every inhabitable continent, Schwartz found evidence for ten consistent human values. Schwartz used Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA; a non-metric scali ng technique that maps items as points in multidimensional space where the distance between points represents interrelations among items), elsewhere called Smallest Space Analysis (e.g. Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999), to reach his conclusion that there are ten motivationally distinct human values that exist across cultures. These ten values and their accompanying definitions are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Values and their motivational definitions. Value Motive of each value Power Social status and prestige control or dominance over people and resources Achievement Personal success th rough demonstrating competence according to social standards Hedonism Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life Self-direction Independent thought and action Â– choosing, creating, exploring Universalism Understanding, appreciati on, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature Benevolence Preservation and enhancem ent of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide Conformity Restraint of actions, incl inations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate so cial expectations or norms Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self
14 Further, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with samples from 27 countries, Schwartz (Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004) established that certain values are compatible with one another while others ar e in conflict and that a quasi-circumplex model fit the data best. This is because some values reflect motivations that are diametrically opposed to others; thus, they appear opposite in the circumplex structure. For instance, it would be very difficult if not impossible for the same individual, in the same act, to reflect both uni versalism and power values. By definition, power is about dominating and controlling peopl e or resources and obtaining social status and prestige for the individual. Universalism, on th e other hand, is defined as understanding, appreciating, and protecting all people and natu re, and being one with the environment. Therefore, in a single act, it would be extrem ely challenging for an individual to both act to understand and protect people and to dominate and control them. Figure 1 depicts SchwartzÂ’s universal st ructure of values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2004). Values adjacent to one another in the circle reflect similar motivational content whereas values opposite one another in the circle reflect c onflicting motivational content. Moreover, values on the left side of the circle primarily serve interests of individuals whereas values on th e right side of the circle primarily serve interests of the collective. To break it down further, values in the first quadrant (the top right of the circle) all reflect a motivation to go beyond the self and care for others (i.e., selftranscendence values); values in the sec ond quadrant (bottom right of the circle) are motivated by maintaining the st atus quo (i.e., conservation); va lues in the third quadrant (bottom left of the circle) are motivated by promoting the self (i.e ., self-enhancement);
15 and values in the fourth quadr ant (top left of the circle) are motivated by a desire for novelty (i.e., openness to change). Delving deeper into the dynamic relati onships among the values illustrated in Figure 1, we can extrapolate the shared motiv ational emphases of ad jacent values (from Schwartz, In press, a). Starting in the th ird quadrant with power and achievement, the shared motive is social superiority and es teem. Moving clockwise around the circle, achievement and hedonism share a motivation for self-centered sa tisfaction. Hedonism and stimulation are both motivated by a de sire for affectively pleasant arousal. Stimulation and self-direction bo th reflect intrinsic interest in novelty and mastery. Selfdirection and universalism shar e a reliance on oneÂ’s own judg ment and comfort with the diversity of existence. Universalism and benevolence are both motivated by a desire for enhancement of others and transcendence of selfish interest. Benevolence and conformity share a motivation for normative beha vior that promotes close relationships. Benevolence and tradition are both motivated by devotion to oneÂ’s in-group. Conformity and tradition are similar in that both empha size subordination of th e self in favor of socially imposed expectations. Tradition and security are similarly motivated by preserving existing social arra ngements that give certainty to life. Conformity and security both emphasize protection of order a nd harmony in relations. Finally, security and power are similarly motivated by a voiding or overcoming threats by controlling relationships and resources.
16 SELF-DIRECTION UNIVERSALISM Freedom* *Equality Broadminded* *Unity with Nature *Protecting Environment *Social Justice Independent* *Wisdom *World at Peace *Privacy World of Inner *Moderate Varied Life* *Creativity Self of Beauty *True Harmony* Spiritual* Respect Friendship *Helpful Life STIMULATION *Curious Choosing *Loyal *Daring own Goals* Honest* *Exciting Life Responsible BENEVOLENCE Pleasure *Self Indulgent Healthy* Enjoying Life *Capable *Forgiving HEDONISM Social Order* Intelligent Meaning Mature Love* Humble* in Life* ACHIEVEMENT Self-Discipline* *Influential Honor Parents* Devout* *Successful *Clean Family* Social Security *Politeness Obedient* Respect for Wealth* *Ambitious Recognition* National*Security *Tradition CONFORMITY Accepting* Portion Authority Sense of* Reciprocation* in Life Belonging of Favors TRADITION *Preserving POWER Social Power* Public Image SECURITY Figure 1. SSA map of observed relations among values in Portuguese student sample (n=198; coefficient of alienation = .24) The relationship of values with other variables. Schwartz (see In press, b) states that there are two implications of the ci rcular motivational structure for valuesÂ’ relationships with other variab les: (1) Values that are ad jacent in the structure should have similar associations with other variables, and (2) Associ ations of values with other variables should decrease monot onically in both directions around the circle from the most positively to most negatively associated value. This yields a systematic, coherent set of hypotheses relating value priorities to other variable s. An illustration of this pattern can be seen when examining the relati onship of years of education with values. Education is correlated most positively with self-direction (r = .26) and most negatively with conformity (r = -.28) and tradition (r = -22). The correlations decrease in both directions going around the circle with just one reversal, achievement is more highly
17 correlated with education (r = .14) than is hedonism (r = .09). These reversals, or deviations from hypotheses, according to Schwartz (1996), can be useful as they direct us to search for special conditions that enhan ce or weaken relations of a variable with values. This expected pattern of associati on following the circular structure is important for this study because the hypotheses for rela tionships between CWB and various values will relate not only to the value of intere st, but also to nearby and opposite values. A second issue that will have a bearing on th is research is the relative stability of values within an individual over time. If va lues are consistent thr oughout an individualÂ’s lifetime, then their influence on other variables, such as CWB, is more important than if values are constantly in flux. Inglehart ( 1997) demonstrated that older persons give higher priority to materialist (economic and physical security) vs. post-materialist (selfexpression and quality of life) values than younger people. He interpreted this as a cohort effect due to changes in security and prospe rity in the past 50 y ears and concluded that people form values in adolescence that change little thereafter. Elsewhere, researchers have concluded that values are relatively st able motivational characteristics that change little during adulthood (e.g. Feather, 1971; Rokeach, 1973; & Schwartz, 1997). Schwartz views the causal relationshi p between individua l values and life stages/age as reciprocal (see Schwartz, In pr ess, b). He indicates that though the major transmission of values and their interna lization occurs in ch ildhood and adolescence, many factors in oneÂ’s later years can change values. He discusses that the effects of physical aging may increase oneÂ’s motivation for security since a more predictable environment tends to be safer. Conversely, hedonism values may become less important as dulling of the senses reduces the capacity to enjoy sensual pleasure. He also discusses
18 how life stages such as star ting a career or family may heighten the motivation for achievement, tradition, and security as indivi duals become invested in a work and/or family situation that they are committed to preserve. The data support these ideas quite well, showing that age correla tes most positively with secu rity (r = .22), tradition (r = .20), and conformity (r = .19) and most negati vely with stimulation (r = -.28), hedonism (r = -.33), and achievement (r = -.17). Howe ver, Schwartz points out that though it is reasonable to expect that, in general, these valu es become more or less salient with age, it is not possible to rule out a cohort effect completely. Further, Schwartz (In press, b) reports test-retest reliabilities for the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), one of the key measures in his approach, for periods of one week, six weeks, and two years. Reliability corre lations for the 1 week time frame ranged from .77 for conformity to .94 for power. For the six week time frame, correlations ranged from .62 for benevolence to .82 for achievement. And for the two year time frame, correlations ranged from .50 for benevolence to .66 for tradition. As one would expect, correlations diminish with length of time be tween administrations, but individual values do not appear to fluctuate widely even over a pe riod of two years. In brief, research and theory suggest that values are reasonably stable over time but certain values may diminish in importance with age while others become more important. A third consideration regarding values that is vital to this study is the relationship between values and behavior. If values do not relate to behavior in a reliable, systematic way, then there would be little reason to susp ect that values would be associated with CWB. Research by Verplanken and Holland (2002), Bardi and Schwartz (2003), and Schwartz (In press, b) has addressed the question of the extent and nature of the
19 relationship between values and behavior. First, Verplanken and HollandÂ’s (2002) work indicates that value activation must occur in order to affect behavi or. And the likelihood that a value will be activated depends on its accessibility, which is largely determined by its importance to the individual. Therefore, important values are more strongly related to behavior. The researchers demonstrated this through primi ng subjects with environmental words (e.g. nature, river); late r, students for whom environmental (i.e. universalism) values were impor tant made more environmenta lly friendly choices. In the same research, they also demonstrated that self-focus rather than specific value-focus increases value-behavior relations. They mani pulated self-focus by ha ving subjects circle words relating to the self in a text (e.g., I, me, mine), or, in the control condition, words that do not relate to the self (e.g., at, the, it ). Later, subjects for whom benevolence and universalism values were important gave more to Amnesty International when they were in the self-focus condition. The crucial elem ent here is the presence of experimental control, thereby demonstrating that values cause behavior. Aside from value activation, there are three other ways by which values can influence behavior. First, values can influence motivation by inducing valences on possible actions (Feather, 1988). Therefore, ac tions become more attractive to the extent that they promote attainment of valued goals. Moreover, values influence much of our everyday behavior with little conscious awar eness of their influe nce (see Feather, 1995 for elaboration). Connecting this to th e current study, values are fundamental to motivating our behavior; this suggests th at doing specific CWBs should vary among different individuals depending on which va lues are most important to them, and therefore motivate different behaviors.
20 Second, values influence attention, percep tion, and interpretati on in situations. Thereby high priority values are persistent goals that guide people to seek out and attend to value-relevant aspe cts of a situation (Sch wartz, Sagiv, & Boehnke, 2000). In this way, the same situation is defined very differently by different individuals in light of his or her own principal values because thes e values direct the individual to attend to the things in the situation most salient to those values. This is important in the present study because values influence the way a situation is percei ved; accordingly, a situation (or job) is not boring in an objective sense, but through the subjective screen of oneÂ’s own values. Third, oneÂ’s values influence the planni ng of an action. Gollwitzer (1996) argues that more important goals induce a stronger motivation to plan thoroughly. As follows, higher priority values are more likely to elicit planning and therefore behavioral expression of the value. GollwitzerÂ’s experi ments show that planning then increases the probability of goal-directed behavior for three reasons: (1) planning focuses people on the pros of a behavior rather than the cons, (2) planning increases a pers onÂ’s belief in his or her abilities to reach the goal successfully, and (3) planning increases persistence in the face of obstacles. The four aforementioned processes explai n how values can influence behavior. Longitudinal research by Bardi and Schwartz (2003) shows how behavior and values actually relate to one another. The researchers first genera ted ten sets of 6-10 behaviors that primarily express one of the ten broad va lues. Participants completed the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and later rated the fre quency with which they had performed the various behaviors in the last ye ar. Romantic partners and pe ersÂ’ reports of participantsÂ’ behaviors were collected too. The res earchers found that stimulation (r = .64, .35),
21 hedonism (r = .55, .29), power (r = .52, .25), and self-direction (r = .47, .29) values were most closely linked to specific behaviors (self-report correlati ons are listed first, otherreport correlations follow). Meanwhile, s ecurity (r = .31, .10), achievement (r = .38, .20), conformity (r = .40, .18), and benevolence (r = .43, .18) values showed the lowest valuebehavior correlations. The specific behaviors examined in the study were cooperation in a game, voting for a center-right over a center-left ca ndidate, and making environmentally friendly purchases Of note here, all self and other reports of values and behavior were significantly co rrelated with the exception of ot her reports of security (r = .10). To sum, relationships between values an d behavior in the seri es of studies were moderate or better for self -reports and small to modera te for other-reports. Concisely, the ten values show systematic relationships with ot her variables that derive from their circular structure, whic h will have implications for the hypotheses in this study; values remain reasonably st able over the adult lifespan, allowing for conclusions predicated on them to remain a pplicable for a reasonable period of time; and values show definite relationships with behavior that is, of course, moderated by circumstances in the environment and other characteristics of the person. Individual Values & CWB Now that the relevant values theory and re search literature have been elucidated, I will describe the expected connection between individual values and CWB. Essentially, my supposition is that since values are enduri ng aspects of our personality that permeate all of our motivations and decisions, they s hould influence our choi ces and behaviors at work. Interestingly, relatively little work ha s examined the impact of values at work. One study examined the link between basic i ndividual values and work values (Ros,
22 Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999). The researchers found that each of the four work values paralleled one of the four higher order basic values. Specifically, th ey found that intrinsic or self actualization work values related significantly to openness to change values (r = .23) and negatively with conservation values (r = -.23). Examples of intrinsic work value items are, Â“Interesting and varied work,Â” and, Â“Work in which you are your own boss.Â” This finding, extremely relevant to the curren t study, shows that for some individuals, an interesting job with independence from supe rvisors is not necessa rily important or desirable. Researchers also found that extrin sic work values relate d significantly with conservation values (r = .24) and negatively with openness to change values (r = -.28). Example extrinsic work value items are, Â“G ood salary and work conditions,Â” and, Â“Job security (e.g. pension).Â” Thirdly, research ers found that social/rel ational work values related significantly with self -transcendence values (r = .25 ) and negatively with selfenhancement values (r = -.32). Example relati onal work value items are, Â“Contributing to people and society,Â” and, Â“Social contact with co-workers.Â” Finally, researchers found that prestige work values correlated significan tly with self-enhancement values (r = .29) and negatively with self-tra nscendence values (r = -.23). Example prestige items are, Â“Authority to make decisions over people,Â” and, Â“Prestigious, highl y valued work.Â” Though this study did not addres s any question regarding in dividual values and work behavior, it does establish that oneÂ’s overall values match with what they value on the job. This is a noteworthy link for the cu rrent study because it establishes the pervasiveness of individual values even into oneÂ’s preference s and desires in the workplace.
23 To clarify the nature of the expected relationships between values and CWB, I reference SchwartzÂ’s (In press, b) discussion of values and anxi ety. He states that pursuit of values at the bottom of the circumplex st ructure (i.e. conformity, tradition, security, power) serve to cope with anxiety due to uncer tainty in the social and physical world. Conversely, values toward the top (i.e. universalism, benevolence, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism) express motivations that are anxiety-free. Using this idea, I expect that individuals who value conform ity will avoid CWB because of its aberrant nature and its tendency to make an individual more salient (e .g. being late, shouting at coworkers, playing mean pranks). CWB woul d produce greater anxiety in the individual, rather than less, as it threatens the st atus quo and the individualÂ’s predictable environment. Further, since conformity values are, by definition, about restraining actions, inclinations, and impulses that are likely to upset or ha rm others or violate social norms, it is likely that they will negatively relate to committing CWBs. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 1a: Conformity values will re late most negatively with overall CWB. In keeping with Schwartz Â’s (In press, b) theory and description of valuesÂ’ relationships with other variables, namely that: (1) Values that are adjacent in the structure should have similar associations with other variables, and (2) Associations of values with other variables should decrease monotonically in both directions around the circle from the most positively to most negatively associated value, the following related hypotheses are proposed: Because tradition values promote respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas of culture and religion, a nd because CWBs are e ither unethical by
24 religious or traditional culture standards (e .g., stealing from oneÂ’s employers or leaving work early) or simply frowned upon (e.g., star ting rumors, making fun of people), they are likely to be negatively re lated to CWB. Moreover, trad ition shows stronger links with behavior than do both conformity and secu rity (see Bardi & Schw artz, 2003), probably because deeply entrenched religious and cultu ral ideals inspire a wide range of a personÂ’s behaviors, so the followi ng hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 1b: Tradition values will relate second most negatively with overall CWB, after conformity. Because security values are primaril y about safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, and self, and because people who value security will likely be made even more anxious by upsetting an exp ected course of action, they are likely to relate negatively with CWB. However, secu rity values show the lowest value-behavior correlations (see Bardi & Schw artz, 2003) and an argument could be made that some CWBs could increase oneÂ’s safety and s ecurity (e.g., theft, threatening or hurting someone who has antagonized you), so the expected inverse relationship with CWB should not be as negative as the links between tradition, conformity, and CWB. Briefly: Hypothesis 1c: Security va lues will relate third most negatively with overall CWB, after traditi on and conformity. Succinctly, hypothesis 1 states that c onservation values will relate most negatively with overall CW B. When we examine the shared motivational structure of the three adjacent conservation values (Schwartz, chapter 1), the reason for this hypothesis is made clearer. First, conformity and trad ition share an emphasis on subordination of the self in favor of socially im posed expectations. This self -subordination would most likely
25 cause individuals to put aside their feelings of injustice or negative emotions for the purpose of maintaining appropriate behavi or, thereby inhibiting CWB. Similarly, tradition and security are both motivated by pr eserving existing social arrangements that give certainty to life, and conformity and security both emphasize pr otection of order and harmony in relations. As CWB is largely about disrupting harmony (e.g., starting fights) and order (e.g., hiding things so others canÂ’t find them), we would e xpect that individuals who place a strong emphasis on conservation valu es would not engage in high levels of CWB. In support of this id ea, Liu (2003) found that Chines e participants in her study reported significantly less direct conflict than American participants. Her explanation for this was on the level of cultural values. In short, she argues that among Chinese participants, high collectivistic orienta tion, which places a strong emphasis on group harmony, sanctions direct displays of bad behavior. Meanwhile, AmericansÂ’ individualist orientati on promotes Â“being true to oneself Â” and expressing issues openly in order to meet individual needs, therefore pr omoting a direct confrontational style. Looking more specifically at the vari ous forms of CWB, there were more proposed relationships with values. First, as previously discussed, personal CWBs (CWBP) reflect behaviors direct ed at individuals within the organization rather than at the organization as a whole (CWBO). These be haviors are deliberatel y directed at oneÂ’s co-workers to create problems (in the case of refusing help or spreading rumors) or induce harm (in the case of pushing, threatening, or verbally abusing). Because universalism values center on understanding, appreciating, tolerating, and protecting the welfare of all people and natu re, it is unlikely that individuals motivated primarily by
26 these values would seek to harm anyone el se. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 2a: Universalism values w ill relate most negatively with CWBP. Similarly, benevolence values should s how negative relationships with CWBP. First of all, universalism and benevolence, by virtue of their adjacent placement in the value structure, share a motivation for enha ncement of others and transcendence of selfish interest (see Schwar tz, chapter 1). Secondly, benevolence itself is about preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the Â‘in-groupÂ’). Alt hough it is likely that oneÂ’s co-wor kers are a part of oneÂ’s ingroup, it is not necessary. Therefore, for this link to work, it will depend largely on how cohesive oneÂ’s workgroup is. This is why the proposed relationship with CWB is smaller than the relationship between universalism and CWB. Concisely, Hypothesis 2b: Benevolence will relate second most negatively with CWBP, after universalism. In short, hypothesis 2 says that indi viduals who place a strong emphasis on selftranscendence values will engage in the least CWBP. Now that the primary hypotheses regardi ng simple relationships between values and counterproductive work be havior have been described, I will describe the other individual difference characteristic included in this study, namely trait boredom. I will then describe the expected associa tion between trait boredom and CWB. Trait Boredom Boredom is described in the literature as a negative, dissatisfying emotional state (e.g. Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; OÂ’Hanlon, 1981). One common definition for boredom
27 is, Â“A state of relatively low arousal and dissatisfaction which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating environment (Mi kulas & Vodanovich, 1993).Â” While boredom is frequently examined as reflecting a tempor ary state (state boredom), or boredom with the task at hand, some researchers have studi ed and described trait boredom, or boredom proneness. Farmer and Sundberg (1986) descri be the boredom prone individual as, Â“One who experiences varying degrees of de pression, hopelessness, loneliness, and distractibility. Common tasks are perceived as requiring effort with dissatisfaction with oneÂ’s work and psychological well-being.Â” Research examining the work outcomes associated with trait boredom is somewhat limited. Watt (2002) explains th at many researchers view boredom as a transitory state and do not investigate the di spositional aspects of boredom, particularly with regard to organizational outcomes. Hi s work showed that firefighters who showed high boredom proneness also showed lower personality adjustment, ambition, prudence, sociability, and school success, and perceive d higher organizational constraints and inadequate task variety. He conclude d that boredom proneness has meaningful organizational consequences that should be examined by other researchers. Supporting this contention, Kass, Vodanovich, and Calle nder (2001) found that boredom proneness related to decreased satisf action with the work itself, pay, promotion, supervision, coworkers, and the job in gene ral. In the same vein, G ould and Seib (1997) found that boredom prone teachers and restaurant workers showed significantly lower job satisfaction than teachers and workers who were not boredom prone. Although lowered job satisfaction is not the same thing as CWB, job satisfaction has shown inverse correlations with CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999).
28 A stream of research has examined the impact of boredom proneness in academic problems and deviant behavior in adolescen ts. In one study, 481 high school students filled out susceptibility to boredom scales, and these measures were correlated with objective indicators of devi ant school behavior (Wasson, 1981). Correlations were significant for both males (r = .36) and females (r = .26). Almost two decades later, in a correlational survey design, Blunt and Pyc hyl (1998) found that boredom proneness relates to academic procrastin ation. The suspected mechanism behind this relationship is that boredom prone people perceive time as passing more slowly and procrastinators underestimate the time it takes to complete a task. Combined, the researchers postulate, the two could contribute to each other. Alt hough the sample consisted of students, this could have implications fo r CWB acts of production devi ance like purposely working slowly. Another study on juveniles ( 14-18 years), employing a full self-report methodology, found that high levels of delinque nt behavior were accompanied by high boredom proneness along with many negative possi ble selves (a versi on of the self that the child is afraid of becoming) and few positive possible selves (a version of the self that the child would like to beco me) (Newberry & Duncan, 2001). A potential reason for this finding may be found in work by other res earchers. First, MacDonald and Holland (2002) found significant beta weights for the effects of existen tial well-being (i.e., meaning and purpose in life and a sense of inne r strength to cope with the existential issues of life) on boredom proneness (R = .43 for men, R = -.38 for women). Elsewhere, McLeod and Vodanovich (1991) found a significa nt negative relationship with boredom proneness and self-actualization. Together, these findings indicate that finding meaning
29 and purpose in oneÂ’s existence and seeing a desirable future relates negatively with boredom proneness. Aside from research on school outcome s of boredom proneness in children and adolescents, other work has examined the corr elates of boredom proneness in adults in other areas of non-work life. For instance, in research on undergrad uate students, Kass and Vodanovich (1990) found that boredom pron eness was similar to Type A behavior pattern in that both types of people exhibit impatience in si tuations imposing constraints and lacking in external stim ulation. Boredom proneness was also similar to sensation seeking in that both show a need for a vari ed, novel, and exciting environment. This finding is potentially important to the curre nt study because it suggests that boredom prone people would do particularly poorly under certain job conditions (e.g. mundane tasks and heavy supervision; i.e., a boring job), and the presence of impatience could signal emotional reactions to negative environmental conditio ns that could elicit CWB. Couple this with the finding by Watt and Vodanovich (1992) that boredom proneness showed a significant correl ation with impulsiveness and the finding by Vodanovich, Verner, and Gilbride (1991) that boredom pr oneness correlated significantly with all subfacets of negative affect (i.e depression, hostility, anxiety, dy sphoria), and the case for a relationship with CWB strengthens. Essent ially, boredom prone people placed in a nonstimulating work environment are likely to feel impatient, anxious, and hostile and act impulsively; in short, they are in a bad s ituation, have negative feelings, and may not think about consequences of their actions Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed:
30 Hypothesis 3a: Trait boredom will be si gnificantly positively related to overall CWB. Hypothesis 3b: The relationship be tween job boredom and CWB Â– abuse and sabotage will be moderated by trait boredom such that, the relationship will be stronger when trait boredom is also high than when trait boredom is low. To examine the relationships with bo redom proneness and specific facets of CWB, we must probe further into the nature of boredom proneness and its relationships with other variables. First, let us discuss the two major types of boredom proneness. Factor analysis of boredom proneness scales ha s revealed at least two factors: External Stimulation (BPexts) and Intern al Stimulation (BPints). BPexts measures oneÂ’s need for excitement, challenge, and change in the exte rnal environment. BPints measures oneÂ’s ability to generate adequate internal stimula tion to keep oneself interested or occupied (Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2004). Rupp and Vodanovich (1997) found that among boredom prone individuals, high BP exts scored higher on aggression questionnaires, reported more verbal aggres sion, hostility, and anger, and showed more anger suppression and anger expression than low BPexts. High BPints, on the other hand, differed from low BPints only in that their anger suppression scores were higher and their anger control scores were higher. In a stronger design that looked at possibl e moderators of the relationship, Dahlen and colleagues (2004) found that boredom pr oneness related to high aggression, trait anger, dysfunctional anger expression, and defici ts in anger control. Moreover, they were able to extend Rupp and VodanovichÂ’s ( 1997) previous findings by ruling out the possibility that the relationship was only a function of impulsiveness and sensation
31 seeking (important because prior work indicat es that these three variables are related (Watt & Vodanovich, 1992)). While adding im pulsiveness and sensation seeking to the model decreased the variance accounted for by boredom proneness in some of the dependent measures, boredom proneness remain ed a significant predictor. Of note here is that only BPexts, not BPints showed significant relationshi ps with the aggression and anger outcome variables. This indicates th at individuals who experience boredom due to lack of external stimulation are more likely to feel angry and hostile, outwardly express their anger, and have diffic ulty controlling their anger. Considering the implications of these tw o studies on the current research, it seems very likely that boredom prone individuals will be more likel y to engage in both verbally and physically aggressive forms of CWB. In the Dahlen et al. (2004) study, hierarchical multiple regression equations for both physical and verbal aggression showed significant beta weights and a significant increase in R2 values when boredom proneness (specifically BPext) was added. Considering this, it would seem that individuals who are bored due to their own need for external stim ulation would be more likely to engage in CWBs since they are generally more pr one to anger and aggression. Angry and aggressive acts of CWB would include prim arily the abuse (e.g., th reatening someone at work with violence) and sabot age (e.g., purposely damaging a piece of property at work) factors of CWB. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 4a: Trait boredom, particularly BPext, will be significantly positively related to CWB Â– abuse. Hypothesis 4b: Trait boredom, particularly BPext, will be significantly positively related to CWB Â– sabotage.
32 These hypotheses center on the most severe types of angry retaliation against coworkers (abuse) and the organization (sabotage) These associations are expected due to the findings demonstrated in prior work between boredom proneness and all forms of negative affect (Vodanovic h, et al., 1991), boredom prone ness and aggression (Rupp & Vodanovich, 1997; & Dahlen et al., 2004), and boredom proneness and sensation seeking, Type A behavior (Kass & V odanovich, 1990), and impulsivity (Watt & Vodanovich, 1992). Now that hypotheses involving the two indi vidual difference variables with CWB have been justified, I will describe the two situational variables and their expected relationships with CWB. The following sect ions will also include hypotheses that link back to both individual difference variables (values and trait boredom); in so doing, the expected relationships among all the independe nt variables with CWB will emerge. As trait boredom was described most recently, it follows that job boredom will be discussed next. Job Boredom The literature examining the link between job boredom and work outcomes is somewhat more developed than that between trait boredom and CWB. Similar to results with trait boredom, MacDonald and M acIntyre (1997) found significant negative correlations between job satisfaction and job boredom. Using an administrative sample, Lee (1986) also found that individuals bored by the job were less satisfied with many aspects of the job. More to the point, research with the Job Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS; VanKatwyk, Fox, Spector, & Kelloway, 2000) gi ves some additional insight into the
33 relationship between job boredom, other emo tions, and CWB. The JAWS includes one item that reads, Â“My job made me feel bore d.Â” To this item, respondents indicate on a 5point scale how often they feel the emotion at work. This item correlates from .20 to .49 with various CWB-withdrawal items (B ruursema & Spector, 2005). Research on relationships between different emotions and CWB have shown that boredom behaves differently than other emotions. Boredom does not inter-relate with other negative emotional states such as angry, anxious, depressed, discouraged, fatigued, frightened, furious, and gloomy (Spector & Fox, 2003). A factor analys is for the Spector and Fox study showed boredom on one factor and all of the other negative emotions on the other. Spector et al. (2006) found that job boredom (measured with 1 self-report item on the JAWS) correlated .27 with withdrawal, which was the only one of the 5 sub-facets of CWB to significantly relate to boredom. Taken together, these findings indicate that boredom has different causes and effects th an other negative workplace emotions. Concurrent with the relationship between job boredom and self-reported withdrawal behavior, Kass, Vodanovich, and Callender ( 2001) found that individuals who reported high job boredom showed significantly higher absenteeism (a form of withdrawal) as measured by objective organizational measures. Therefore, to replicate prior work, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 5: There will be a positi ve relationship between job boredom and CWB Â– withdrawal such that individuals hi gh on job boredom will engage in more CWB Â– withdrawal. In addition, as work by Bruk and Spector (2006) and others (e.g. Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Bruursema & Spector, 2005) has shown, employees direct their CWBs at
34 the source of their problem. Specificall y, Bruk and Spector found that conflict with supervisors resulted in higher levels of CWBO while conflict with co-workers resulted in higher levels of CWBP. Since job boredom is due to lack of a sufficiently stimulating work environment, one would expect that employees would direct their CWB at the offending organization rather than at their co-w orkers. In support of this idea, Spector et al. (2006) found that boredom at work co rrelated .33 with CWBO an even stronger correlation than with withdrawal. Ther efore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 6: Individual s high on job boredom will engage in more CWBO than individuals low on job boredom. Further, the relationship between job bor edom and CWB is expected to be such that even after the effects of trait boredom are partialled out, job boredom will still show a significant relationship with CWB. To wit, even after removing people who are chronically bored from the analysis, it is e xpected that people who are simply bored by the work situation (but engaged in other areas of life) will perform higher levels of CWB. By this thinking, the boring work situa tion can induce negative, counterproductive reactions in all people. Stating this requires two related hypotheses: Hypothesis 7a. There will be a positive re lationship between job and trait boredom. Hypothesis 7b. After controlling for tra it boredom, there will be a relationship between job boredom and CWB such that indi viduals with higher job boredom levels will engage in more CWB overall. Recalling that stimulation values ar e motivated by excitement, novelty, and challenge in life, it would seem that the expres sion of these values would be thwarted by a boring work environment. In this situat ion, individuals who place a strong emphasis on
35 stimulation values may engage in behaviors si mply to increase their level of activation. These behaviors could be innocuous in their intention, negative in their organizational consequences, and could simultaneously serve as a form of job enrichment for the bored individual. An example beha vior could be inventing a ga me to play during a boring meeting that distracts co-workers and wastes time. The intention on the part of the actor was to increase activation le vel, not to annoy or anger ot hers, but the outcome was to waste time and organizational resources and bother co-workers. U nder the definition of CWB proposed by Spector and Fox (2005), this type of behavior would still constitute CWB, as it is volitional and harm ful, but it is not intentionally harmful, so behavior like it is not included on common meas ures of CWB. On the flip side, bored individuals who do not place as strong an emphasis on stimul ation values would not be expected to engage in additional CWB beyond withdrawal. Though Spector et al. (2006) found that job boredom did not relate significantly with sabotage (r = .09) or a buse (r = .11) overall, other research has found that it correlates significantly with certain non-withdrawal CWB ite ms. Specifically, boredom correlated (r = .173) with the abuse item, Â“P layed a mean prank to embarrass someone at work,Â” as well as with miscellaneous negativi ty items such as complaining about the job (r = .197) and refusing to help others (r = .206) (Bruursema & Spector, 2005). I believe that both the influence of values and th e number and nature of the items measuring boredom and CWB could matter si gnificantly as to what we discover with respect to job boredom and active forms of CWB. Specifi cally, the one item boredom measure from the JAWS may not adequately cover all pot ential aspects of job boredom whereas a reliable multiple item measure should be more sensitive, and may reveal a relationship
36 between CWB and boredom that was previo usly obscured. Looking further at the relationship between boredom and CWB, not a ll bored individuals will engage in active CWB; whether or not the indi vidual chooses to engage should depend largely on what the person values. If stimulation is very importa nt to the individual, then we would expect that the person would engage not only in w ithdrawal but also ac tively commit CWBs to make the job more interesting. On the other hand, if the person does not value stimulation, he or she would be more likely to show the familiar pattern of withdrawing in response to boredom. With a multiple it em measure of job boredom and additional items to measure less extreme forms of sabot age and abuse, I suspected that boredom would be related to pranks, games, practical jokes and other stimulating, low-grade forms of production deviance, sabotage, and abuse. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 8a. The relationship between job boredom and CWB-sabotage will be moderated by stimulation valu es, such that, individuals who value stimulation highly and who are high on job boredom, will engage in more CWB Â– sabotage. Hypothesis 8b. The relationship betw een job boredom and CWB-abuse will be moderated by stimulation valu es such that, individuals w ho value stimulation highly and who are high on job boredom, will engage in more CWB abuse. Hypothesis 8c: The relationship be tween stimulation values and CWB Â– withdrawal sabotage will be moderated by job boredom such that, individuals who value stimulation highly and who are high on j ob boredom will engage in more CWB Â– production deviance. Job Characteristics
37 Job characteristics theory (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) specifies the task conditions under which indi viduals are predicted to be motivated in their work (Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987). To summarize, the theory posits that certain core job characteristics must be pr esent for three specific critical psychological states to emerge that then result in four possible positive outcomes for both the individual and the organization. The core job characteristics that in fluence the first critical psychological state, meaningfulness of the work, are skill variety (i.e. job requires multiple activities calling on different skills a nd talents of the individual), task identity (i.e. completing a whole, identifiable piece of work), and task significance (i.e. impact of the job on people or some other important out come). The core job characteristic that influences the second critical psychological st ate, feelings of responsibility for outcomes of the work, is autonomy (i.e. freedom, indepe ndence, and discretion in how to carry out the work). And the final core job charac teristic, influencing the final critical psychological state, knowledge of the results of the job, is job feedback (i.e. results of the job give direct and clear in formation about effectiveness of individualÂ’s performance) (Kulik et al., 1987). The theory suggests that for a job to be high on motivating potential, it must possess at least one of the characteristics that prompt meaningfulness (i.e. skill variety, task identity or task significance), with the idea that deficiencies in one characteristic can be compensated by high levels of anothe r characteristic, and it must possess both autonomy and job feedback. And, a job with lo w levels of either feedback or autonomy will directly attenuate the overall motivating potential of the work (Kulick et al., 1987).
38 In this study, I examined characteristics of the job to see how well they matched the individual respondentÂ’s valu es. In general, I expected that individuals whose values matched their job characteristics would repor t lower job boredom and report engaging in less CWB than individuals whose values were at odds with the char acteristics of their jobs. Specifically, I expected that individu als who value openness to change would report less boredom and less CWB when their jobs were high in the j ob characteristic of skill variety. The strongest relationship was expected when high stimulation values and high skill variety are paired. This is becau se stimulation values are motivated by a need for excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. A person who values this would seem to thrive then, in a job that makes use of a wide range of that personÂ’s ta lents and skills. On the other hand, a low scope job, one with lo w use of a variety of skills, would be perceived as boring by a person who values stim ulation highly. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 9a: The relationship between job skill variety and both CWB and job boredom will be moderated by stimulation valu es such that, when both stimulation values and job skill variety are high, there will be less job boredom and less CWB of all forms. Hypothesis 9a proposes less CWB of all types for a few reasons. First, an individual who values stimulation and who hol ds a job where s/he can use a variety of his/her skills, will show less organizational CW B since the organization is not a source of stress to the person (since Bruk and Spector, 2006) and others have shown that we tailor our counterproductive responses to the source of the problem) Also, individuals who are having their need for stimulation met by a fu lfilling, interesting j ob, are less likely to
39 engage in personal CWBs (CWBP) or CWB Â– sabotage that othe r people who value stimulation may use to make their jobs more ex citing. They were also expected to be less likely to commit CWB Â– withdrawal behaviors b ecause the job is a so urce of gratification of their need for stimulation, therefore they do not need to look outside of work to meet this need. Alternatively, I proposed that skill variet y would be unimportant to an individual who reports strong conservation values. In fact, to a person who values security, conformity, and tradition, the variety of tasks and demands may be unappealing and represent a poor fit. This relationship should be most pronounced for individuals who value tradition, as tradition emphasizes ma intaining time-honored customs and ways of doing things and submitting to lifeÂ’s circumst ances. An individual who strongly values this may find the variety and change in the wo rk threatening and pref er structured, clearcut job responsibilities that do not vary from the status quo. Keeping in mind the circular, oppositional structure of values as well, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 9b: The relationship between job skill variety and CWB-O will be moderated by tradition values such that, wh en both tradition values and job skill variety are high, there will be more CWB-O. The relationship was expected only with CWB-O since research by many authors (e.g. Bruursema & Spector, 2005; Bruk & Spector, 2006; Fox et al., 2001) has shown that acts of CWB are directed at th e source of the problem. Si nce an individualÂ’s problem with person-job fit is a problem with the organization rather than individua l co-workers, one would not expect said indi vidual to show increased or decreased levels of personal CWBs such as abuse.
40 Going further with job characteristics, I expected that individuals who valued openness to change would report less CW B when job autonomy was high. This relationship was expected to be most pronoun ced for self-direction values. Since selfdirection emphasizes independent thought and action and freedom to choose, job autonomy would represent an excellent fit betw een values and job characteristics. Thus, this hypothesis follows: Hypothesis 10a: The relationship between job autonomy and CWB-O will be moderated by self-direction values such t hat, when both self-direction values and job autonomy are high, there will be less CWB-O. On the other hand, job autonomy may be th reatening or, at the least, unappealing to some individuals. Likely, individuals who value conservation, specifically security, will see autonomy in a less positive way. This potential moderator could help explain the low positive correlations found previously between autonomy and CWB (e.g. Goh, et al., 2003; Fox, et al., 2001). High job autonomy should be a poor fit for an individual who values stability of society and relationshi ps, safety, and harmony. The high level of autonomy could threaten the security and predic tability of this personÂ’s environment. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 10b: The relationship betw een job autonomy and CWB-O will be moderated by security values such that, when both security values and job autonomy are high, there will be more CWB-O. Moving to the next job charac teristic of interest, job feedback, I expected that individuals who valued self-enhancement would report less job boredom and less CWB when job feedback was high. This relationshi p was expected to be most pronounced with
41 achievement values. Since achievement valu es are primarily about personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards, job feedback would be a very important built-in featur e of the job to these individuals. This way, they can be assured by virtue of their work product that th ey are meeting some important standard for success. In short, high job feedback repr esents a good fit for i ndividuals who value achievement. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 11: The relationship betw een job feedback and CWB-O will be moderated by achievement values such that where achievement values are high and job feedback is high, there will be less CWB-O. For people who value self-transcendence most task significance was posited to be the most important job characteristic. This characteristic was expected to be most important to those individuals who value unive rsalism. Task significance is defined as the jobÂ’s having a substantial impact on the lives of other people, either in the immediate organization or the world at large, while universalism values are primarily about broadmindedness, understanding an d protecting the welfare of people. Believing that oneÂ’s work is significant a nd has an impact on the well-being of others would therefore represent a good fit for a person who values making a difference in the grand scheme of things. Thus, this hypothesis follows: Hypothesis 12: The relationship between task significance and CWB-O will be moderated by universalism values such that, where universalism values are high and task significance is high, there will be less CWB-O. Finally, for individuals who value conser vation most, task identity was expected to be the most important job characteristic for on the job well-being. Task identity is
42 about completing a whole, identifiable piece of work with a visible outcome. Particularly for individuals who value confor mity most, task identity se rves as an example of the individualÂ’s commitment to hard work, se lf-discipline, and meeting obligations. Therefore, a match between task identity and conservation values was expected to result in positive motivational outcomes. Thus, this hypothesis was proposed: Hypothesis 13: The relationship between task identity and CWB-O will be moderated by conformity values such that where conformity values are high and task identity is high, there will be less CWB-O. The Current Study The purpose of the current study was to ex amine the relationshi ps between trait and job boredom, individual values, and job characteristics on various types of counterproductive work behavior s. There is little existing work with boredom proneness and its effects in the workplace, and little work with job boredom has been extended to examine its effects on CWB. Further, Schwartz 's values paradigm has not been used to examine or explain these workplace behaviors. The current study also made use of co-worke r report data to tran scend some of the problems with single administrati on self-report surveys. Co-workers with similar jobs to participants reported on job boredom and job ch aracteristics. The reason for this was to see if supposed objectiv e qualities of the job are interpreted simila rly by co-workers in similar jobs. Co-workers were not asked to report on participants' boredom proneness, individual values, or CWB since this informa tion is particular to the individual and can be expected to be unknown to most others.
43 In sum, this study examined the relationship between job boredom and all facets of CWB. The effects of boredom proneness were partialled out to determine if the relationship with job boredom and CWB persis ted. Job characteristics were examined with values to test the idea that a job with objectively less desirable characteristics could be acceptable or even preferable to some individuals for whom the job matched their value preferences.
44 Chapter Two Method Participants Participants were 211 employees in a variet y of jobs from all over North America. Participants were asked to choose one co-worke r with a job similar to their own to fill out a brief companion survey as a check on char acteristics of the job itself. Of the 211 respondents, 112 returned the co -worker survey as well, resu lting in 112 matched pairs. Eighty-three of the 211 participants were male (39%); mean age of participants was 35 years. Table 2. Job categories of participants Job Category Number of participants Percentage Education, training, & library 43 20.4% Human resources & recruiting 25 12% Business & financial operations 20 9.5% Healthcare practitione r & technical 17 8.1% Office & administrative support 16 7.6% Computer & mathematical 12 5.7% Sales & related 12 5.7% Life, physical, & social science 8 3.8% Management 8 3.8% Arts, design, sports, entertainment, or media 7 3.3% Legal 7 3.3% Military specific 6 2.8% Community & social services 5 2.4% Food preparation & serving related 4 1.9% Transportation & material moving 4 1.9% Healthcare support 3 1.4% Protective service 3 1.4% Production 2 .9% Architectural & engineering 2 .9% Construction & extraction 2 .9% Building & grounds cleaning & maintenance 1 .5% Installation, maintenance, & repair 1 .5%
45 Personal care & service 1 .5% As seen in Table 2, many participants worked in education, human resources, business, office support, computers, or sales. Seventy point five pe rcent of participants had completed a bachelors degr ee or higher; sixteen partic ipants (7.6%) had a high school diploma only, and one participant had not finish ed high school. Part icipants worked an average of 44 hours per week. To ensure anonymity, no names or specific places of employment were collected. Procedure All survey responses were collected in an online format using a survey software website. Respondents were recruited through an email snowball administration. The researcher began by asking her network of colleagues, friends, and acquaintances who then asked their colleagues, fr iends, and acquaintances to part icipate. The researcher was also provided with email contact lists from some friends and family members, each to whom she sent survey participation reque st letters. Due to the nature of the administration, there is no way to determine response rates. Participants were asked to choose one co-worker who had a j ob similar to their own to fill out the online co-worker survey. Participants were also asked to choose a secret code to enter at the beginning of their survey, and to give the code to their coworker to enter at the beginning of his/her su rvey. The code was used to match the pair as no identifying information was collected. Measures
46 ParticipantsÂ’ surveys included measures of individual values, trait boredom, job boredom, job characteristics, and counterpr oductive work behavior. Co-worker surveys included measures of job characteristics a nd job boredom. Both participants and coworkers filled out the demographic items of type of industry, education level, hours worked per week, gender, and age. The comp lete participant ques tionnaire can be found in the appendix. Demographics. Participants were told that a ll demographic items except for hours worked per week were optional, and that th ey should feel free to leave anything blank that they found too personal or potentially id entifying. All but two pa rticipants indicated their age. All but one indicated their gender. All participants listed their average number of hours worked per week. Participants were also asked to indicate their job type. The type of job measure was taken from the O*Net online job classifi cation database. A ll but two respondents sorted their job type into one of the 23 given categories; t hose remaining two participants left the item blank. All but two specified their highest level of education achieve d, and all but eight designated whether or not they were working in the field that they studied in school. Of the eight non-respondents, six stated that their education level was high school or less; therefore, the item would not apply to th em. Job type, educat ion, and field were investigated because of prior concerns about compiling many different people in many different types of jobs across many organizatio nal levels. The information gathered was used to further understand the sample and the ge neralizability of the re sults and to help us focus future research efforts.
47 Individual values. Individual values were measur ed using the 46-item Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) (Schwartz, 1994). The original scale consis ts of 57 items, but research with the scale repeatedly demonstr ates that only 46 of the items consistently load on distinct values; the remaining 9 items show cultural variation (Schwartz, In press, a). Therefore, I administered the 46 scored it ems, rather than the entire 57 item scale. Each item is a one word stimulus (e.g., equality) followed by a short phrase in parentheses to further specify its meani ng (e.g., equal opportunity for all). The number of items chosen to measure each of the ten values is intended to reflect the presumed conceptual breadth of th e value goal (Schwartz, In press, a). Thus, there are three hedonism items, to reflect a fairly simple motivational goal focused on self-satisfaction, and there are eight univer salism items, to reflect a more complex motivational goal, a multi-faceted respect for living things (human and animal) and the environment (plants and landscapes). The SVS asks respondents to rate th e importance of each item Â“As a guiding principle in MY lifeÂ” on a nine point scale labeled 7 (of supreme importance), 6 (very important), 5, 4 (unlabeled), 3 (important), 2, 1 (unlabeled), 0 (not important), and -1 (opposed to my values). This nonsymmetrical scale is stretched to the upper end and condensed at the bottom values because Schwartz's pre-testin g demonstrated that such a scale maps the way people think about values Â– viewing most of them as varying from mildly to very important (Schwartz, In pre ss, a). This response scale also permits respondents to report their opposition to values that they dislike. The SVS was selected because it has been translated into 46 languages to investigate individual values cross-culturally, has been used in numerous published
48 studies, and has had its construct validity s upported by research with the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ), another inst rument developed by Schwartz (see Schwartz, In press, b, for a review), and with newer instrument s, namely the Pairwise Comparison Value Survey (PCVS) and the Personal Striving Value Survey (PSVS; Oishi et al., 1998). Mean coefficient alphas for the ten values scales are as follows: benevolence (5 items) = .70, universalism (8 items) = .74, self-d irection (5 items) = .70, stimulation (3 items) = .72, hedonism (3 items) = .74, achievement (4 items) = .72, power (4 items) = .68, security (5 items) = .70, conformity (4 items) = .72, and tradition (5 items) = .60 (this low reliability is attributed to a value c onsisting of two components, faith and selfrestriction). These reliabilities are based on representative national samples from 23 nations (Schwartz, In press, b). For this study, coefficient alphas were as follows: benevolence (5 items) = .71, universalism (8 items) = .83, hedonism (3 items) = .76, achievement (4 items) = .74, power (4 items) = .76, security (5 items) = .58, conformity (4 items ) = .71, and tradition (5 items) = .64. By deleting item ten on the va lue survey (i.e., reci procation of favors), coefficient alpha on the security sub-scale was increased to .61. The only other item on the value survey to show an unacceptably lo w item-total correlat ion was item number three. This value item, pleasure, when rem oved, raised coefficient alpha on the hedonism scale to .79. Since so much work has already been done with these scales, the items were not removed for analysis; however, it is wort h noting low reliabilities for security and tradition when considering resu lts including these variables. Trait boredom. Trait boredom or boredom proneness was measured using Farmer and SundbergÂ’s (1986) 28-item Boredom Prone ness Scale (BPS). The response format
49 was changed from true-false to a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly di sagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = mildly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor di sagree, 5 = mildly agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree) in order to increase its se nsitivity, following the procedure used by Dahlen et al. (2004). Example items include, Â“I often find myself with time on my hands Â– nothing to do,Â” and, Â“It takes a lot of cha nge and variety to keep me really happy.Â” This measure was chosen because it has been used in much prior research on boredom (e.g. Kass, et al., 2001; Dahlen, et al ., 2004) supporting constr uct validity, and it has reported internal consistency betw een .79 and .84 (e.g. McLeod and Vodanovich, 1991; Kass & Vodanovich, 1990; Watt & Blanch ard, 1994). For this study, internal consistency reliability was .82. Subscales for internal and external stim ulation boredom proneness were obtained from factor analysis results (Vodanovich & Kass, 1990). A similar factor structure has been demonstrated before and since (e.g., Ahmed, 1990). The 8-item sub-scale making up external stimulation BP (BPext) had a Cr onbach's alpha of .75. The 8-item subscale making up internal stimulation BP (BPint) had a Cronbach's alpha of .68. Job boredom. LeeÂ’s (1986) Job Boredom Scale was used to measure boredom on the job. It is a 17-item scale in which respondents indicate how dull and tedious their jobs are. Example items are, Â“Do you get bored with your work?Â” and Â“Does the time seem to go by slowly?Â” Response choices are 1 = never, 2 = very rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often, 6 = al most always, and 7 = always. Coefficient alpha for the scale has be en reported at .95 (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001). For this study, average alpha for participant and co-worker job boredom scales was .94. Validity evid ence was provided by significant negative
50 correlations with overall job sati sfaction and satisfaction with the work itself scores using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Ke ndall, & Hulin, 1969). Also, Farmer and Sundberg (1986) found a significant positive re lationship (r = .49) between LeeÂ’s Job Boredom Scale and the BP scale. For this study, the correlation be tween the job boredom scale and the boredom proneness scale was .68. Job characteristics. Job characteristics were measured using a 15-item version of the Job Design Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), modified by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). The scale is composed of 5 factor s: autonomy, the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom and discretion in scheduling and conducting the work; task identity, the extent to which employees do an entire, identifiable piece of work; skill variety, the degree to which the job require s employees to perform a wide range of activities using a number of diffe rent skills and talents; task significance, the extent to which the employee feels the job impacts so me important result; and job feedback, the degree to which employees receive information as they are working that reveals how well they are performing (Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987). This iteration of the JDS was select ed because it addresses a measurement problem with the task characte ristics scales that existed on the original JDS (Idaszak & Drasgow, 1987). Coefficient alphas for the JD S have ranged from .68 (task significance) to .83 (task identity) (Oliver, Bakker, Demerouti, & DeJong, 2005). Elsewhere, coefficient alpha ranged from .73 (task signi ficance) to .87 (autonom y) (Spector & Fox, 2003a). For this study, average coefficien t alphas (for partic ipant and co-worker responses) were as follows (a ll three item scales): .81 (task significance), .75 (autonomy), .81 (skill variety), .79 (job feedback), and .68 (task identity).
51 Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). CWB was measured using a 45-item scale developed by Spector et al. (2006). This scale has been used in at least 11 studies and has been through several revisions and expansions since its first use by Spector (1975). The scale consists of an overall CWB measure, sub-indices of CWBO and CWBP, and five other subscales of CWB. These other subs cales are: abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, a nd withdrawal. These subscales were developed by a sorting technique. A group of six subject matter experts sorted the behaviors into CWBO, CWBP, abuse, production deviance, sabotage, th eft, or withdrawal. All 45 items were classified into at least one subscale by a 5/6ths majority of su bject matter experts. Response choices for the scale were: 1 = never, 2 = once or twice, 3 = once or twice per month, 4 = once or twice per week, 5 = daily or almost daily. Respondents were instructed to answer the questio ns with respect to their present job. Since this scale is a causal indicat or one, meaning that the related but conceptually distinct items combine to form th e construct, rather th an vice versa (Bollen & Lennox, 1991), coefficient alphas for the sc ale and subscales are not important. However, they range from .58 (theft) to .85 (CWBP), and .87 for the total scale (Spector et al., 2006 March). For this study, total scale reliability was .91. Additionally, to measure additional non-ma licious intent CWBs, five items were added to the scale that deal with playing games or engaging in time and resource-wasting but potentially fun or interest ing activities. These additi onal items were necessary to examine the potential for certain CWBs to be committed in order to enrich or liven work activities in response to boring jobs. Since CWB is a causal indicat or, any activity that meets the definition set forth by Spector a nd Fox (2005) (intentional acts committed by
52 organizational members that result in harm to the organization or its members) and is not redundant with existing items on the list should constitute a form of CWB. These five items correlated .62 with the original list of 45 CWB items. The five new items are as follows: Created or engaged in a non work-re lated game or activity to entertain myself and/or others during a meeting, seminar, or training session; Us ed the internet to browse, blog, email, or otherwise amuse myself for non work-related purposes; Engaged in amusing activities such as gossiping or joking wi th co-workers that distract me and others from work; Played practical jokes on co-worke rs or customers to entertain myself and/or co-workers during work time; Wasted compa ny resources or supplies to create something for my own purposes or to am use myself or others.
53 Chapter Three Results Descriptive statistics were calculated fo r all study variables. Means, standard deviations, and ranges (observed and possible) can be found in Table 3. Observed ranges were generally approaching possible ranges w ith a few exceptions. Value survey ranges were generally upwardly skewed, especially fo r security and self-d irection. Conversely, the range for CWB was compressed to the lower end of the scale. Alphas were generally acceptable to very good, with the exception of .58 for security, .64 for tradition, and .68 for task identity. The range re striction and low reliabilities should be considered when interpreting hypotheses concerning these variables. Table 3. Descriptive statistics for all study variables. Variable Mean Standard Deviation Observed Range Possible Range Coefficient alpha Universalism 37.2 9.0 5-55 -8-56 .83 Benevolence 26.4 4.6 8-35 -5-35 .73 Tradition 17.2 6.7 3-35 -5-35 .64 Security 23.0 5.3 10-35 -5-35 .58 Conformity 19.1 4.7 5-28 -4-28 .71 Power 11.3 5.9 -2-27 -4-28 .76 Achievement 20.0 4.3 8-28 -4-28 .74 Hedonism 13.7 3.9 2-21 -3-21 .76 Stimulation 12.6 4.0 1-21 -3-21 .70 Self-direction 25.3 5.0 10-35 -5-35 .70 Trait boredom 89.4 17.4 56-150 28-196 .82 Job boredom 56.9 15.6 21-108 17-119 .93 Co-worker job boredom 54.5 17.6 18-111 17-119 .95 Job characteristics 81.9 13.8 28-105 15-105 .88 Co-worker job characteristics 83.6 13.9 20-105 15-105 .88 Autonomy 17.3 3.0 6-21 3-21 .71 Co-worker 17.4 3.4 3-21 3-21 .78
54 autonomy Task significance 16.1 4.4 3-21 3-21 .80 Co-worker task significance 16.9 3.8 3-21 3-21 .81 Task identity 15.4 4.1 3-21 3-21 .69 Co-worker task identity 15.8 3.9 4-21 3-21 .66 Skill variety 17.1 3.7 3-21 3-21 .84 Co-worker skill variety 17.8 3.4 3-21 3-21 .78 Job feedback 16.0 3.4 3-21 3-21 .76 Co-worker job feedback 15.7 3.8 3-21 3-21 .82 CWB 72.8 15.1 51-151 51-255 .91 Intercorrelations among values are listed in Table 4. For the most part, values followed the pattern established by Schwartz decreasing monotonically around the circle with the lowest intercorrelations exis ting between opposite values. Results for achievement were somewhat discrepant in that self-direction correlated higher with achievement than did either hedonism or stimulation. Another reversal was where conformity related more strongly with achievement than with power. Table 4. Zero order Pearson correlations among values Values Trad Secur Power AchieveHedon Stim Self Univ Benev Conf .74 .59 .27 .39 .24 .16 .20 .34 .69 Trad .49 .29 .25 .16 .11 .18 .30 .59 Secur .46 .45 .34 .23 .31 .43 .45 Power .54 .43 .38 .33 .13 .15 Achieve .34 .36 .46 .28 .42 Hedon .46 .41 .33 .22 Stim .49 .37 .20 Self .56 .32 Univ .52 Since the -1 through 7 response scale for the value survey is used differently across individuals and cultures, it is necessa ry to correct for differences in scale use
55 across respondents. Therefore, in order to make proper inferences regarding relationships among values and CWB, mean value scale scor es were calculated for each individual participant. Then, partial correlations were computed between the raw score on each of the ten values and the CWB score, where mean scale score on the value survey was the covariate. All correlations with values and CWB and its sub-facets are listed in Table 5. Table 5. First order partial correlati ons among values and CWB. CWB CWBPCWBOAbuseSabo -tage Withdrawal Theft Prod. Dev. Horseplay Universalism -.01 -.12 .07 -.04 -.09 .08 .00 .01 -.06 Benevolence -.16* -.13 -.20** -.16* -.09 -.18* -.21** -.08 -.12 Tradition -.11 -.07 -.04 -.09 .00 .01 -.06 -.05 -.21** Security -.07 .00 -.12 -.06 -.10 -.05 -.02 -.13 -.08 Conformity -.01 .08 -.05 .03 .11 -.08 -.06 .02 -.12 Power .06 .10 .02 .10 .05 -.03 .06 .03 .02 Achievement -.09 -.01 -.14* -.07 -.13 -.17* -.02 -.07 -.07 Hedonism .16* .11 .13 .12 .14* .14* .12 .04 .14* Stimulation .14* .05 .16* .10 .09 .12 .14* .09 .09 Selfdirection .12 .10 .11 .11 .05 .06 .04 .14* .02 p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Observing the correlations in Table 5, one can conclude that Hypothesis 1 is not supported. Neither conformity, nor traditi on, nor security showed any significant relationships with any type of CWB. Looking further at Table 5, Hypothesis 2 is unsupported as well; no values showed any sign ificant relationship with personal CWB. However, it is worth noting that benevolen ce (r = -.13, p = .07) and universalism (r = .12, p = .08) were the only values that showed correlations approaching significance with personal CWB.
56 The key finding with respect to relati onships among values and CWB was thus: Benevolence related inversely with most forms of CWB (r = -.16 to -.21); benevolence also showed the largest abso lute correlations with CWB. Another finding of note: hedonism, stimulation, and self -direction, all openness to cha nge values, showed small, significant, positive correlations with several types of CWB. Finally, an unexpected and un-hypothesized finding was the inverse rela tionship between achievement and both organizational CWB and withdrawal. Relationships with trait boredom, self and co-worker reported job boredom, and all forms of CWB are presented in Table 6. Correlations between CWB and job boredom and between CWB and trait bore dom are some of the highest observed CWB correlations in any study. Table 6. Zero-order Pearson correlations among boredom and CWB variables. Variable Trait boredom BP ExtStim BP IntStim Job boredom Co-worker job boredom CWB .44*** .38*** .04 .48*** .22* CWBO .50*** .43*** .08 .58*** .19* CWBP .32*** .28*** .00 .30*** .23* Abuse .41*** .32*** .06 .47*** .23* Sabotage .25*** .27*** -.07 .31*** .16 Withdrawal .44*** .40*** .08 .52*** .16 Production Deviance .31*** .29*** -.03 .31*** .22* Theft .34*** .30*** .09 .32*** .05 Horseplay items .26*** .23** -.01 .29** .16 Job boredom .68*** .54*** .20** .29** Co-worker job boredom .19* .15 -.03 p < .05, **, p < .01, *** p < .001
57 Hypothesis 3 is supported in that trai t boredom correlated significantly with overall CWB (r = .44, p=.000). Hypothesis 4a is supported; trait boredom's correlation with abuse is a significant .41. ExtStim tr ait boredom is related to abuse (r = .32, p = .000) as well. Hypothesis 4b is also s upported. Trait boredo m's correlation with sabotage is .25; ExtStim tra it boredom is also related to sabotage (r = .27, p = .000). However, the highest correlations with tra it boredom were with organizational CWB (r = .50, p = .000) and withdrawal (r = .44, p = .000). Furthermore, according to a Hotelling's t for dependent correlations trait boredom's correlation with organizational CWB was significantly larger than its correlation with personal CWB, which was not expected. The results of moderated regression analyses showed partial support for Hypothesis 3b in that there is a significant interac tion (p = .045) in the expected form between trait and job boredom in their eff ects on abuse. However, the interaction between trait and job boredom in their effect s on sabotage did not ri se to the level of significance (p = .054). Table 7 presents the multiple regres sion results. The significant interaction is pictured in Figure 3. The fi gure does show that when both trait boredom and job boredom are high, reported abuse is high er than when either job boredom or trait boredom is low. In fact, the effects of j ob boredom occur mostly for those who are high on trait boredom; the impact on abuse of being bored at work is higher for those high in trait boredom. Table 7. Results for trait boredom, job boredom abuse moderated regression analysis Abuse Step Independent variable Unstandardized bs Total R2 Change in R2 1 Job boredom .168*** .22*** 2 Trait boredom .058* .23*** .01
58 3 Trait x job boredom .002* .25*** .02 Step Independent variable Unstandardized bs Total R2 Change in R2 1 Job boredom .168*** .22*** 2 Stimulation .100 .22*** .00 3 Stimulation x job boredom .005 .23*** .01 p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Figure 2. Interaction between trait and job boredom on CWB-Abuse Figure 2: Interaction between trait and job boredom on abuse0 10 20 30 40 50 Lo Hi Job BoredomAbuse Lo trait boredom Hi trait boredom Examining Table 6 shows that Hypothesis 5 is partially sup ported; participantreported job boredom correlated with particip ant-reported withdrawal behaviors (r = .52, p = .000). However, co-worker reported job boredom did not correl ate significantly with participantreported withdraw al (r = .16, p = .09). Hypothesis 6 is fully supported. Both participant (r = .58, p = .000) and co-worke r (r = .19, p = .04) reports of job boredom correlated with organizational CWB.
59 Again, referencing Table 6, Hypothesis 7a is supported. Trait and job boredom correlated with each othe r (r = .68, p = .000). Hypothesi s 7b is also supported; controlling for the effects of trait boredom by using partial correlation, the relationship between job boredom and overall CWB was still significant (r = .28, p = .000). There was no support for Hypothesis 8. There is no significant interaction between stimulation values and job boredom in its effects on CWB-sabotage (Table 8). There is also no significant interaction between stimulati on and job boredom in their effects on CWB-abuse. Finally, there is no si gnificant main effect with stimulation and CWB-production deviance, and no interaction between stimulation and job boredom in their effects on the outcome variable (Table 9). Table 8. Results for non-significant interactions on sabotage Sabotage Step Independent variable Unstandardized bs Total R2 Change in R2 1 Job boredom ..020*** .09*** 2 Trait boredom .004 .10*** .01 3 Trait boredom x job boredom .000* .11*** .01 Step Independent variable Unstandardized bs Total R2 Change in R2 1 Job boredom .020*** .09*** 2 Stimulation .023 .10*** .01 3 Stimulation x job boredom .001 .11*** .01 p < .05, *** p < .001 Table 9. Results for non-signi ficant interaction on production deviance. Production Deviance Step Independent variable Unstandardized bs Total R2 Change in R2 1 Job boredom .042*** .10*** 2 Stimulation .029 .10*** .00 3 Stimulation x job .001 .11*** .01
60 boredom *** p < .001 Table 10. Inter correlations among job characteristics variables. Variable 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. Job characteristics .66 .79 .73 .76 .77 .25 .20 .18 .28 .12 .16 2. Task identity .36 .21 .43 .43 .44 .23 .36 .15 .11 .09 3. Skill Variety .51 .48 .64 .21 .08 .23 .22 .10 .15 4. Task Significance .48 .44 .05 -.06 .00 .28 -.01 -.06 5. Job Feedback .45 .19 .09 .10 .20 .18 .14 6. Autonomy .23 .22 .18 .20 .08 .21 7. Co-worker job char .76 .76 .74 .76 .79 8. Co-worker identity .38 .36 .51 .60 9. Co-worker variety .59 .43 .53 10. Co-worker significance .42 .42 11. Co-worker feedback 12. Co-worker autonomy .47 Correlations above .19 are signif icant at the .05 level; above 27 are significan t at the .01 level; above .35 are signif icant at the .001 level. Intercorrelations among self and co-w orker reported job characteristics are displayed in Table 10. Bolded correlations are correlations betw een like self and coworker scales. The overall scale and four of the five sub-scales showed significant correlations between self a nd co-worker report data. Job feedback just missed significance at .18 (p = .058). In general, participants and co-workers showed some agreement on the characteristics of the job.
61 Table 11. Correlations with job characteristics and CWB. Vars. CWB CWBO CWBPWithdrawal Abuse Sabo -tage Theft Prod Dev. Horseplay Job char. -.14* -.28*** -.02 -.24** -.11 -.14* -.15* -.16* .02 Autonomy -.06 -.19** .02 -.14* -.05 -.13 -.04 -.13 .10 Variety -.10 -.22** -.04 -.14* -.12 -.15* -.09 -.15* .09 Signif -.15* -.29*** -.01 .29*** -.10 -.06 -.19** -.11 -.03 Feedback -.10 -.20** .04 -.15* -.06 -.09 -.14* -.10 -.03 Identity -.09 -.15* -.06 -.13 -.07 -.09 -.07 -.11 -.01 Cojob char .00 .02 -.04 .02 .04 -.04 -.06 -.03 .01 Co Auton .06 .04 .03 .02 .10 -.03 -.05 -.02 .10 Co Vari. .00 .05 -.11 .08 -.02 -.09 -.01 -.04 .04 Co Signif -.12 -.07 -.16 -.07 -.15 -.03 -.05 -.05 -.10 Co Fdbk -.05 -.04 -.04 -.03 .03 -.02 -.08 -.08 -.04 Co Ident. .11 .10 .11 .08 .19* .00 -.03 .08 .07 p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 11 shows the correlations am ong self and co-worker reported job characteristics and all aspects of CWB. The overall scale and all five sub-scales of coworker reported job characteristics relate i nversely and significantly with organizational CWB; CWB-withdrawal related inversely with all characteristics but task identity. However, the only co-worker-reported variab le to reach significance with CWB was a positive correlation between task identity a nd abuse, a very unexpected correlation,
62 particularly since none of the participant-re ported job characteristics scales related to CWB-abuse. Hypothesis 9a is not supported. Interacti ons with stimulation and job skill variety on both CWB and job boredom were not sign ificant. There was also no significant interaction between stimulat ion and job skill variety, though both showed significant main effects, on CWB-O. Hypothesis 9b is not supported. There was no interaction between tradition and job skill variety on CWB-O. Hypothesis 10 is not supported. There wa s no interaction between self-direction and autonomy on CWB-O. There was also no interaction between security and autonomy in their effects on CWB-O. Hypotheses 11 and 12 are not supported. There was no interaction between achievement and job feedback in their e ffects on CWB-O. Further, there was no significant interaction between universalism and task significance in their effects on CWB-O. However, since both self-trans cendence values (i.e ., universalism and benevolence) were anticipated to interact wi th significance in thei r effects on CWB-O, I ran the moderator analysis with benevolen ce and task significance on CWB-O, and the result was a significant interaction. Results of the moderated regression can be seen in Table 12 and the graph can be viewed in Figure 4. The form was not as expected; in fact, when benevolence values were low and task significance was low, the most organizational CWB was obs erved. However, when benevolence was high, task significance did not impact CWBO. Hypot hesis 13 is not supported. There is no significant interaction between conformity and task identity in their effects on CWB-O.
63 Table 12 Moderated regression of benevolenc e and task significance on CWB-O CWB-O Step Independent variable Unstandardized bs Total R2 Change in R2 1 Task significance -.496*** .08*** 2 Benevolence -.128 .09*** .01 3 Benevolence x Task significance .053* .11*** .02 Figure 3 Interaction of task signifi cance and benevolence on CWBO Interaction between task significance and benevolence in their effects on CWBO 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Lo Hi Task significanceCWBO Lo benevolence Hi benevolence Table 13 is provided for quick reference of the results of all study hypotheses. Of the expected moderator relationships, only th e one with boredom and abuse came out as expected. Table 13. Summary of all study hypotheses. # Hypothesis Description Me thod of Analysis Support 1a. Conformity & overall CWB r None 1b. Tradition & overall CWB r None 1c. Security & overall CWB r None
64 2a. Universalism & CWB-O r None 2b. Benevolence & CWB-O r None 3a. Trait boredom & overall CWB r Full 3b. Trait boredom, CWB, & job boredom Moderated regression Partial 4a. Trait boredom & CWB-abuse r Full 4b. Trait boredom & CWB-sabotage r Full 5. Job boredom & CWBwithdrawal r Partial 6. Job boredom & CWB-O r Full 7a. Job & trait boredom r Full 7b. Control for trait boredom, job boredom & CWB r Full 8a. Stimulation & CWB-sabotage, moderated by job boredom Moderated regression None 8b. Stimulation & CWB-abuse, moderated by job boredom Moderated regression None 8c. Stimulation & CWB-production deviance, moderated by job boredom Moderated regression None 9a. Stimulation & CWB & job boredom, moderated by skill variety Moderated regression None 9b. Tradition & CWB, moderated by skill variety Moderated regression None 10a. Self-direction & CWB-O, moderated by job autonomy Moderated regression None 10b. Security & CWB-O, moderated by job autonomy Moderated regression None 11. Achievement & CWB-O, moderated by job feedback Moderated regression None 12. Universalism & CWB-O, moderated by task significance Moderated regression None 13. Conformity & CWB-O, moderated by task identity Moderated regression None
65 Chapter Four Discussion The purpose of this study was to in vestigate the effects of values, job characteristics, and boredom on different t ypes of counterproductive work behavior. Essentially, it was believed that different types of j obs (i.e. job characteristics) would be enjoyable to different sorts of people depe nding on what they value most and how prone they are to boredom; therefore, the amount and type of counterproductive work behavior reported by an individual was expected to vary according to their individual predispositions and how they fit with their work environment. Supporting these ideas, research by Verp lanken and Holland (2002) and Bardi and Schwartz (2003) has shown that values show important links with ma ny different types of behavior, particularly when valu es are first activated. Schwar tz (In press b) showed that values remain reasonably stable over time, ev en over a period of years, indicating that values are stable, individual difference charac teristics of a person a ffecting many areas of his or her life. Moreover, boredom proneness has shown re lationships with poor job satisfaction and performance in employee samples and a whol e host of other issues in research with young adults (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001; Gould & Seib, 1997). Job boredom has also shown inverse relationships with j ob satisfaction and some forms of performance (MacDonald & MacIntyre, 1997; Lee, 1986). Fi nally, job characteristics theory (Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987) suggests that certain characteristics of the job (i.e. skill variety, task identity, and task significance) must be present to experience
66 meaningfulness of the work, certa in characteristics (i.e. job au tonomy) must be present to experience responsibility for work outcomes, and certain characteristics (i.e. job feedback) must be present to produce knowledge of job results. It was suggested here that different characteristics of the job ma y be more or less important to certain individuals and more instrumental in creating a situation that is or is not conducive to CWB. Generally, results of the study did not pr ovide support for the idea that different characteristics and features of a job would work well or poorly for certain individuals based upon their values. In fact, values show ed only minor relationships with a few of the outcome variables. Further, values did not interact in any of th e ways predicted with job characteristics in th eir effects on CWB. Though both self and other reported j ob boredom and trait boredom showed strong relationships with ma ny types of CWB, a new findi ng in the literature, the mechanism proposed by the study to understa nd the relationship were not supported. Namely, a person's values did not make a pers on more or less suite d for a boring job. Therefore, efforts to understand the signifi cant relationship between boredom and CWB are speculative and are discussed herewith. Hypothesis 1: Conformity, security and tradition with overall CWB Contrary to predictions made in hyp othesis 1, conservation values (i.e., conformity, security, and tradition) showed no significant relationships with any form of CWB. In fact, benevolence, the value bordering conformity and tradition showed the only significant negative correlation with overall CWB (r = -.16, p = .011). Likewise, hedonism, the value opposite benevolence in the circumplex structure, displayed a
67 positive correlation with overall CWB (r = .16, p = .009). Also in accord with value theory, stimulation, hedonism's neighboring value showed a significant positive correlation with overall CWB (r = .14, p = .024). Though the pattern of relationship followed theory (decreasing monotonically in opposite directions around the circle), the two correlations are not signifi cantly different from one anot her. None of the other correlations with CWB were si gnificantly different from zero. As noted in the method section, coeffici ent alpha reliabilit ies for security ( = .58), tradition ( = .64) and conformity ( = .71) were poor to mere ly acceptable. This may have limited the ability to find any pot ential relationships with any outcome variables. The significant inverse correlation with benevolence and CWB was expected, and may be due to the tendency for highly benevolen t individuals to thi nk in terms of what they can give to a situation rather than what they can get from it. Short, Sy, and Strauss (2006) found that benevolence, as opposed to entitledness, in an employee related positively with organizational commitment (r = .35, p < .001), job satisfaction (r = .30, p < .001), and negatively with turnover intentions (r = -.12, p < .05). Benevolent individuals, who were also termed, "less e quity sensitive," were found to have high job satisfaction regardless of how helpful and responsive their manager/leader was to their needs; entitled individuals, al so termed, "more equity sensit ive," showed job satisfaction scores that varied to a much la rger degree based upon their leader's helpfulness/responsiveness. This would impl y that benevolent individuals maintain a somewhat pleasant, giving attitude irrespectiv e of what they are or are not gaining from their environment or individuals in it.
68 Hedonism's positive relationship with CW B (r = .16, p < .05) may be explained through understanding that the value is about pursuing one's own de sires, indulging in what one wants, and enjoying life's pleasures. A significant part of the variance in CWB has been explained through emotion-centere d models and ideas (e.g., Fox & Spector, 2002), whereby negative environmental circum stances lead to negative emotions which then lead to negative behaviors. It may be that hedonistic individua ls are more likely to become angry or upset when their goals to pu rsue their desires are thwarted. Or, it may be that hedonistic individuals are mo re impulsive and likely to commit CWBs spontaneously, and without rega rd to consequence, en route to going about their business of enjoying themselves. The positive correlation with stimulation a nd CWB is encouraging as it indicates that CWB may act as a stimulant in the work environment for those who need it. The correlation with dishonesty and stimulation values (r = .14, p < .05) is interesting and may make it worthwhile to l ook into providing fun and excite ment as a potential reason for lying or stealing at work. The low correlations with CWB and values may be because values are such a distal contributor to a comp licated and narrow workplace be havior. There are many other more proximal factors (both indi vidual difference and situati onal variables) that explain the CWB space quite well. For example, trait anger (r = 48, p < .001; Spector, Fox, Penney, 2006), negative affectivity (r = .30, p < .01; Penney, 2001), negative emotions (r = .52, p < .001), and narcissism (r = .14, p < .05) are individual difference predictors of CWB. While, conflict (r = .41, p< .01; Penney, 2001; r = .47, p < .001; Bruursema, 2004), organizational constraint s (r = .35, p < .01; Penney, 2001), procedural justice (r = -
69 .29, p < .001; Bruursema, 2004), job satisfac tion (r = -.33, p < .01; Penney, 2001), and transactional leadership style (r = .24, p < .01; Bruursema, 2004) are situational predictors of CWB. CWB has been theorized and empirically demonstrated to show relationships with negative situations in the environment thr ough affecting a person's emotional response; people who are prone to negativ e emotional states and moods are more affected by the negative environment and therefore commit mo re CWBs. In general, CWB has been related to "bad" emotions like anger, anxi ety, dissatisfaction, and in the current study, boredom; since there are no "bad" values, ther e is no good reason to suspect that any of the values would be systematically rela ted to negative emotional propensities. Instead, values were theorized in the present study to affect the way the environment was interpreted (whether or not a boring or unstimulating job could be preferable or tolerable) by an individual. To understand this, we need to look at the other study hypotheses. Hypothesis 2: Self-transcendence values and CWBP None of the values showed relationships with personal CWB. Personal CWB may be more dependent on the quality of the relationships with co-workers; research has demonstrated correlations around .40 between conflict with co-worke rs and CWBP (Bruk & Spector, 2006). Values may be far too re mote an individual difference variable to predict specific behaviors such as gossiping a bout co-workers. The most notable relationship between values and CWB was with benevolence which significantly negatively correlated with five of the nine types of CWB. Other research has shown that benevol ence correlates most highly of a ll ten values with a social
70 desirability index (Schwartz, Vekasolo, Antonovsky, & Sagiv, 1997). Therefore, it may just be that people who are likely to report on one survey that they value honesty and loyalty and helpfulness are also likely to re port that they do not e ngage in dishonest or abusive or otherwise negative work behaviors. Since there was no co-worker report of participant values (an awkward measure th at would be) and no co-worker report of participant CWB, there is no way to rule that out as the driver of these relationships. Stimulation showed three significant positive correlations (with CWB, CWBO, and dishonesty) which may indicate, as me ntioned in the discussion above, that counterproductive behaviors are exciting for some individuals to commit. Likewise, hedonism showed three significant positive correlations (with CWB, sabotage, and withdrawal) indicating that pleasure seeker s may engage in CWB either because it is pleasurable in itself or because leaving early and coming late to work allows them to pursue other pleasurable goals. Elsewhere, researchers have had trouble linking values to work behavior. For example, Siu, Spector, Cooper, and Lu ( 2005) found only weak relationships between work values and work stress and well-being and few moderating rela tionships with job satisfaction. It may be that values are too remote a predictor for many workplace behaviors, not just CWB. Hypotheses 3 & 4: Boredom proneness and CWB As predicted by hypothesis 3, boredom pr oneness showed a strong relationship with overall CWB (r = .44, p = .000). This is a new finding and complements the findings by Watt (2002) and Kass, Vodanovi ch, and Callender (2001) that boredom proneness related to many negative attitu dinal variables in the workplace (e.g.,
71 dissatisfaction with pay, promotions, supervisi on, and perceived high c onstraints). It also extends the findings of the il l effects of boredom in educ ational settings (e.g., Blunt & Pychyl, 1998; Newberry & Duncan, 2001) to pr oblem behaviors in the work setting. More research is needed on the mechan ism operating to create this relationship. Vodanovich (1990) showed that boredom prone ness overlaps with Type-A behavior and sensation seeking, although, Dahlen et al (2004) showed that boredom proneness contributed incrementally more to predicting aggression over and a bove that predicted by Type-A and sensation seeking. Moreover, Watt and Vodanovich (1992) showed that boredom proneness relates to impulsivity a nd all aspects of negative affect; further research should determine what is concep tually unique about boredom proneness and why it relates to such ne gative work outcomes. Given prior work on boredom proneness and its two main factors, boredom proneness due to an inability to generate external stimulation (BPext) and boredom proneness due to an inability to generate ade quate internal stimulation (BPint), it was expected that boredom proneness would relate to CWB-abuse and sa botage. Full support was garnered for this hypothesis. Trait boredom correlated significantly (r = .41, p = .000) with abuse and (r = .25, p = .000) with sabotage. Also as expected, BPext correlated significantly with both abuse (r = .32, p = .000) and sabotage (r = .27, p = .000). BPext is made up of eight items like: "I would like more challenging things to do in life," "It takes a lot of change and variety to keep me really happy," and "I feel that I am working below my abilities most of the time. If future research continues to support the idea that boredom proneness (BPext in particular) relates to negative workplace
72 behaviors, then it may be useful for some jobs to include the 8 item short scale as a part of the selection process. On the other hand, and as expected, BPint doe s not relate to any type of CWB. It is made up of reverse-coded items like, "Ma ny people would say that I am a creative or imaginative person," "I have projects in mind all the time, things to do," and, "I often wake up with a new idea." The lack of ab ility to generate new ideas, be creative, or dream up projects is not relate d to negative work behaviors. The items on this factor relate more to energy and imagination than they do to listlessness and apathy; it follows that they would not relate with CWB. In general, boredom proneness and BPext correlated significantly with every type of CWB. The highest observed correlations were with trait boredom and CWBO (r = .50, p = .000), and trait boredom w ith both CWB and withdrawal (r = .44, p = .000). The larger correlation with CWBO than CWBP wa s not expected since there was no reason to suspect that negative internal feelings would be directed at the organization more than any other target. Trait boredom is clearly an important predictor of the variance in the CWB space. Of the internal, trait variables studied, only trait anger has shown similarly high correlations with CWB. Douglas and Mart inko (2001) found a corre lation of .68 between self-reported trait anger and self-reported incidence of wo rkplace aggression. Similarly, Spector et al. (2006, March) found an average correlation (across several study samples) of .49 between trait anger and various forms of CWB. Since understanding the nature of trait boredom was not a focus of this study, effo rts to identify why this relationship exists are speculative. Given Spector and Fox' s (2002) emotion-centered model for CWB and
73 the findings from studies that followed using the model (e.g., Bruursema & Spector, 2005), it may be that boredom proneness enacts a host of negative emotions which then act to promote committing CWBs. Another potential reason that boredom shows relationships with CWB that are as strong as those with trait anger is that the two may be differe nt types of expression of the same underlying feeling. Some clinical therapists (e.g., Lantz, 1988; McHolland, 1988) have suggested that boredom is a manifestati on of inner anger. Boredom can represent a safer expression of angry fee lings; if it is unkind or unpleas ant to display anger, then anger can be directed inward to become bor edom. To discern the relationships among trait boredom, trait anger, a nd CWB, future research should examine them in the same study. Interaction between job boredom and trait boredom on CWB-abuse It was expected that the effects of boredom on abuse and sabotage would be stronger when both trait and job boredom we re high. In accord with hypothesis 3b, job boredom's affects on CWB-abuse were modera ted by trait boredom; concisely, the effects were multiplicative whereby when both job bor edom and trait boredom were high, there was more abuse than in any other combination. Further, when job boredom was low, trait boredom did not impact CWB-abuse, indicating that trait boredom must be "activated" by a boring environment in order for the negative e ffect on abuse to occur. Also of note is the finding that abuse increased as job boredom increased ev en for those individuals who were low on trait boredom. However, the e ffect on abuse was not nearly as profound for those who were low on trait boredom.
74 This is a potentially important finding for a few reasons. First, people who are boredom prone are more likely to respond malada ptively to boredom in their jobs. This would indicate that more care should be taken in assigning tasks or duties (for supervisors) and in selecting a job (for bor edom prones) since boredom prone individuals tend to be more volatile in response to their environments. Second, boredom prone people are not inclined to abuse their co-worke rs when placed in a stimulating job. This is good news and bad news. On the positive side, a manager (or the boredom prone individual him/herself) can i ndirectly control his/her bore dom prone employee's behavior by monitoring what tasks and duties the indivi dual finds interesti ng and assigning them accordingly. On the negative side, it would be difficult to work with a person (or be a person) whose behavior was so heavily de termined by external circumstance. Hypotheses 5 through 8: Job boredom and CWB It was reasoned that job boredom would relate to CW B-withdrawal because prior work had already established this finding (S pector et al., 2006). In partial support of Hypothesis 5, this finding was replicated w ith self-report data. Job boredom correlated with CWB-withdrawal (r = .52, p = .000). However, co-worker reported boredom correlated a non-significant .16 w ith CWB-withdrawal. The l ack of a relationship with co-worker report is surprising since most other types of CW B were significantly related to co-worker reported boredom. A second somewhat puzzling finding is the significant correlation between coworker reported job boredom and particip ant reported trait bor edom (r = .19, p < .05). Perhaps individuals high in trait boredom tended to be f ound in objectively more boring
75 jobs, or perhaps being in an objectively boring job tende d to affect peopleÂ’s trait boredom. The expected relationship between jo b boredom and CWBO (Hypothesis 6) was fully supported. Both participant (r = .58, p < .001) and co-worker (r = 19, p < .05) reported job boredom related positively with organizational CWB. This is concurrent with prior work (e.g. Bruk & Spector, 2005; Bruursema & Spector, 2005) showing that negative reactions brought on by th e job situation are directed back at the organization. In fact, job boredom correlated positively (p < .001) with every sub-facet of CWB. Moreover, co-worker reported job boredom corre lated positively (p < .05) with all subfacets of participant-reported CWB except fo r sabotage, withdrawal, and theft. Taken together, these findings lend support to the idea that understanding employees' level of boredom with a job and understanding what e ngages them has meaningful organizational consequences. There is also some support fo r the idea that job bor edom is an objective part of the job, and not a subj ective interpretation on the pa rt of the job incumbent. Further research should determine what aspe cts of a job cause it to be experienced by incumbents as boring. Based on conceptual similarities betw een job and trait bor edom, it was thought that they should be positively correlated. In full support of Hypothesis 7, job and trait boredom correlated significantly. (r = .68, p < .001) This follows since not only are the emotions the same, though one is a general fee ling and the other is re lated to a specific situation, but also because those who report th at most of life leaves them feeling bored are also likely to report that their job makes them feel bored.
76 A key study finding, and a new contributi on of this research, is that the relationship between job boredom and CWB held even after c ontrolling for trait boredom (r = .28, p < .001). In fact, afte r controlling for trait boredom all relations hips between job boredom and CWB remained except for t hose with theft and personal CWB. See Table 14 for a summary. Of note, after controlling for trait boredom, the largest correlations are with CWBO a nd withdrawal. This makes sense since if the person is bored by their job, but otherwise well-adjusted (i.e., not boredom prone), they are likely to act out against the offe nding organization and/or stop coming to work as often; likewise, a person who is bored by the job should not be more likely to hurt or bother coworkers (i.e., engage in personal CWB), a nd the data bear this out as well. Referring again to Table 14, at first glance, the positive relationship between abuse and job boredom after controlling for trait boredom is perplexing, but when the scale is separated into abuse targeting the organization and abuse ta rgeting individuals, the relationship is made cleare r. For the three abuse items that target the organization (from Spector et al., 2006), th e correlation with job boredom after controlling for trait boredom is .42 (p < .001). An example item is, "Told people outside the job what a lousy place I work for." However, for the 12 abuse items that target individuals within the organization (e.g., "Verbally abused someone at work), the correlation with job boredom was a non-significant .11. This further supports the idea advanced in this research and prior work that situational work stressors resu lt in CWB directed back at the source of the problem (i.e., the organization) and not directed randomly. Table 14. Correlations between job boredom and all face ts of CWB controlling for trait boredom. CWB variable Job boredom
77 CWB .28*** CWBO .38*** CWBP .12 Abuse .27*** Sabotage .19** Withdrawal .34*** Production Deviance .16* Theft .12 New Items .16* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Believing that individuals who value stim ulation would be especially sensitive to boredom in their jobs and would react w ith more CWB, a moderating effect of stimulation values on the relationship between boredom and different types of CWB was tested. Moderated relationships were not found; the data did not support the idea that boredom at work was less acceptable to those wi th high stimulation values. This finding may be due to issues already discussed with the difficulty of linking values to workplace behaviors. Or, it could be a problem with the variables both being measured by selfreport survey method; for instance, people who do not value stimulation and who have boring jobs may not report that their jobs are boring because they don't need a lot of excitement in their work; this could obscure a relationship where one might exist. To clarify this issue, a better method to test this idea would be to look at objective measures of job boredom (e.g., external panel judg ment, co-worker report) with self-report stimulation values and CWB. With only 112 co-workers, power was too low to detect a potential moderating effect. Added CWB items: Horseplay The five added CWB items testing a pr oposed sixth facet which could be called "horseplay" did not perform exactly as expe cted. First, they showed the lowest
78 correlation with job boredom (r = .29, p < .01) wh en they were expected to show one of the highest. Second, they did not correlate with co-worker reporte d job boredom. Third, the items did not relate positively with stim ulation values. Although, they did correlate positively (r = .14, p < .05) with hedonism and ne gatively with tradition values (r = -.21, p < .01). This was the only CWB measure to relate in any way with any conservation values. Tradition values were measured by items like, "Moder ate," "Devout," and "Humble." Meanwhile, hedonism was measur ed by, "Self-indulgent ," "Enjoying life," and "Pleasure." The added items, which are predominantly rowdy, distracting, or goofy behaviors, may be offensive to a very tr aditional person and enjoyable to a very hedonistic person. However, the horseplay scale did corr elate .62 with the existing CWB measure indicating high similarity with those items. It may be that these behaviors (e.g., "Played practical jokes on co-workers or customers to entertain myself and/or co-workers during work time.") actually enrich a job to the point that it is not percei ved as boring. Another possibility is that playfulness, goofing off, or "horseplay" exists as a part of a positive organizational culture and is encouraged by managers, executives, and owners. However, high significant correlations with all other facets of CWB (r ranges from .34 with sabotage to .59 with a buse) would argue against th e interpretation that these behaviors are part of a positive environment. Hypotheses 9 through 13: Values and j ob characteristics as moderators There was some support for the idea th at job characteris tics should relate inversely with CWB. Though no co-worke r reported characteristics showed no significant relationships with any kind of CWB (save co-w orker task identity which
79 showed a very surprising positive relationship with abuse). All self-reported characteristics scales correlated negatively and significantly with organizational CWB. This makes sense according to j ob characteristics theory which states that for a job to be experienced positively, scores on the characteris tics need to be high. Similarly, all selfreported characteristics except task identity correlated inversely with CWB-withdrawal. When a job is unfulfilling, it seems that incu mbents are likely to withdraw from it or actively commit advers e acts against the organization. To sum, there were some moderate relationships between job char acteristics and vari ous forms of CWB. A central premise of this study was that what a person valued would influence the way s/he interpreted and reacted to the work environment. Numerous studies supported the idea of a value-behavior link, and prio r research using Schwartz's ideas were promising. However, the data for this study did not substantiate this idea. Instead, values' relationship with CWB, trait boredom, and all other study variables were small to non-existent. Moreover, values did not ope rate to determine when a particular relationship between boredom or characteristics and CWB occu rred. In fact, they seemed largely irrelevant in determining any relationships with CWB. The one exception to this rule was the interaction between benevolence and task significance on CWBO. Even th is relationship, however, was not in the expected direction. It was reasoned that when values were in concert w ith characteristics (i.e., self transcendence and task significance), that th e situation would be ideal, and there would be less CWBO. In fact, the relationship was just the opposite, one where task significance only mattered to those who were low on benevolence. Low benevolence and low task significance resulted in the most or ganizational CWB, but low benevolents in a
80 job perceived as highly significant were leas t likely to commit CWBO. Further, when benevolence was high, CWBO stayed the same re gardless of how significant the task. It may be that benevolent individuals just ask le ss of their environments and tend to behave the same regardless of the perceived importan ce of their tasks. This idea is supported by the research by Short et al. (2006) that showed that bene volent individuals were less equity sensitive and generally showed high job satisfaction regardless of circumstance. Co-worker report issues It is most likely that cross-source correl ations underestimate the true relationship between boredom or job characteristics and CWB. Participants were instructed to select one co-worker with a job similar to their own. The extent to which a job is similar can differ very much, however. Take the positions of college professor and human resources manager (20.4% of participants were employe d in education, training, or library; 12% were employed in human resources or recrui ting). A professor may select a co-worker who is an assistant prof essor (while s/he is an associat e or full professor) and for whom the job may be very different in terms of expectations, resources, and pay. Or, a professor could select a co-wor ker whose area of study is very different from his/her own and may be more or less inte resting. With a human resour ces manager, the problems are even more profound; a participant could be manager of selection and assessment and their nearest counterpart is manager of trai ning or performance management. These jobs often differ widely in terms of who the supe rvisor is, the expectations or workload, amount of travel, and actual j ob responsibilities. Beyond the i ssue of true job differences among co-workers in similar jobs, participan ts may have also se lected someone who
81 works next to them but has an entirely different role. To sum, it is unknown the extent to which the co-worker pairs re present a true job match. In spite of these issues, there was r easonable agreement among co-workers and participants regarding job characteristic s and job boredom. The latter showed correlations of .29 while the former had correlations ranging from .21 to .28 for the various facets; only job feedback showed a non-significant correla tion of .18. This indicates that it is likely that participants and co-workers are referencing similar jobs when making their judgments about its various characteristics. Theoretical Implications To place boredom proneness in contex t of CWB theory, there are several possibilities. First, it may be that boredom proneness can be explained as a negative feeling state, such as anger direct ed inward, and understood through the job stress/emotion CWB model (Spector & Fox, 2002). Boredom proneness may be a negative emotional state that predisposes a pe rson to experience the work environment as boring and distressing. Because of this, s/he engages in damaging workplace behaviors to manage bad feelings and/or to cope w ith a perceived poor work environment. To examine this theory, boredom proneness should be looked at with tr ait anger and negative emotions in the same study. An alternative theory is that boredom pr one individuals pursue these behaviors to enrich their jobs and provide excitement fo r them. Since boredom prone people tend to experience hopelessness, apat hy, loneliness, and distract ibility, engaging in these behaviors may provide excitement and stim ulation. It may focus them and provide needed entertainment in their environments. To support this theory, evidence would need
82 to be gained, potentially through a longitudinal study, show ing that engaging in these behaviors actually alleviated or reduced bored feelings or enhanced positive feelings in the individual. Job boredom seems to fit nicely in the job stress/emotion CWB model. A useful theory may be that certain characteristics of a job are universally monotonous, require vigilance, and induce boredom; therefore, the environment is perceived as stressful, and job boredom and other negative feelings emerge. The result is behavior directed at the source of the stress and overwhelming ne gative feelings Â– the organization. Other theoretical implicati ons of this study are that va lues theory may not be as robust in predicting behavior as prior social psychological research might indicate. One reason could be the extremely small range of work behaviors examined in this research, but other information points to another explana tion. A dearth of research results linking values to work behavior may i ndicate that there hasn't been mu ch research with it, or may indicate that studies examining values with work criterion values show null results and are not published. Practical Implications As mentioned previously, boredom pronene ss may be a personality variable that has the potential to predict job relevant crite ria. Thus, it might be worth using a measure of boredom proneness as a selection device. Knowing the detrimental workplace issues associated with boredom proneness, an empl oyer could either make the decision not to hire someone who scores high on the scale or to carefully examine the environment for an appropriate fit. Since at low levels of job boredom, bor edom prone individuals tend to
83 do just fine, an employer could make the decision to monitor the job environment and ensure that it is stimulating enough. Further, knowing that job boredom show s even stronger relationships with CWB than boredom proneness alone, employers s hould be actively invested in creating a stimulating workplace for their employees. Organizational surveys should include a measure of what employees find boring and inte resting about their jobs. Jobs could then be re-formulated to suit tastes boring tasks eliminated or reduced, and interesting pieces of the work added or enhanced. Finally, organizations could hold focus groups or discussion panels about CWB, asking employees for input about the possible ca uses and solutions. They could use this information in conjunction with the research lite rature to help devise effective strategies to control behaviors that are pot entially detrimental to employees and their organizations. Limitations Limitations of this study include the single source for CWB data. Although respondents are the only people who would be fully aware of which behaviors they engage in, there are issues with social desi rability in responding. Research using multisource data has found significant convergen ce between self a nd other report CWB measures (e.g., Bruk & Spector, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2005). The problem is who to view as more accurate when sources disagr ee; while respondents may underreport their actual CWB for cognitive dissonance or social desirability purposes, co-workers may underreport participant CWB due to not being present to witness it or to not make the participant look bad.
84 Another limitation is in the study design. This research was not set up to answer the question of why and how boredom (both job and trait) affects CWB. Though these relationships proved to be the most important findings in the study, th ere is no way to tell the mechanism by which boredom affects CWB. There is also no way to tell how much incremental variance in the CWB construct is explained by boredom proneness and job boredom over and above what has been covere d by stressors and personal factors in other research.. To examine this issue, the variab les would have to be examined in a new study including other known predic tors of CWB. Further, the cross-sectional survey de sign does not allow us to draw any causal conclusions. Though it would be extremely diffi cult to create a controlled experimental or even quasi-experimental design to study CWB, it would be helpful if more conclusive designs could be used to study CWB. A more realistic goal is to conduct a longitudinal CWB study whereby stressors and individual characteri stics are measured at time 1 and time 2 and the change in CWB across time can be seen. Co-worker reported job boredom and characteristics helped us get past this design issue a bit, but results with co-worker reports were only somewhat supportive for reasons already discussed. A final limitation of this study is the lack of enough pairs (n = 112) to have adequate power to run moderated regr essions. Though there were 211 individual participants to analyze, there was a wide differe nce in the number of pairs. This also may have obscured or attenuated some potenti ally significant cross-source correlational relationships. Agreement across s ources was not terribly high, so this is just one potential reason for lowered or no n-significant correlations. Conclusions
85 This study provided no support for the proposition that va lues moderate relationships between boredom and CWB. It also provided no support for the idea that job characteristics can match we ll with values and act to im pede the expression of CWB. The major findings of this study suggest that job boredom is a somewhat objective feature of the job re sulting in negative employee behaviors. A key takeaway finding is that job boredom is a problem fo r everyone who experiences it, not just the chronically bored. This should induce organizations to create meaningful and interesting work opportunities for their employees. Much more research is needed on boredom, this relatively unexplored realm of workplace problems. A further conclusion is th at trait boredom is a nega tive emotional state resulting in numerous aggressive and adverse organi zational and personal acts by the bored individual. Further research should seek to understand the nature of trait boredom in adults in the workplace and realize what ot her potentially importan t outcome variables it impacts.
86 References Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (267-299). New York: Academic Press. Ahmed, S.M.S. (1990). Psychometric proper ties of the boredom proneness scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills 71, 963-966. Azjen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press. Bardi, A. & Schwartz, S.H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, 1207-1220. Barling, J. & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactiona l, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study Journal of Psychology 649-656. Bies, R.J., Tripp, T.M., & Kramer, R.M. ( 1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizati ons. In R.A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (eds.) Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blunt, A. & Pychyl, T.A. (1998). Volitiona l action and inaction in the lives of undergraduate students: Stat e orientation, procrastin ation, and proneness to boredom. Personality and Individual Differences 24, 837-846. Bollen, K. & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin 110, 305-314. Bruk & Spector, (2006). The so cial stressors-counterproductiv e work behavior link: Are conflicts with supervisors and co-workers the same? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 145-156. Bruursema, K. & Spector, P.E. (2005). Leadership style and the link with counterproductive work behavior: An i nvestigation using the job-stress/CWB model. Paper presented at the meeti ng for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Los Angeles, CA. Dahlen, E.R.; Martin, R.C.; Ragan, K; a nd Kuhlman, M.M. (2004). Boredom proneness in anger and aggression: Effects of im pulsiveness and sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences 37, 1615-1627. Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowler, Sears (1939). Douglas, & Martinko (2001). E xploring the role of indivi dual differences in the
87 prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 547-559. Dunlop & Lee (2004). Workplace deviance, or ganizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25, 67-80. Farmer, R. & Sundberg, N.D. (1986). Bo redom proneness: The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 50, 4-17. Feather, N.T. (1995). Values, valences, a nd choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, 1135-1151. Feather, N.T. (1988). From values to actio ns: Recent applications of the expectancyvalue model. Australian Journal of Psychology 40, 105-124. Feather, N.T. (1971). Organization and di screpancy in cognitive structures. Psychological Review 90, 105-126. Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. (1999). A mode l of work frustra tion-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 915-931. Fox, S.; Spector, P.E.; & Miles (2001). Counter productive work behavior in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 59, 291-309. Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. (2002). An emotioncentered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductiv e work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resources Management Review 12, 269-292. Geddes, D. & Baron, R.A. (1997). Workplace a ggression as a consequence of negative performance feedback. Management Communications Quarterly, 10, 433-454. Giacalone, R.A. & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goh, A.; Bruursema, K; Fox, S; & Spector, P. E. (2003). Comparisons of self and coworker reports of counterproductive work behavior. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organi zational Psychology Conference April 11-13: Orlando, FL. Gollwitzer, P.M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P.M. Gollwitzer & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of Action (pp. 287-312). New York: Guilford. Gould, C. & Seib, H.M. (1997). Job satisfaction as a function of boredom proneness and
88 central life interests Paper presented at the 43rd annual Southeastern Psychological Association Meeting, Atlanta. Greenberg J. (1990). Employee theft as a re action to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts Journal of Applied Psychology 561-568. Hackman, J.R. & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employe e reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph 55, 259-286. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motiva tion through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 250-279. Hogan, J. & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 273-279. Hollinger, R.C. & Clark, J.P. (1983). Theft by Employees Lexington, MA: DC Heath & Co. Lexington Books. Hollinger, R.C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior 7, 53-75. Idaszak, J.R. & Drasgow, F. (1987). A re vision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 69-74. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kass, S.J.; & Vodanovich, S.J. (1990). Boredo m proneness: Its relati onship to Type A behavior pattern and sensation seeking. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 27, 7-16. Kass, S.J.; Vodanovich, S.J.; & Callender, A. (2001). State-trait boredom: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology 16, 317-327. Klein, R.L., Leong, G.B., & Silva, J.A. (1996). Employee sabotage in the workplace: A biopsychosocial model Journal of Forensic Sciences 41, 52-55. Kulik, C. T.; Oldham, G.R.; & Hackman, J.R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior 31, 278-296. Lantz, J.E. (1988). The bored client: A logotherapy approach. Psychotherapy and the Bored Patient 3, 111-117. Lee, T.W. (1986). Toward the development a nd validation of a measure of job boredom.
89 Manhattan College Journal of Business 15, 22-28. Liu, C. (2003). A comparison of job stress ors and job strains among employees holding comparable jobs in western and eastern societies. MacDonald, D.A. & Holland, D. (2002). Spirituality and boredom proneness. Personality and Individual Differences 32, 1113-1119. MacDonald, S. & MacIntyre, P. (1997). Th e generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly 13, 1-16. McGurn, T. (1988, March 7). Spotting the thieves who work among us. Wall Street Journal p. 16A. McHolland, J.D. (1988). Client -therapist boredom: What does it mean and what do we do? Psychotherapy and the Bored Patient 3, 87-96. McLeod, C.R. & Vodanovich, S.J. (1991). The relationship between self-actualization and boredom proneness. [Special issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 137-146. Mikulas, W.L. & Voadanovich, S.J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The Psychological Record, 43, 3-12. Miles, D.E.; Borman, W.E.; Spector, P.E.; & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of count erproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 10, 51-57. Neuman, J.H. & Baron, R.A. (1998). Workpl ace violence and wor kplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potenti al causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management 24, 391-419. Newberry, A.L. & Duncan, R.D. (2001). Role s of boredom and life goals in juvenile delinquency. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, 527-541. OÂ’Hanlon, J.F. (1981). Boredom: Practic al consequences and a theory. Acta Psychologica 49, 53-82. Oishi, S.; Schimmack, U.; Diener, E.F.; & S uh, E.M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24, 1177-1189. Oishi, S.; Diener, E.F.; Lucas, R.E.; & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultur al variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Pers pectives from needs and values. Personality
90 and Social Psychology Bulletin 25, 980-990. OÂ’Leary-Kelly, A.M.; Griffin, R.W.; & Glew D.J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Journal 21, 225253. Oliver, J.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; & de Jong, R.D. (2005). Projection of own on othersÂ’ job characteristics: Evidence fo r the false consensus effect in job characteristics information. International Journal of Selection & Assessment 13, 63-74. Ones, D.S.; Viswesvaran, C.; & Schmidt, F. (1993a). Integrity tests pr edict substance abuse and aggressive behaviors at work. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association C onvention, Toronto, Canada. Ones, D.S.; Viswesvaran, C.; & Schmidt, F.L. (1993b). Personality characteristics and absence taking behavior: The case of integrity Paper presented at the 1992 Annual meeting of Academy of Management, Personnel/Human Resources Division, Las Vegas. Ones, D.S.; Viswesvaran, C. & Schmidt, F. (1993c). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and imp lications for personn el selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph 78, 679703. Ones, D.S.; Viswesvaran, C.; Schmidt, F.L.; & Reiss, A.D. (1994). The validity of honesty and violence scales of integrity tests in pred icting violence at work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX. Peters, L.H. & OÂ’Connor, E.J. (1980). Situat ional constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequent ly overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review 5, 391-397. Penney, L. (2002). Workplace incivility and counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB): What is the relationship an d does personality play a role? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rentsch, J.R. & Steele, R.P. (1998). Testing the durability of job characteristics as predictors of absenteeism over a six-year period. Personnel Psychology 51, 165189. Robinson, S.L. & Greenberg, J. (1998). Em ployees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In D.M. Rousseau & C. Cooper (Eds.) Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 5-
91 30). New York: Wiley. Robinson, S.L. & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A t ypology of deviant wor kplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal 38, 555-572. Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization a nd change within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues 24, 13-33. Rokeach M. (1973). The nature of human value s. New York: Free Press. Ros, M.; Schwartz, S.H.; & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48, 49-71. Rupp, D.E.; & Vodanovich, S.J. (1997). The ro le of boredom pronene ss in self-reported anger and aggression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 12, 925-936. Sackett, P.R. & DeVore, C.J. (2001). C ounterproductive Behaviors at Work. In Anderson et al., Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology Vol. 1 (p. 145-164). Sage. Salancik, G.J. & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social informati on processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly 23, 224-253. Schwartz, S.H. & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evalua ting the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis Journal of Research in Personality 38, 230-255. Schwartz, S.H.; Sagiv, L.; & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and values. Journal of Personality 68, 309-346. Schwartz, S.H.; Verkasalo, M.; Antonovsky, A.; & Sagiv, L. (1997). Va lue priorities and social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology 36, 3-18. Schwartz, S.H. (1997). Values and culture. In D. Munro, S. Carr, & J. Schumaker (Eds.), Motivation and culture (pp. 69-84). New York: Routledge. Schwartz, S.H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applyi ng a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J.M. Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium Vol. 8 (p. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues 50, 19-45. Schwartz, S.H. (1992).
92 Schwartz, S.H. (In press, a). Basic human values: Their co ntent and structure across cultures. In A. Tamayo & J. Porto (Eds.), Va lores e trabalho [Values and work]. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Schwartz, S.H. (In press, b). Robustness and fruitfulness of the values theory In A. Tamayo & J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho [Values and work]. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Short, T.; Sy, T.; & Strauss, J. (2006). Lead er responsiveness, equity sensitivity, and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology 21, 227241. Sims, Szilaygi, & Keller (1975). Siu, O.L.; Spector, P.E.; Cooper, C.L.; & Lu, C.G. (2005). Work stress, self efficacy, Chinese work values, and work well-being in Hong Kong and Beijing. International Journal of Stress Management 12, 274-288. Skarlicki, D.P. & Folger, R. (1997). Reta liation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, a nd interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 434-443. Smith, P.C.; Kendall, L.M.; & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally. Spector, P.E. (1975). Relationships of organizat ional frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 635-637. Spector, P.E. (1998). A control theory of the jo b stress process. In C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Theories of Organizational Stress (pp. 153-169). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. (2002). An emotioncentered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterprod uctive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Human Resources Management Review 12, 269-292. Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. (2003a). Reducing s ubjectivity in the assessment of the job environment: Development of the Factual Autonomy Scale (FAS). Journal of Organizational Behavior 24, 417-432. Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. (2003b, November). Em otional experience at work: Assessing emotions with the Job-related Affect ive Well-being Scale (JAWS). Paper presented at the meeting of the Southe rn Management Association, Clearwater
93 Beach, FL. Spector, P.E.; Fox, S.; Penney, L.M.; Bruursema, K.; Goh, A.; & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductiv ity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460. Spector, P.E.; Fox, S.; Penney, L.M.; Bruursema, K.; Goh, A.; & Kessler, S. (2006, March). Development of the counterpr oductive work behavior checklist (CWBC). Presented at the Work Stress and Health Conference, Miami, FL. Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. (2005). A model of c ounterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductiv e workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. (pp. 151 -174). Washington, D.C.: APA. Spector, P.E.; Fox, S.; & Penney, L.M. ( 2006). To sum or not to sum. Turner & Lawrence (1965). Wasson, A.S. (1981). Susceptibility to bor edom and deviant beha vior at school. Psychological Reports 48, 901-902. Watt, J.D. & Blanchard, M.J. (1994). Boredom proneness and the need for cognition. Journal of Research in Personality 7, 169-175. Watt, J.D. & Vodanovich, S.J. (1992). Re lationship between boredom proneness and impulsivity. Psychological Reports 70, 688-690. Watt, J.D. (2002). Fighting more than fires: Boredom proneness, workload stress, and underemployment among urban firefighters. Dissertation Abstracts International 63, 2637. VanKatwyk, Spector, Fox, & Kelloway (2000). Using the Job-related Affective Wellbeing Scale (JAWS) to investigate aff ective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5, 219-230. Verplanken, B. & Holland, R.W. (2002). Mo tivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centr ality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, 434-447. Vodanovich, S.J. & Kass, S.J. (1990). A fact or analytic study of the boredom proneness scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 55, 115-123. Vodanovich, S.J.; Verner, K.M.; & Gilbride T.V. (1991). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to positive and negative affect. Psychological Reports 69, 1139-
96 Appendix: Measures Demographic Questions Directions. Please indicate your responses to the following questions by marking the check boxes next to the item responses. 1. Please select the one (1) job category listed that most closely matches the category of your current job: Architectural & Engineering Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, or Media Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance Business & Financial Operations Community & Social Services Computer & Mathematical Construction & Extraction Education, Training, & Library Farming, Fishing, & Forestry Food Preparation & Serving Related Healthcare Practitioner & Technical Healthcare Support Installation, Maintenance, & Repair Legal Life, Physical, & Social Science Management Military Specific Office & Administrative Support Personal Care & Service Production Protective Service (Fire, Poli ce, Animal, Special Agent) Sales & Related Transportation & Material Moving 2. What is the highest level of ed ucation that you have achieved? Less than high school Some high school High school di ploma or GED Trade or technical school Some college 2-year degree (associates) 4-year degree (bachelors) Some graduate school Masters degree Ph.D./M.D./J.D./other advanced degree Post-graduate studies 3. Is your current job in the same field that your degree or certificate is in? Yes No
97 4. On average, how many hour s do you work per week? __________ 5. What is your gender? Male Female 6. What is your age? ____________ VALUE SURVEY In this questionnaire you are to ask yourself: "What values are important to ME as guiding principles in MY life, and what values are less im portant to me?" There ar e two lists of values on the following pages. In the parentheses following eac h value is an explanation that may help you to understand its meaning. Your task is to rate how impor tant each value is for you as a guiding principle in your life Use the rating scale below: 0--means the value is not at al l important, it is not relevant as a guiding principle for you. 3--means the value is important. 6--means the value is very important. The higher the number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), the more important the value is as a guiding principle in YOUR life. -1 is for rating any values opposed to the principles that guide you. 7 is for rating a value of supreme importa nce as a guiding principle in your life; ordinarily there are no more than two such values. Next to each value, circle the number (-1,0,1,2,3, 4,5,6,7) that indicates th e importance of that value for you, personally. Try to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the numbers. You will, of course, need to use numbers more than once. AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is: opposed of to my not very supreme values important important important importance -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Before you begin, read the values in List I, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its importance. Next, choose the value that is most oppose d to your values and rate it -1. If there is no such value, choose the value least important to you and rate it 0 or 1, according to its importance. Then rate the rest of the values in List I. VALUES LIST I 1. EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
98 2. SOCIAL POWER (control over others, dominance) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. PLEASURE (gratification of desires) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. FREEDOM (freedom of actio n and thought) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. SOCIAL ORDER (stability of society) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. AN EXCITING LIFE (sti mulating experiences) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. POLITENESS (courtesy, good manners) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. WEALTH (material possessions, money) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. NATIONAL SECURITY (protection of my nation from enemies) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS (avoidance of indebtedness) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. CREATIVITY (uniqu eness, imagination) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. RESPECT FOR TR ADITION (preservati on of time-honored customs) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to temptation) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. UNITY WITH NATURE (fitting into nature) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. A VARIED LIFE (filled with challenge, novelty and change) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. WISDOM (a mature unders tanding of life) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. A WORLD OF BEAUTY (b eauty of nature and the arts) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. SOCIAL JUSTICE (correcting injustice, care for the weak) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ******************************************************************************** Now rate how important each of the following valu es is for you as a guiding principle in YOUR life These values are phrased as ways of acting that may be more or less important for you. Once again, try to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the numbers. Before you begin, read the values in List II, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its importance. Next, choose the value that is most opposed to your values, or--if there is no such value--choose the value least important to you, and ra te it -1, 0, or 1, according to its importance. Then rate the rest of the values. AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is: opposed of to my not very supreme values important important important importance -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VALUES LIST II 22. INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-suffi cient) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. MODERATE (avoiding ex tremes of feeling & action) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. BROADMINDED (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. HUMBLE (modest, self-effacing) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. DARING (seeking adventure, risk) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (preserving nature) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. INFLUENTIAL (having an impacton people and events) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. HONORING OF PARENTS AND ELDERS (showing respect) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
99 32. CHOOSING OWN GOALS (selecting own purposes) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. CAPABLE (competent, effective, efficient) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. ACCEPTING MY PORTION IN LIFE (submitting to life's circumstances) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. HONEST (genuine, sincere) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE (protecting my "face") -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting obligations) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. ENJOYING LIFE (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. DEVOUT (holding to religious faith & beli ef) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. CURIOUS (interested in ev erything, exploring) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. FORGIVING (willing to pardon others) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. CLEAN (neat, tidy) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. SELF-INDULGENT (doing pleasant things) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Boredom Proneness Scale The questions that follow all deal with your thoughts and preferences about boring or exciting things. Please answer them while thinking about your life as a whole not just one aspect of your life such as leisure activities. Instructions. Please use the following scale to answer the questions. 1 = strongly disagree 5 = mildly agree 2 = disagree 6 = agree 3 = mildly disagree 7 = strongly agree 4 = neither agree nor disagree 1. It is easy for me to concentrate on my activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Frequently when I am working on something, I find myself worrying about other things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Time always seems to be passing slowly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I often find myself at Â“loose ends,Â” not knowing what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I am often trapped in situations where I have to do meaningless things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Having to look at someone elseÂ’s home movies or travel photos bores me tremendously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I have projects in mind all the time, things to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I find it easy to entertain myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Many things I have to do are repetitive and m onotonous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. It takes more stimulation to get me going than most people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. I get a kick out of most things I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I am seldom excited about my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. In any situation, I can usually find something to do or see to keep me interested. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Much of the time, I just sit around doing nothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. I am good at waiting patiently. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
100 16. I often find myself with nothing to do Â– time on my hands. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. In situations where I have to wait, such as a line, I ge t very restless. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I often wake up with a new idea. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. It would be very hard for me to find a job that is exciting enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I would like more challenging things to do in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. I feel that I am working below my abilities most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Many people would say that I am a creative or imaginative person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. I have so many interests; I donÂ’t have time to do everything. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Among my friends, I am the one who keeps doing things the longest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Unless I am doing something exciting, even dangerous, I feel halfdead and dull. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. It takes a lot of change and variety to keep me really happy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. It seems that the same things are on television or the movies all the time; itÂ’s getting old. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. When I was young, I was often in boring or tiresome situations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ****************************************************************************** Job Boredom Scale The questions that follow all deal with your e xperience of your job as dull or exciting. Please answer the questions with respect to your own reactions to your present job. Instructions Please use the scale that follo ws to answer the questions. 1 = Never 5 = Very Often 2 = Very rarely 6 = Almost always 3 = Sometimes 7 = Always 4 = Often 1. Do you get bored with your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Is your work tedious? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. If the pay were the same, would you like to change from one type of work to another from time to time? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Do you like the work you do? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Do you get tired on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Do you find the job dull? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Does the job go by too slowly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Do you become irritable on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Do you get apathetic on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Do you get mentally sluggish during the day? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Do you get drowsy on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Does the time seem to go by slowly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Are there long periods of boredom on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Does the job seem repetitive? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. During the day, do you think about doing another task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Does monotonous describe your job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Is your work pretty much the same day after day? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
101 ****************************************************************************** Job Design Survey The following questions all deal with different aspects of your work. Please respond to the items with respect to your present job. Instructions. Please use the following scale to answer the questions. 1 = Very inaccurate 5 = Slightly accurate 2 = Mostly inaccurate 6 = Mostly accurate 3 = Slightly inaccurate 7 = Very accurate 4 = Uncertain 1. I decide on my own how to go about doing the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I do a Â“wholeÂ” and identifiable piece of work. It is not a small part of the overall piece of work, which is finished by other people or by automatic machines. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The job requires me to do many different things using a variety of my skills and talents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. The results of my work significantly affect the lives and well-being of other people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. The actual work itself provides clues about how well I am doing Â– aside from feedback that co-workers or supervisors provide. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from beginning to end. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. The job requires me to perform a variety of tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. The job is one where lots of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. The job provides me the chance to completely finish the piece of work I begin. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. After I finish a job, I know whether I performed well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ****************************************************************************** Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist The remaining questions ask about vari ous behaviors and reactions to your present job. Remembering that this is strictly anon ymous, please answer them as honestly as possible. Instructions. Please use the following scale when answering the questions.
102 1=Never 2=Once or twice 3=Once or twice per month 4=Once or twice per week 5=Every day On my present job, I haveÂ… 1. Purposely wasted my employers materials/supplies 1 2 3 4 5 2. Daydreamed rather than did my work 1 2 3 4 5 3. Complained about insignificant things at work 1 2 3 4 5 4. Told people outside the job what a lousy place I work for 1 2 3 4 5 5. Purposely did my work incorrectly 1 2 3 4 5 6. Came to work late without permission 1 2 3 4 5 7. Stayed home from work and said I was sick when I wasnÂ’t 1 2 3 4 5 8. Purposely damaged a piece of e quipment or property 1 2 3 4 5 9. Purposely dirtied or littered my workplace 1 2 3 4 5 10. Stolen something belonging to my employer 1 2 3 4 5 11. Started or continued a damaging or harmful rumor at work 1 2 3 4 5 12. Been nasty or rude to a client or customer 1 2 3 4 5 13. Purposely worked slowly when things needed to get done 1 2 3 4 5 14. Refused to take on an assignment when asked 1 2 3 4 5 15. Purposely came late to an appointment or meeting 1 2 3 4 5 16. Failed to report a problem so it would get worse 1 2 3 4 5 17. Taken a longer break or meal period than I was allowe d to take 1 2 3 4 5 18. Purposely failed to follow instructions 1 2 3 4 5 19. Left work earlier than I was allowed to 1 2 3 4 5 20. Insulted someone about his or her job performance 1 2 3 4 5 21. Made fun of someoneÂ’s personal life 1 2 3 4 5 22. Taken supplies or tools home without permission 1 2 3 4 5 23. Tried to look busy while doing nothing 1 2 3 4 5 24. Put in to be paid for more hours than I worked, or worked fewer hours than required 1 2 3 4 5 25. Taken money from my employer without permission 1 2 3 4 5 26. Ignored someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 27. Refused to help someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 28. Withheld needed information from someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 29. Purposely interfered with someone at work doing his/her job 1 2 3 4 5 30. Blamed someone at work for an error I made 1 2 3 4 5 31. Started an argument with someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 32. Stolen something belonging to someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 33. Verbally abused someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 34. Made an obscene gesture (the finger) to someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 35. Threatened someone at work with violence 1 2 3 4 5 36. Threatened someone at work, but not physically 1 2 3 4 5 37. Said something obscene to someone at work to make him or her feel bad 1 2 3 4 5 38. Hid something so someone at work couldnÂ’t find it 1 2 3 4 5 39. Did something to make someone at work look bad 1 2 3 4 5 40. Played a mean prank to embarrass someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 41. Destroyed property belonging to someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 42. Looked at someone at workÂ’s private mail/property/documents 1 2 3 4 5
103 without permission 43. Hit or pushed someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 44. Insulted or made fun of someone at work 1 2 3 4 5 45. Avoided returning a phone call to someone you should at work. 1 2 3 4 5 46. Created or engaged in a non work-related game or activity to entertain myself and/or others during a meeting, seminar, or training session. 1 2 3 4 5 47. Used the internet to browse, blog, email, or otherwise amuse myself for non work-related purposes. 1 2 3 4 5 48. Engaged in amusing activities such as gossiping or joking with coworkers that distract me and others from work. 1 2 3 4 5 49. Played practical jokes on co-workers or customers to entertain myself and/or co-workers during work time. 1 2 3 4 5 50. Wasted company resources or supplies to create something for my own purposes or to amuse myself or others. 1 2 3 4 5 51. Falsified an expense report or abused an expense account to gain extra money for myself. 1 2 3 4 5
About the Author Kari Bruursema obtained her B.S. in Psychology from Grand Valley State University in 2001. She attended GVSU on a fu ll academic scholarship and received the annual senior award from faculty for "Most Outstanding Student in the Department of Psychology" in 2001. She received the Presiden tial Doctoral Fellowship award from the University of South Florida for the years 2001-2006 and completed her M.A. in Industrial/Organizatio nal Psychology in 2004. During her doctoral tour at USF, Kari has examined counterproductive work behavior and its various antecedents in a num ber of different studies. She has completed this research using the model developed by her major professor and using other ideas advanced by fellow doctoral students Stacey Kessler and Angeline Goh. She has presented her findings at SI OP conferences and in p eer-reviewed journals. She currently works in the pharmaceutical industry in the area of assessment and selection. Kari's immediate plans are to pursu e a career in I/O consulting areas related to assessment, development, and coaching.