Format of answering
6 (a) Describe what psychologists have discovered about:
Reasons for sabotage in the workplace, and[3]
 Methods used to investigate sabotage, such as
questionnaires.[3]

[6 marks] → AO1: Knowledge and understanding

What to include:
Component
Study name
Method
Findings –
reasons
Findings –
forms
Data
classification
Content Example
Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987)
Used a questionnaire with a 7-point Likert scale
Workers gave reasons for sabotage such as revenge, inequity, boredom,
need for control
Sabotage methods included disrupting machines, damaging products,
wasting time/resources
The study classified both the types of sabotage and reasons for it,
providing structured data for analysis
Model Structure:
Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987) studied workplace sabotage using a questionnaire with a 7point scale, where participants reported both the actions they took and reasons for those
actions. Sabotage was classified into different forms (e.g. equipment damage, misplacing
parts, delaying processes) and different motivations, such as revenge against unfair
treatment, lack of recognition, or as a form of resistance or protest. The questionnaire
allowed workers to reflect on their past sabotage behaviors anonymously.
6 (b) Evaluate what psychologists have discovered about:





Reasons for sabotage in the workplace, and
Methods used to investigate sabotage, such as questionnaires,
including a discussion about
generalisability (4)and
the use of closed questions.(3)
debate- Individual vs situational
[10 marks] → AO3: Analysis and evaluation
What to include:
Format of answering
Component
Example Points
Questionnaire allows participants to report sensitive behaviour (like
Strength – Anonymity
sabotage) honestly and safely
Strength – Structured Closed questions and Likert scales provide quantitative data for
easy analysis and comparison
data
Weakness – Limited Closed questions miss nuance; workers can’t explain
context/motive in detail
depth
Sample may be limited to specific workplaces (e.g. car factories);
Weakness –
cannot generalise to all industries or cultures
Generalisability
Encouraging discussion about sabotage could raise ethical
Debate – Ethics
concerns (e.g. self-incrimination, distress)
Social desirability bias – even anonymous, some workers may
Debate – Validity
underreport or exaggerate sabotage
Discuss reliability (standardised questions) vs validity
Psychometrics
(interpretation of closed responses)
Model Structure:
A key strength of using questionnaires to investigate sabotage is that they allow for
anonymity, which can encourage workers to disclose sensitive behaviours honestly. This is
particularly important for taboo or ethically questionable actions like sabotage. The use of
closed questions and a 7-point scale makes responses easy to quantify and compare,
enhancing reliability.
However, this method may lack validity, as workers cannot explain the context or emotions
behind their actions. A closed format may force them into selecting answers that don’t fully
reflect their reasoning. The lack of depth can oversimplify complex motives like revenge or
protest.
The findings from Giacalone and Rosenfeld’s study may also suffer from poor
generalisability, as the data came from workers in a specific setting (e.g. factories). These
results might not apply to workers in offices, hospitals, or remote settings.
Furthermore, while closed questions are useful for structure, they may also limit expression
and reduce ecological validity, especially if the topic is emotionally charged.
In conclusion, while the method is useful for categorising sabotage and identifying trends,
it is best supported by other methods (e.g. interviews or observations) to gain a fuller picture
of workplace sabotage.
Summary Table
Part AO
Skills Demonstrated
6(a) AO1 Accurate knowledge of study, methods used, and findings (reasons + forms)
Critical evaluation of methods, generalisability, closed questions, psychometrics,
6(b) AO3
ethical concerns
Format of answering
6 (a) Describe what psychologists have discovered about:


Reasons for sabotage in the workplace, and
Methods used to investigate sabotage, such as questionnaires.
[6 marks] – AO1
Cambridge Marking Criteria Style Breakdown
The Cambridge mark scheme typically rewards:




Range and accuracy of knowledge (named study, methods, findings)
Use of psychological terminology
Structured, coherent writing
Factual detail about both subtopics
Mark Level Breakdown
Band Marks
Criteria
High 5–6 marks ✔ Accurate and detailed description of both:


At least 2 well-explained reasons for sabotage (e.g. revenge, boredom, protest)
Clear reference to methodology (e.g. use of 7-point scale questionnaire)
✔ Reference to named study (Giacalone and Rosenfeld)
✔ Use of psychological language (e.g. "quantitative data", "self-report", "classified")
✔ Logical and well-structured answer | | Medium | 3–4 marks | ✔ Basic description
of either reasons or methods, but one area may be less developed
✔ Reference to the study may be present but vague
✔ Limited psychological terms or example | | Low | 1–2 marks | ✔ Only one point
made OR minimal understanding shown
✔ May describe sabotage but not in a psychological context
✔ No study mentioned | | 0 marks | 0 | Irrelevant, incorrect, or no response |
Example of a High-Level (6/6) Response:
Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987) investigated workplace sabotage using a questionnaire
with a 7-point Likert scale. They classified sabotage into different forms (e.g., damaging
equipment, delaying production) and reasons (e.g., revenge, frustration with management,
or desire for control). Workers reported their own behaviours and motives, allowing
researchers to quantify the frequency and rationale behind sabotage. The use of closed
questions enabled the researchers to analyse patterns and trends, producing quantitative data
that revealed common psychological motivations among workers.
To structure your answer for this psychology question, you can use the PEEL method, which
stands for Point, Evidence, Explanation, and Link. This method ensures a clear, organized
response.
Here’s how you can approach each part of the question:
Format of answering
1. Reasons for sabotage in the workplace




Point: Start by identifying a key reason why sabotage may occur in the workplace.
o Example: "Psychologists Giacalone and Rosenfeld have identified several
reasons why employees engage in sabotage at work."
Quote the knowledge from the study/Evidence: Provide evidence or research
findings/results to support your point.
o Example: "Research has suggested that employees who feel unfairly treated,
such as through a lack of recognition or poor management, are more likely to
engage in sabotage."
Explanation of the knowledge quoted or evidence(why): Explain how or why these
factors lead to sabotage.
o Example: "This sense of injustice can lead to feelings of resentment,
prompting employees to sabotage their employer's success as a form of
retaliation."
Link to conclude: Conclude this part by linking it back to the broader context or
transitioning to the next part of the answer.
o Example: "Therefore, understanding the reasons behind sabotage can help
organizations prevent such behaviors."
2. Methods used to investigate sabotage (e.g., questionnaires)




Point: Start by introducing the method of investigation used by psychologists.
o Example: "One common method used to investigate workplace sabotage is the
use of questionnaires."
Quote the knowledge/Evidence: Provide an example or explanation of how the
method works in practice.
o Example: "Psychologists use questionnaires to gather information from
employees about their attitudes, feelings of job satisfaction, and perceptions of
fairness, which can highlight underlying causes of sabotage."
Explanation of the knowledge quoted: Explain the advantages of using this method.
o Example: "Questionnaires allow researchers to collect a large amount of data
efficiently and anonymously, encouraging employees to respond honestly."
Link: Conclude by linking this method back to the investigation process or its
relevance.
o Example: "By using questionnaires, psychologists can better understand the
factors that contribute to sabotage, helping organizations address the root
causes."
Reasons for sabotage in the workplace:
Format of answering
Psychologists have identified several reasons why employees engage
in sabotage at work. One key factor is job dissatisfaction, often due to
feelings of unfair treatment, lack of recognition, or poor management.
Research has suggested that employees who feel their efforts are
overlooked or undervalued may resort to sabotage as a form of
retaliation. This sense of injustice leads to feelings of resentment,
prompting them to undermine the employer’s success. Therefore,
addressing workplace fairness and recognition can reduce the
likelihood of sabotage.
Methods used to investigate sabotage (e.g., questionnaires):
One common method used to investigate workplace sabotage is the
use of questionnaires. Psychologists employ questionnaires to gather
detailed information from employees about their attitudes toward their
job, the management, and their overall work environment. These
surveys often explore feelings of job satisfaction, fairness, and trust in
management. This method is valuable because it allows researchers to
collect data efficiently and anonymously, encouraging honest
responses. By analyzing these responses, psychologists can identify
patterns that point to underlying causes of sabotage in the workplace.
Great! For 6(b), you're being asked to evaluate what psychologists have discovered. This
means you need to weigh up strengths and weaknesses, discuss methodological issues, and
link to a debate (Individual vs Situational).
STRUCTURE: 6(b) Evaluation Answer (7 marks)
1. Introduction Sentence (optional but helpful)
Briefly state what you're evaluating.
"Psychologists have identified several reasons for sabotage in the workplace, and have used
methods like questionnaires to investigate this behavior."
2. Generalisability (4 marks)
Focus on how well findings apply to other settings, people, or times.
Format of answering

Point: Make a clear statement about generalisability.
"One issue with the research into sabotage is the generalisability of the
findings."

Evidence(quote from study): Use an example, like a specific sample (e.g. small,
limited to one culture or job type).
"Many studies use small or culturally specific samples, such as employees
from one company or industry."

Explanation with example (quote from study): Show why this is a problem.
"This means the results may not apply to other types of workplaces or
different cultures, limiting the usefulness of the findings."

Counterpoint or balance (optional for depth):
"However, if the study includes a large and diverse sample, generalisability
can be improved."
3. Closed Questions in Questionnaires (3 marks)
Discuss the strengths/limitations of using closed questions.

Point: State an issue with closed questions.
"A key limitation of using closed questions in questionnaires is that they may
lack depth."

Evidence from the study- Evidence the study to prove the above point
“ In the study participants made the

Explanation: Explain why that matters.
"Participants can only choose from fixed responses, which may not capture
their true feelings or experiences related to sabotage."

Balance: Add a strength for evaluation.
"However, closed questions make data easier to analyse and compare across
participants, improving reliability."
4. Psychological Debate: Individual vs Situational (1–2 marks)
Tie the findings to this key debate.
Format of answering

Point: Introduce the debate.
"This topic also links to the debate of individual vs situational explanations of
behaviour."

Application: Apply it to sabotage.
"Some psychologists argue that sabotage results from individual traits like
personality or moral reasoning, while others believe it's the situation—such as
poor management or workplace culture—that causes sabotage."

Conclusion (optional): Add balance or your opinion.
"It’s likely that both individual and situational factors interact to influence
sabotage behaviour."
Quick Summary Checklist:
Section
Marks Included? ✅
Intro statement
Generalisability evaluation 4
Closed questions evaluation 3
Debate discussion
1–2