This article was downloaded by: [Hitlan, Robert T.]
On: 1 October 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 915579027]
Publisher Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713684945
The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive
work behaviours: An interactionist perspective
Robert T. Hitlan a; Jennifer Noel a
a
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA
Online Publication Date: 01 December 2009
To cite this Article Hitlan, Robert T. and Noel, Jennifer(2009)'The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on
counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective',European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,18:4,477
— 502
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13594320903025028
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903025028
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2009, 18 (4), 477–502
The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on
counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist
perspective
Robert T. Hitlan and Jennifer Noel
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA
The current research examined some of the person and situation factors that
contribute to counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). More specifically,
this research examined the unique and interactive effects of perceived
workplace exclusion and personality, as measured via the NEO-FFI, on two
types of CWB: interpersonal and organizational. Participants included 105
employees from a mid-sized Midwestern utility company in the US. All
employees completed a Workplace Experiences Survey. As predicted,
exclusion via co-workers was related to interpersonal forms of CWB,
whereas, exclusion by supervisors was related to organizational CWB.
Support was also obtained for several of the predicted interactions between
workplace exclusion and personality on CWB such that the relation between
exclusion and CWB was strongest for employees whose personality exhibited
less behavioural constraint. Results are discussed in terms of their
implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Keywords: Counterproductive work behaviour; Ostracism; Personality;
Workplace exclusion.
Arguably, an organization’s human capital represents the most important
resource for ensuring an organization’s competitiveness in a local, regional,
national, or even global marketplace. Thus, it stands to reason that
organizations would want their employees to feel a sense of inclusiveness
within the organization, especially given the positive relation between
perceived inclusiveness and social support, employee psychological health,
organizational satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Mor Barak,
Cherin, & Berkman, 1998; Mor Barak & Levin, 2002). Yet, to our
Correspondence should be addressed to Robert T. Hitlan, Department of Psychology,
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614, USA. E-mail: rob.hitlan@uni.edu
Ó 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/ejwop
DOI: 10.1080/13594320903025028
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
478
HITLAN AND NOEL
knowledge, little research has specifically examined workplace exclusion as a
focal construct. Drawing on previous research investigating social ostracism
(Williams, 2001, 2007) and organizational behaviour (Duffy, Ganster, &
Pagon, 2002), we define workplace exclusion broadly as, the extent to which
an individual (or group) perceives that they are being rejected, ignored, or
ostracized by another individual (or group) within their place of work. One
basic assumption underlying this definition is that many (if not most) times
such behaviour hinders one’s ability to complete those tasks required for
successful job performance.
The current research has two primary goals. The first is to examine the
link between workplace exclusion and negative work behaviours. As
described more fully later, one important consideration in trying to predict
how exclusion relates to workplace behaviour concerns the source of the
exclusion (e.g., co-workers, supervisors). A second goal is to better
understand how individual differences moderate the relation between
workplace exclusion and work behaviour. Simply stated, the aim of the
current research is to better understand the unique and interactive effects of
workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviours. More specifically, the current research examines how an employee’s
perception of being excluded by other co-workers or supervisors is related to
interpersonal and organizational counterproductive work behaviours
(CWB).
Generally speaking, CWB is defined as ‘‘a set of volitional acts [as
opposed to accidental or mandated] that harm or intend to harm
organizations and their stakeholders (e.g., clients, co-workers, customers,
and supervisors)’’ (Spector & Fox, 2005, pp. 151–152). Thus, CWB includes
a wide range of behaviours from taking extended breaks to stealing to
physical violence. Although there are a number of clearly distinct acts that
are subsumed under the broader definition of CWB (Robinson & Bennett,
1995, 1997; Sackett, 2002; Spector et al., 2006b), the current research
focused on those behaviours associated with interpersonal (e.g., arguing
with co-others) and organizational (e.g., stealing from one’s organization)
dimensions of CWB. To our knowledge, research has not specifically
examined how broad dimensions of one’s personality function to moderate
the relation between exclusion and outcomes. In addition, the current
research expands on what is currently known about exclusion and CWB by
examining how the sources of exclusion (co-worker or supervisor) relate to
specific types of CWB.
We begin by briefly reviewing why exclusion represents an important
construct for organizational researchers. Next, we review some of the most
relevant social-psychological research examining how social exclusion
influences attitudes and behaviours. Given our focus on workplace
relationships, we rely on Social Exchange and Social Identity theories to
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
479
aid in developing specific predictions about the link between sources and
outcomes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we outline how one’s
personality may function to moderate the impact of perceived exclusion on
CWB.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH ON
EXCLUSION, REJECTION, AND OSTRACISM
According to Belongingness Theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people
possess an innate need to feel connected to and belong to something
greater than oneself. Research indicates that being excluded is psychologically aversive to victims. When one’s need for belonging is thwarted,
people seek to reaffirm their sense of self-worth and meaningfulness
(Williams, 2007).
Exclusion (either real or perceived) is related to a host of negative
emotional states including sadness, loneliness, jealousy, guilt/shame,
embarrassment, and social anxiety (Leary, Koch, & Hechenbleikner,
2001). Research indicates a direct relation between exclusion and increased
desire to avoid future contact with perpetrators (Cheuk & Rosen, 1994;
Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960), decreased prosocial behaviours, decreased
ability to self-regulate one’s behaviour, and impaired cognitive functioning
(Baumeister & DeWall, 2005). To the extent that exclusion decreases selfregulation it may serve to direct employees towards short-term behaviours
motivated by self-interest and away from more long-term behaviours
focused on the future success of the organization (Parks & Kidder, 1994).
Such a shift in one’s thought processes is also consistent with the literature
on exchange relations within organizations. Thus, when an employee feels
excluded they may engage in behaviours, such as increased aggression and
risk-taking that are not in keeping with their long-term best interests as
organizational employees (Bierman & Wargo, 1995; Twenge, Baumeister,
Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Yet, exclusion within the work realm has only been
investigated as secondary to other constructs such as workplace incivility,
bullying, retaliation, and harassment. Given this, and the potential
importance of exclusion for one’s well-being, there remains a gap in the
literature as to exactly how exclusion (as a focal construct) contributes to
work outcomes.
EXCHANGE RELATIONS AND WORKPLACE
EXCLUSION
Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958) posits that social
behaviour involves the exchange of both material (e.g., information and
equipment) and nonmaterial goods (e.g., status and approval). When one
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
480
HITLAN AND NOEL
person is negligent in the exchange, the other will be more likely to leave the
relationship. Based on the tenants of Social Exchange Theory, several
workplace relevant exchange theories have emerged including Leader–
Member Exchange Theory (LMX) and Co-worker Exchange Theory
(CWX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sherony & Green, 2002). The crux of
these theories is that the quantity and quality of leader–subordinate and coworker–co-worker relations are determined, at least in part, by how
‘‘others’’ are viewed. For example when leaders view subordinates as
‘‘ingroup’’ members, these individuals are interacted with differently
than when a subordinate is perceived as an ‘‘outgroup’’ member. Lowquality or problematic interactions often occur when a supervisor perceives
his or her subordinate as an ‘‘outgroup’’ member. Such situations are also
characterized by a lack of trust and support. A similar situation is thought
to develop when both entities are at the same organizational level (i.e.,
co-workers).
Of particular import for the current research, when such group
distinctions are made salient via exclusion, subsequent attitudes and
behaviours may reflect such an ingroup/outgroup mentality. Such a
cognitive and behavioural shift is also consistent with a host of research
supporting Social Identity Theory (SIT; Branscombe & Wann, 1994;
Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner,
1986), which is based on the assumption that one’s self-esteem and selfworth are based, in part, on group membership. Consistent with a Social
Exchange perspective, Thau, Aquino, and Poortvliet (2007) found that
thwarted belonging, defined as the discrepancy between desired and actual
level of belonging, was predictive of self-defeating deviant behaviour within
organizations (cf. Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Sheppard,
Lewicki, & Minton, 1992).
Furthermore, evidence exists that supervisor support and organizational support are positively related and, therefore, a lack of supervisor
support, via exclusion, may be expected to relate more closely to
behaviours traditionally associated with a lack of organizational support,
namely organizational CWB (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe,
Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). In contrast,
given that co-workers often spend much more of their time with other coworkers, as compared to supervisors, we believe that suffering exclusion
at the hands of other co-workers would relate to an employee questioning
their sense of belonging to that group (i.e., co-workers), and serve to
exacerbate ingroup/outgroup distinctions between oneself and other coworkers. As a result, we would expect co-worker exclusion to relate to
interpersonal forms of CWB (e.g., speaking badly of another co-worker,
gossiping; Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Frone, 2000; Spector et al., 2006b).
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
481
Based on the theory and research outlined earlier, we predict the
following:
Hypothesis 1: Exclusion by one’s supervisor(s) will be positively related to
organizational CWB.
Hypothesis 2: Exclusion by one’s co-worker(s) will be positively related to
interpersonal CWB.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
A PERSON 6 SITUATION APPROACH
There is a large body of research supporting the relation between
individual difference factors (e.g., personality dimensions) and counterproductive attitudes and behaviours (McCrae & Costa, 1986; O’Brien &
DeLongis, 1996; Ones, Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Reiss, 1994; Salgado,
2002). One commonly used measure of personality is the NEO-FFI,
which measures individual differences along five conceptually and
empirically distinct dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Higher levels of neuroticism are characterized by more anxiety,
impulsivity, anger, and hostility. Higher levels of extraversion are
characterized by warmth, gregariousness, and positive emotions. Openness to experience is characterized by unconventional values and
divergent thinking, being more emotionally expressive (both positive
and negative), being more intellectual, and being more open to reexamine
one’s value system. Individuals who score higher in agreeableness tend
to befriend others more easily and are more altruistic and less
antagonistic than those scoring lower on this dimension. Finally,
conscientiousness is associated with self-discipline, dutifulness, and a
high level of aspiration.
Higher levels of neuroticism (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003), as
well as lower levels of conscientiousness (Ashton, 1998; Sackett & DeVore,
2001), agreeableness (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Salgado, 2002),
extraversion (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Collins & Schmidt, 1993), and
openness to experience (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006) are linked to higher
levels of anger, aggression, and/or CWB. To wit, the main effects of various
person factors on organizational outcomes are generally well supported by
research. However, less research has been conducted examining the joint
contributions of situation and person factors in predicting workplace
behaviours.
Consistent with the views espoused by other researchers, we view the
outcomes associated with exclusionary behaviour as a complex interaction
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
482
HITLAN AND NOEL
between an employee’s personality and their immediate social situation (cf.
Geen, 2001; Martinko & Zellars, 1998; O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew,
1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Twenge, 2006; Williams, 2001). For
example, Robinson and Bennett (1997) developed a model of workplace
deviance in which the expression of deviant behaviours is thought to be the
product of a complex interaction between situational antecedents (e.g.,
inequities, unfair treatment, and social pressures) and constraints (e.g.,
internalization of norms). Consistent with this, Spector, Fox, and
Domagalski (2006a) state, ‘‘. . . the literature demonstrates that violent,
aggressive, and counterproductive work behaviours are best explained when
both individual differences and situational factors are examined’’ (p. 37). In
fact, a number of researchers have provided evidence in support of a
Person 6 Situation model (Colbert et al., 2004; Keashly & Harvey, 2004;
Neuman & Baron, 1997, 1998; Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2006; Vardi &
Weitz, 2004).
COMPARING ADDITIVE AND INTERACTIVE
EFFECTS MODELS
As previously noted, we expect that the perception that an employee is
being excluded within their place of work will relate to CWB. We also
expect that, individual differences in personality will relate to CWB. As
such, it is important to distinguish theoretically why we expect interactive
over additive effects to emerge. Generally speaking, with an additive
effects model we would expect to see that employees reporting higher
levels of exclusion would report higher levels of CWB, compared to
employees reporting lower levels of exclusion. Similarly, highly neurotic
employees would be expected to exhibit higher levels of CWB than
employees reporting lower neuroticism. The net effect of these two unique
main effects might be for highly neurotic employees reporting high levels
of exclusion to report the most CWB. Such an effect is consistent with an
additive model.
In contrast, we might expect that personality functions to constrain
behaviour (cf. Colbert et al., 2004) such that at low levels of neuroticism
(e.g., low anxiety, hostility, impulsiveness, and vulnerability) CWB would
be similar across all levels of exclusion. In this instance, one’s personality
would function as a behavioural constraint. However, at high levels of
neuroticism we would expect more variability in CWB depending on the
frequency with which an employee reports experiencing exclusion. In this
case, the employee’s behaviour would not be constrained by their
personality and we might expect that the highest levels of CWB would
emerge for highly neurotic individuals experiencing high levels of
exclusion. Thus, although the net result may be the same under both
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
483
additive and interactive conditions, there is a difference in the underlying
theoretical rationale for why we ought to see these effects.
In sum, consistent with previous findings suggesting that individuals who
possess specific personality characteristics are more or less likely to engage
in aggressive, antisocial, and deviant forms of organizational behaviour, we
expected that those employees whose personality exerts a stronger constraint
on behaviour would report engaging in similar levels CWB irrespective of
how much workplace exclusion they report experiencing. As reviewed
previously, we expected that personality would exert stronger constraints on
behaviour for employees reporting low levels of neuroticism, extraversion,
and openness to experience, as well as those reporting higher conscientiousness and agreeableness. In contrast, we expected much more variability in
CWB as a function of workplace exclusion among individuals whose
personality imposes fewer constraints on behaviour. As such, we expect that,
people whose behaviour is less constrained via their personality will be more
reactive to various situational influences, including workplace exclusion.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived co-worker exclusion and personality will interact
to influence interpersonal CWB such that the relation between co-worker
exclusion and interpersonal CWB will be stronger for individuals whose
personality exhibits less constraint on their behaviour (i.e., high
neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and low agreeableness and conscientiousness).
Hypothesis 4: Perceived supervisor exclusion and personality will interact
to influence organizational CWB such that the relation between supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB will stronger for individuals
whose personality exhibits less constraint on their behaviour (i.e., high
neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and low agreeableness, and conscientiousness).
METHOD
Participants
Participants included 105 employees from a medium-sized utility company
located in the Midwestern United States. Men comprised 63.8% of the
sample (n ¼ 67). Participant ages ranged from 23 to 63 years (M ¼ 43.17,
SD ¼ 8.66, Mdn ¼ 44). The entire sample identified as Caucasian (100%).
The majority of participants reported being married (83.8%) and working
full time (97%). A total of 145 surveys were distributed with 105 surveys
returned. According to Hamilton (2003), this represents an excellent
response rate of 72%.
484
HITLAN AND NOEL
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
Procedure and measures
All participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire assessing
various aspects of their workplace environment. Questionnaires were
administered at departmental meetings ranging from three to twenty
employees per meeting. Small group sessions were used to adequately
communicate the purpose of the questionnaire and answer any questions or
concerns from employees. Upon arrival, participants were informed of their
rights as research participants and asked to read over and sign an informed
consent sheet prior to participation. Informed consent sheets were kept
separate from survey responses to ensure confidentiality. Average completion time of the questionnaire was approximately 25 minutes. Participants
had the option to either complete the questionnaire at the departmental
meetings or on their own time and return the survey to the researcher in a
sealed envelope upon completion.
Workplace exclusion. The Revised Workplace Exclusion Scale (WES-R;
see Appendix) is a 17-item self-report scale, which asks participants to indicate
how often they perceived of themselves as experiencing different types of
exclusionary behaviours during the past 12 months at their organization. The
scale is comprised of three subscales, a seven-item subscale assessing one’s
perception of being excluded by co-workers (e.g., ‘‘Co-workers shutting you
out of their conversation’’), a five-item subscale assessing one’s perception of
being excluded by supervisors (e.g., ‘‘Supervisors keeping important workrelated information from you—e.g., meeting times’’), and a three-item
language-based exclusion subscale (e.g., ‘‘Co-workers speaking to each other
in a language you did not understand’’). The final two items represent criterion
questions. All responses were obtained on a 5-point response scale ranging
from 1 (‘‘never’’) to 5 (‘‘most of the time’’), with higher scores indicating higher
levels of perceived exclusion. Due to the demographic make-up of the current
sample, and a low base rate associated with the language-based exclusion
factor (i.e., four respondents indicating experiencing language-based
exclusion), the language-based exclusion subscale was not used in
subsequent analyses. Previous research indicates the WES to be reliable with
alpha coefficients ranging from .79 to .85 across studies (Hitlan, Cliffton, &
DeSoto, 2006; Hitlan, Kelly, & Zárate, 2006). Initial research also supports the
validity of the WES (Walsh & Hitlan, 2008). For the current research, the
reliability coefficients for the co-worker (a ¼ .76) and supervisor (a ¼ .75)
subscales indicated acceptable reliability estimates.
Individual differences. Personality was assessed using the NEO-FFI
(Costa & McCrae, 1992), which contains 60-items measuring the ‘‘Big Five’’
dimensions of personality including neuroticism (e.g., ‘‘I am not a worrier’’),
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
485
extraversion (e.g., ‘‘I like to have a lot of people around me’’), openness to
experience (e.g., ‘‘I find philosophical arguments boring’’), agreeableness
(e.g., ‘‘I try to be courteous to everyone I meet’’), and conscientiousness
(e.g., ‘‘I keep my belongings neat and clean’’). Each subscale is comprised of
12 items. Respondents indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with a
series of statements using a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (‘‘strongly
disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly agree’’). Composite scores were created by
averaging across scale items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of that
particular personality characteristic. The NEO-FFI scales show correlations
of .77–.92 with the NEO-PI, and internal consistency reliability values range
from .68 to .86 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). For the current research, the
reliability coefficients for the NEO-FFI were: neuroticism (a ¼ .85),
agreeableness (a ¼ .77), extraversion (a ¼ .79), conscientiousness (a ¼ .75),
and openness to experience (a ¼ .70).
Counterproductive work behaviours (CWB). CWB was measured by
using the Workplace Deviance Scale (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999).1
This scale is comprised of two subscales: organizational deviance and
interpersonal deviance. The organizational deviance subscale includes eight
items assessing deviant behaviours directed towards the organization (e.g.,
‘‘Intentionally arrived late for work’’); the interpersonal deviance subscale
consists of six items assessing interpersonal deviance (e.g., ‘‘Swore at a coworker’’). Participants responded on an 8-point scale ranging from 1
(‘‘never’’) to 8 (‘‘more than once a week’’), with high scores indicating higher
frequency of deviant behaviours. Past research has supported the reliability
and validity of the instrument, with reliability coefficients for interpersonal
deviance (a ¼ .73) and organizational deviance (a ¼ .76; Aquino et al., 1999).
For the current research, the reliability coefficients were .74 for
organizational deviance and .76 for interpersonal deviance.
RESULTS
Frequency of workplace exclusion
The most frequent forms of supervisor exclusion included supervisors not
replying to requests/questions within a reasonable period of time and
1
Based on comments made by an anonymous reviewer, we choose to use the term
‘‘counterproductive work behaviour’’ (CWB) instead of ‘‘workplace deviance’’ because of the
conceptual distinctions between these two constructs (see introduction) and because we were not
able to confidently determine if the interpersonal and organizations behaviours actually
constituted organizational norm violations. As pointed out by the reviewer, although arriving
late for work may be counterproductive, it may not represent a norm violation if most or all
employees engage in such behaviour.
486
HITLAN AND NOEL
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
respondents not being invited by supervisors to participate in work-related
activities. More specifically, 71.2% and 74.3% of respondents indicated
that, at least once or twice, over the course of the previous 12 month period,
a supervisor had not replied to their request within a reasonable period of
time and/or that they were not invited to participate in work-related
activities. Moreover, 63.8% of respondents indicated receiving the ‘‘silent
treatment’’ by co-workers during this same time period. Of those, 6.7%
indicated that such behaviour occurred often or most of the time. Also, 59%
of respondents indicated having been shut out of conversations by coworkers, with 7.7% indicating that such behaviour occurred either often or
most of the time.
Frequency of organizational and interpersonal CWB
The most frequent forms of organizational CWB included employees
working on a personal matter instead of working for their employer
(60.6%), gossiping about one’s supervisor (55.8%), making unauthorized
use of organizational property (31.7%), and calling in sick when not
actually ill (21.2%). The least frequent forms of organizational CWB
included intentionally arriving late to work (7.7%), and lying about the
number of hours worked (2.9%). The most frequent forms of
interpersonal CWB included regularly teasing a co-worker in front of
other employees (52.9%), refusing to talk to a co-worker (34.6%), and
swearing at a co-worker (32.7%). The least frequent forms of
interpersonal CWB included making ethnic, racial, or religious slurs
against a co-worker (9.6%) and making an obscene comment or gesture
at a co-worker (29.8%).
Correlational analyses
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, zero-order correlation
coefficients, and reliability coefficients for each of the study variables.
Hypothesis 1 predicted a significant positive relation between perceptions of
supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB. Consistent with this
prediction, supervisor exclusion was significantly correlated with organizational CWB, r(102) ¼ .37, p 5 .001. In contrast, the relation between
supervisor exclusion and interpersonal CWB was not significant,
r(102) ¼ .16, p 4 .05, ns. Thus, employees who reported higher levels of
supervisor exclusion were also more likely to report engaging in higher levels
of organizational CWB but not interpersonal CWB. Results also indicated
that the relation between supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB was
significantly stronger than the relation between supervisor exclusion and
interpersonal CWB, t(101) ¼ 1.81, p ¼ .03, one tailed.
487
2.21
1.99
1.87
1.53
2.64
3.38
2.99
3.71
3.89
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0.76
0.61
1.21
0.68
0.65
0.54
0.48
0.46
0.42
SD
(.75)
.31**
.16
.37**
.22*
7.27**
7.04
7.29**
7.22*
1
(.76)
.19*
.28**
.39**
7.22*
.02
7.37**
7.20*
2
(.76)
.22*
7.03
.14
7.19*
7.28**
7.01
3
(.74)
.31**
7.25**
7.02
7.33**
7.41**
4
5
(.85)
7.39**
.12
7.33**
7.40**
N ¼ 104. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01. Reliability estimates are displayed in parentheses along the diagonal.
Supervisor exclusion
Co-worker exclusion
Interpersonal CWB
Organizational CWB
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness to experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Mean
Variable
(.79)
.01
.40**
.23*
6
(.70)
.15
.04
7
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations, and reliability estimates for study variables
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
(.77)
.31**
8
(.75)
9
488
HITLAN AND NOEL
Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive correlation between co-worker
exclusion and interpersonal CWB. As predicted, perceptions of exclusion
via co-workers was related to interpersonal CWB, r(102) ¼ .19, p ¼ .05.
Results also indicated a significant relation between co-worker exclusion
and organizational CWB, r(102) ¼ .28, p ¼ .004. Employees reporting higher
levels of exclusion also reported higher levels of both interpersonal and
organizational CWB. Follow-up analyses indicated that the difference
between these two correlation coefficients was not statistically significant,
t(101) ¼ 0.76, p ¼ .23, one tailed.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
Moderated hierarchical regression analysis
To assess the interactive effects of perceived exclusion and personality on
CWB, a series of moderated hierarchical regression analyses were computed.
The first series of regressions used interpersonal CWB as the criterion; the
second series used organizational CWB as the criterion. In the first step, the
exclusion and moderator conditional effects were entered. In the second
step, the two-way interaction term between perceived exclusion and
personality was entered.2 Based on recommendations by Aiken and West
(1991), the exclusion and personality variables were centred prior to entering
the conditional effects and interaction term into the regression model.
Co-worker exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 3 predicted that
co-worker exclusion would interact with personality in predicting
interpersonal CWB. More specifically, the relation between co-worker
exclusion and interpersonal CWB was predicted to be stronger for
individuals whose behaviour was less constrained by their personality
(higher neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and lower
agreeableness and conscientiousness). Separate regression equations were
computed for each test of moderation. Results provided some support for
the predicted interactions (see Table 2). At Step 2, after controlling for the
effects associated with co-worker exclusion and personality, the interaction
2
Previous research indicates that, overall, men are more likely than women to engage in
(Geen, 2001; Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006) and experience deviant workplace behaviours
(Duhart, 2001). Men and women have also been found to respond differently to experiences of
workplace exclusion (Hitlan et al., 2006). Thus, we examined gender differences across CWB
and personality. Results indicated that, even after entering the main effects and the interaction
terms, gender contributed a significant proportion of unique variance to the prediction of
interpersonal CWB (for both co-worker and supervisor analyses). Follow-up mean comparisons
between males and females indicated that, overall, men engaged in significantly higher levels of
interpersonal CWB (M ¼ 2.16, SD ¼ 1.40) than did women (M ¼ 1.39, SD ¼ 0.51), t ¼ 4.02,
p 5 .001, equal variances not assumed (Levene’s test of equality of variances: F ¼ 17.99,
p 5 .001). In contrast, gender did not contribute significantly to the prediction of organizational
CWB.
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
489
TABLE 2
Moderated multiple regression analysis for co-worker exclusion and personality on
interpersonal CWB
Interpersonal CWB
Step
Regression models
1
Co-worker exclusion
Neuroticism
Co-worker exclusion
6 Neuroticism
Co-worker Exclusion
Extraversion
Co-worker exclusion
6 Extraversion
Co-worker exclusion
Openness to experience
Co-worker exclusion
6 Openness
Co-worker exclusion
Agreeableness
Co-worker exclusion
6 Agreeableness
Co-worker exclusion
Conscientiousness
Co-worker exclusion
6 Conscientiousness
2
1
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
R
DR
.22
.23
.05
5.01
B
SE
b
t
p
.50
7.22
7.19
.22
.20
.29
.25*
7.12
7.07
2.33
71.11
7.65
.02
.27
.52
.27
.34
.07*
.05*
.49
.37
.76
.19
.22
.33
.25*
.17
.21*
2.54
1.69
2.272
.01
.09
.02
.27
.27
.07*
5.01
.40
7.50
7.16
.19
.24
.43
.20*
7.20*
7.04
2.05
72.05
7.37
.04
.04
.71
.30
.31
.09**
5.01
.23
7.68
.36
.21
.27
.39
.12
7.26*
.09
1.11
72.49
.93
.26
.02
.36
.19
.20
.04
5.01
.39
.09
.23
.20
.29
.53
.19
.03
.04
1.94
.32
.44
.06
.75
.66
*p 5 .01, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001. Coefficients represent the values obtained after all variables,
including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.
between co-worker exclusion and extraversion accounted for a significant
proportion of unique variance in the prediction of interpersonal CWB,
DF(1, 100) ¼ 5.16, p ¼ .025, R ¼ .34, DR2 ¼ .05. To better understand the
nature of the interaction two methods were used: a simple slope analysis
(Aiken & West, 1991) and the Johnson-Neyman Technique, which provides
a point estimate for the range of values of the moderator where the focal
independent variable (exclusion) is significantly related to CWB (Hayes &
Matthes, 2009; Johnson & Neyman, 1950).
As illustrated in Figure 1, at low levels of extraversion (–1SD), the
relation between co-worker exclusion and interpersonal CWB was not
significant, b ¼ .08, SE ¼ .25, t ¼ .31, p ¼ .76; with a 95% confidence interval
of –.4272 to .5829. However, the simple slope was significantly different
from zero at both the mean, b ¼ .49, SE ¼ .19, t(100) ¼ 2.54, p ¼ .01, with a
95% confidence interval of .1067 to .8663, and high (þ 1SD) levels of
extraversion, b ¼ .90, SE ¼ .27, t(100) ¼ 3.31, p ¼ .001, with a 95%
confidence interval of .3584 to 1.4318. Moreover, the points estimate
indicated that when extraversion is 3.245 or above the coefficient for
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
490
HITLAN AND NOEL
Figure 1. Interaction between perceived co-worker exclusion and extraversion on interpersonal CWB.
exclusion is significantly positive (using alpha ¼ .05). Thus, participants
reporting low levels of extraversion reported little difference in the frequency
of interpersonal CWB across levels of co-worker exclusion. However, at
higher levels of extraversion this difference became much more pronounced
with the highest levels of interpersonal CWB being observed under
conditions of high extraversion and high co-worker exclusion. The other
predicted interactions between co-worker exclusion and interpersonal CWB
failed to emerge.
Supervisor exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 4 predicted that
supervisor exclusion would interact with personality in predicting
organizational CWB. More specifically, the relation between supervisor
exclusion and organizational CWB was predicted to be stronger for
individuals whose behaviour was less constrained by their personality
(higher neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and lower
agreeableness and conscientiousness).
The procedure was identical to that outlined above (see Table 3).
Consistent with predictions, at Step 2, after controlling for the main effects
of supervisor exclusion and personality, each of the interaction terms
(excluding extraversion) contributed unique variance to the prediction of
organizational CWB including neuroticism, DF(1, 100) ¼ 8.00, p 5 .01,
R ¼ .50, DR2 ¼ .06, agreeableness, DF(1, 100) ¼ 5.36, p ¼ .02, R ¼ .48,
DR2 ¼ .04, conscientiousness, DF(1, 100) ¼ 13.42, p 5 .01, R ¼ .58,
DR2 ¼ .09, and openness to experience, DF(1, 100) ¼ 4.08, p ¼ .04,
R ¼ .41, DR2 ¼ .03. The direction for each of these interaction terms is
consistent with predictions (see Figures 2–5). Employees whose personality
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
491
TABLE 3
Moderated multiple regression analysis for supervisor exclusion and personality on
organizational CWB
Organizational CWB
Step
Regression models
1
Supervisor exclusion
Neuroticism
Supervisor exclusion
6 Neuroticism
Supervisor exclusion
Extraversion
Supervisor exclusion
6 Extraversion
Supervisor exclusion
Openness to experience
Supervisor exclusion
6 Openness
Supervisor exclusion
Agreeableness
Supervisor exclusion
6 Agreeableness
Supervisor exclusion
Conscientiousness
Supervisor exclusion
6 Conscientiousness
2
1
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
R
DR
.44
.50
.19***
.06**
.40
.42
B
SE
.29
.21
.32
.08
.09
.11
.16*
.02
.26
7.21
7.18
.09
.12
.14
.37
.41
.14***
.03*
.32
7.04
.27
.44
.48
.19***
.04*
.50
.58
.25***
.09***
b
.33**
.20*
.25**
t
p
3.71
2.25
2.29
5.01
.03
.01
.29*
7.17
7.13
2.99
71.79
71.34
5.01
.08
.18
.08
.13
.13
.36**
7.03
.19*
4.00
7.27
2.02
5.01
.79
.04
.23
7.39
7.44
.08
.14
.19
.26**
7.27**
7.21*
2.84
72.89
72.32
5.01
5.01
.02
.25
7.47
7.56
.07
.14
.15
.28**
7.29**
7.30**
3.38
73.41
73.66
.01
.01
.01
*p 5 .01, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001. Coefficients represent the values obtained after all variables,
including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.
Figure 2. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and neuroticism on organizational CWB.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
492
HITLAN AND NOEL
Figure 3. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and conscientiousness on
organizational CWB.
Figure 4. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and agreeableness on organizational CWB.
Figure 5. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and openness to experience on
organizational CWB.
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
493
TABLE 4
Test of the simple slope effects for the effect of supervisor exclusion on organizational
CWB as a function of differing levels of personality dimensions
Slope coefficients
B
SE
b
t
p
LL
UL
Neuroticism
Low (–1SD)
Mean
High (þ 1SD)
.08
.29**
.50**
.10
.08
.11
.09
.33
.57
0.78
3.72
4.52
.43
5.01
5.01
7.1258
.1361
.2812
.2901
.4475
.7217
Openness
Low
Mean
High
.19
.32**
.45**
.10
.08
.10
.22
.36
.51
1.85
3.99
4.44
.07
5.01
5.01
7.0144
.1621
.2500
.3997
.4821
.6532
Agreeableness
Low
Mean
High
.43**
.23**
.03
.11
.08
.13
.49
.26
.04
3.98
2.84
0.27
5.01
5.01
.79
.2166
.0705
7.2197
.6471
.3958
.2885
Conscientiousness
Low
Mean
High
.48**
.25**
.02
.10
.07
.10
.54
.28
.02
5.04
3.38
0.19
5.01
5.01
.85
.2908
.1029
7.1772
.6688
.3953
.2140
Moderator
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
95% CI
Point estimate
2.272
2.544
3.841
4.054
*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01. Alpha level used for the Johnson-Neyman point estimate is .05.
exerted a stronger constraint over their behaviour were less variable in
reporting to have engaged in organizational CWB. The most CWB
was evidenced under conditions of high supervisor exclusion and
low behavioural constraint. Table 4 displays the simple slope coefficients,
significance values, 95% confidence intervals, and point estimates
along low (–1SD), mean, and high levels (þ 1SD) of these personality
dimensions.
DISCUSSION
The current research examined how an employee’s perception of being
excluded within their work environment relates to counterproductive work
behaviours. Although there is a large body of literature examining how
situational factors influence outcomes, little research has specifically
addressed the phenomena of workplace exclusion, and its associated
outcomes (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zárate, 2006). One of
the goals of the current research was to begin to fill this gap by examining
how both sources of exclusion and one’s personality contribute to the
expression of CWB. We relied on research evidence suggesting that the
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
494
HITLAN AND NOEL
source of exclusion (e.g., co-workers, supervisors) may be important to more
fully understanding the behavioural outcomes associated with such
behaviour.
Higher levels of supervisor exclusion were related to higher levels of
organizational CWB but not interpersonal forms of CWB. In addition, coworker exclusion was positively related to interpersonal CWB. Somewhat
interestingly, a significant relation also emerged between co-worker
exclusion and organizational CBW. Although this latter finding was not
specifically predicted in the current research, it is consistent with Frone
(2000), who found that both interpersonal conflict with supervisors and
interpersonal conflict with co-workers related to interpersonal (depression,
self-esteem, somatic symptoms) and organizational outcomes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover). Although Frone did not
attempt to explain this ‘‘crossover’’ effect for outcomes, we suspect that
interactions with co-workers are shaped by many different variables (e.g.,
seniority, personality, job position) that may lead to less discrimination in
the display of CWB. As such, an employee who feels they are being excluded
by co-workers may consider multiple factors when deciding to respond. We
contrast this with perceived exclusion at the hands of one’s supervisor where
it is generally recognized that supervisors are more closely associated with
their role as agents of an organization.
To test this proposition, we conducted a secondary analysis using the
data provided by Frone (2000), which included the sample size and tabled
correlations. We examined whether the effect sizes between interpersonal
conflict with co-workers and interpersonal outcomes (e.g., depression, selfesteem, somatic symptoms) differed from those between interpersonal
conflict with co-workers and organizational outcomes (satisfaction,
commitment, turnover). None of the comparisons indicated significant
differences in effect size estimates across interpersonal and organizational
outcomes. So, the relations between co-worker conflict and outcomes were
similar across both interpersonal and organizational outcomes. Simply
stated, all cross-outcome coefficients were of equal strength. However, for
interpersonal conflict with supervisors, all of the effect sizes associated with
organizational outcomes were significantly stronger than the relations
between supervisor conflict and interpersonal outcomes. A similar analysis
based on information provided by Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) examined
the relations among supervisor conflict, co-worker conflict, organizational
CWB, and interpersonal CWB, and found a significantly stronger relation
between interpersonal conflict and interpersonal CWB (as compared to
organizational CWB) and no difference in the strength of the relations
associated with supervisor conflict. Thus, additional research is needed to
better understand the nature of this discrepancy. For example, Frone
focused on younger employees and attitudinal outcomes, Bruk-Lee and
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
495
Spector examined university employees and behavioural outcomes, and the
current research specifically examined workplace exclusion using employees
from a utility company and behavioural outcome measures. Might there be
something inherent in a specific sample, organization, or outcome underlying these effects?
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
Personality and CWB
Consistent with previous research, we found that each of the measured
personality dimensions was related to some form of CWB. More specifically,
negative relations emerged between openness to experience (and agreeableness) and interpersonal CWB. Employees reporting less of these characteristics were more likely to report engaging in interpersonal CWB. Similar
negative relations emerged between organizational CWB and extraversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Employees scoring lower on these
dimensions reported more organizational CWB compared to those scoring
higher on each of these dimensions. Finally, neuroticism was positively
related to organizational CWB.
Although these relations are consistent with those obtained in previous
research, as one reviewer of the current manuscript pointed out, these
relations may simply reflect a tendency of some individuals to report acting
in more counterproductive ways as opposed to actually engaging in
counterproductive behaviours. For example, one could argue that conscientious people attempt to be highly accurate in reporting everything, and
those who are less conscientious might not feel as compelled to report
deviant behaviour. Although our method and data do not allow us to
entirely rule out this possibility, the negative correlations between
conscientiousness and organizational CWB indicates that less conscientious
people actually do report engaging in more CWB. Nevertheless, this is an
important empirical question but one that cannot be fully disentangled with
the current research design.
Personality as a moderator
For interpersonal CWB, the only significant interaction term to emerge was
between co-worker exclusion and extraversion. The effect of co-worker
exclusion on interpersonal CWB was dependent on one’s personality. For
employees reporting low levels of extraversion, there was little change in the
self-reported display of interpersonal CWB across exclusion levels.
However, at higher levels of extraversion (where we would expect less
behavioural constraint), the difference between low and high levels of coworker exclusion on interpersonal CWB was much more pronounced.
Based on this finding, it seems that the specific characteristics associated
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
496
HITLAN AND NOEL
with extraversion (e.g., warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity) are
more important for understanding reactions to interactions involving other
co-workers (as opposed to supervisors). One explanation for this finding is
reflected in the amount of time that employees spend interacting with one
another. Generally, employees spend a significant percentage of their time
interacting with other co-workers. Those scoring lower in extraversion
would presumeably not feel as strong a need to interact with their coworkers and, as such, exclusion would not be as impactful as when it is
perceived by highly extraverted individuals. In contrast, the amount of time
employees spend directly interacting with supervisors is generally much
more limited. Thus, extraversion seems of particular importance for coworker interactions, especially when combined with relevant situations
factors, such as exclusion.
For organizational CWB, each of the predicted interactions between
supervisor exclusion and personality emerged, except for the interaction
involving extraversion. When employee behaviour was constrained by their
personality, little difference emerged on organizational CWB across levels of
supervisor exclusion. In contrast, much more pronounced changes in CWB
emerged for those employees whose personality exerted less control over
their behaviour (high neuroticism, high openness to experience, low
conscientiousness, and low agreeableness).
Overall, these findings suggest that the likelihood of employees engaging
in CWB depends on both person and situation factors—especially when
trying to predict organizational forms of CWB. Additionally, consistent
with previous research, source characteristics appear to be important to
determining specific types of outcomes. By virtue of the number and
strength of the interaction terms in the current research, it seems that
personality dimensions are more closely associated with CWB directed at
the organization. It could be that when exclusionary behaviour is thought to
emanate from an organization, as is the case with supervisor exclusion, an
employee not only feels that such behaviour has implications for
their immediate social milieu but also to their immediate and future
existence and advancement opportunities within their organization (and
thus calling into question those very personality characteristics that make us
who we are).
Limitations of the current research
It is also important to note a few potential limitations to the current
research. First, due to the self-report methodology and the sensitive nature
of the information being obtained, responses may have been influenced by
socially desirability or common method variance (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;
Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). However, others believe that the magnitude
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
497
of any such effects is often overstated (Spector, 1994). So, although research
has indicated such effects may inflate relations among variables, there does
not appear to be a consensus on the absolute magnitude of such effects.
Also, the common method variance explanation cannot account for
interaction effects that are less likely to be spurious. Second, consistent
with previous survey research, participants completed the survey at a single
point in time whereby prohibiting any firm conclusions regarding cause and
effect. Nevertheless, when combined with previous experimental research,
we believe that the current research makes an important contribution to our
understanding of when we might expect workplace exclusion to predict
whether or not an employee will choose to engage in counterproductive
work behaviours.
That said, both workplace exclusion and CWB represent broad
constructs encompassing a number of subtypes (Spector, et al., 2006b),
many of which were not examined in the current research. Even within
the current sample, it seems that some forms of exclusion are experienced
more frequently than others as are specific forms of both interpersonal
CWB and organizational CWB. For example, does it matter if employees
were being excluded socially (by others ignoring them) or physically
(by others physically leaving their presence)? Might the mode of
exclusion (e.g., face-to-face, chatroom), and length of time one was excluded
influence outcomes? Additionally, the entire sample reported being
Caucasian (100%) and the majority reported working full time (97%). As
a result, one needs to be careful when making statements about the
applicability of the current findings to other ethnicities, and employees who
are employed on a temporary basis or part time. Future research in this area
would also benefit from examining samples of different ethnicities, ages, and
locations.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we believe this research adds to what is currently
known about workplace behaviours in a few different ways. First, we
were able to show that the mere perception of exclusion is sufficient to
increase the likelihood of employees engaging in CWB. Second, this
research provides additional support for the argument that the sources of
conflict (or exclusion in this case) are important to better understanding
how employees may choose to respond to their experiences. Third, it
provides additional insight regarding the moderating effects of personality
in the prediction of CWB including an initial assessment of which
personality dimensions seem most important under certain conditions.
Finally, while the current research answers some questions concerning
the relations and interactions between workplace exclusion, personality,
498
HITLAN AND NOEL
and counterproductive work behaviours, it also brings up some
additional questions and avenues for subsequent research in this area.
Ultimately, we believe the current research will help in the development
of specific models outlining the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of CWB.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and
employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 1073–1091.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. N. (2005). The inner dimension of social exclusion: Intelligent
thought and self-regulation among rejected persons. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W.
von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying
(pp. 53–73). New York: Psychology Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
Attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal course associated with
aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) status. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 669–682.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup
derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology,
24, 641–657.
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviours
link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11, 145–156.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Cheuk, W. H., & Rosen, S. (1994). Validating a ‘‘spurning scale’’ for teachers. Current
Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, and Social, 13, 241–247.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive
effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609.
Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A
construct validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295–311.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.
Duhart, D. T. (2001). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Violence in the workplace, 1993–
1999 (Rep. No. NCJ 190076). Washington, DC: US Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
499
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes:
Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
246–255.
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of
Management, 17, 235–271.
Geen, R. G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development
of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a
multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–842).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hamilton, M. B. (2003). Online survey response rates and times: Background and guidance for
industry. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.supersurvey.com
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS
and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41,
924–936.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 575–604.
Hitlan, R. T., Cliffton, R. J., & DeSoto, M. C. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The
moderating effects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological health. North
American Journal of Psychology, 8, 217–236.
Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). Language
exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 56–70.
Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). The nature and correlates of workplace
exclusion. Unpublished manuscript.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–
606.
Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman technique: Its theory and
application. Psychometrica, 15, 349–363.
Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2004). Emotional abuse at work. In P. Spector, & S. Fox (Eds.),
Counterproductive workplace behavior: An integration of both actor and recipient perspectives
on causes and consequences (pp. 201–236). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to
interpersonal rejection. In M. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145–166). New York:
Oxford Press.
Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and
aggression: A cognitive appraisal perspective. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Dysfunctional
behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 1–42). Stanford, CT: JAI
Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult
sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.
Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal
dimensions in diversity climate. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82–104.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
500
HITLAN AND NOEL
Mor Barak, M. E., & Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from
the work community: A study of diversity job satisfaction, and well-being. Community,
Work, and Family, 5, 133–157.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
59, 591–622.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone &
J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37–67). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management,
24, 391–411.
O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problems-, emotion-, and
relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five personality factors. Journal of
Personality, 64, 775–813.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression:
A research framework. Academy of Management, 21, 225–253.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A metaanalysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–66.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Reiss, A. D. (1994, August). The validity of
honesty and violence scales of integrity tests in predicting violence at work. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.
Parks, J. M., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). Changing work relationships in the 1990s, In D. M.
Rousseau & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 111–136). Oxford,
UK: Wiley.
Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of experimental rejection. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 359–364.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations,
and its consequences. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J., Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on
negotiation in organizations (pp. 3–27). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of affective
and behavioral responses to interpersonal stress. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von
Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying
(pp. 131–154). New York: Psychology Press.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and
relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10, 5–11.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson,
D. Ones, C. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of work psychology
(pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125.
Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace
aggression in the US workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J.
Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–89). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689–695.
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB
501
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for
fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books/Macmillan, Inc.
Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers,
leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542–548.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report measures in OB research: A comment on the use of a
controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work
behavior. In P. E. Spector & S. Fox (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations
of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S. & Domagalski, T. (2006a). Emotions, violence, and counterproductive
work behavior. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace
violence (pp. 29–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006b). The
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446–460.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The
relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 840–847.
Twenge, J. M. (2006). When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influence of situations,
narcissism, emotion, and replenishing connections. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W.
von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying.
New York: Psychology Press.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them,
beat them: The effects of social exclusion on antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Walsh, B. M., & Hitlan, R. T. (2008, April). Convergent and discriminant validity of the
workplace exclusion scale. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), San Francisco, CA.
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: the power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Original manuscript received August 2006
Revised manuscript received April 2009
502
HITLAN AND NOEL
Downloaded By: [Hitlan, Robert T.] At: 15:13 1 October 2009
APPENDIX: WORKPLACE EXCLUSION SCALE
(WES-R) ITEMS
1. Your boss or supervisor complimenting you on a job well done.
(Supervisor—R)
2. Co-workers giving you the ‘‘silent treatment’’. (Co-worker)
3. Co-workers shutting you out of their conversations. (Co-worker)
4. Co-workers giving you the impression that they enjoy your
company. (Co-worker—R)
5. Co-workers interacting with you only when they are required to do
so. (Co-worker)
6. Feeling accepted by other employees at your organization. (Coworker—R)
7. Employees updating you about important work-related activities.
(Co-worker—R)
8. Supervisors not replying to your requests/questions within a
reasonable period of time. (Supervisor)
9. Co-workers making you feel like you were not a part of the
organization. (Co-worker)
10. Supervisors inviting you to participate in work-related activities
(Supervisor—R)
11. Co-workers speaking to one another in a language you do not
understand. (Language)
12. Co-workers not speaking English on the job. (Language)
13. Being unable to interact with others at work due to language
communication difficulties. (Language)
14. Supervisors keeping important work-related information from you
(e.g., deadlines) (Supervisor)
15. Supervisors interacting with you at work. (Supervisor—R)
16. Felt as if you were being ostracized by co-workers. (Criterion)
17. Felt as if you were being ostracized by supervisors. (Criterion)