Available Online at http://iassr.org/journal
2014 (c) EJRE published by
International Association of Social Science Research - IASSR
ISSN: 2147-6284
European Journal of Research on Education, 2014, 2(Special Issue 6), 212-217
European Journal of Research on Education Counterproductive work behavior in relation to personality type and
cognitive distortion level in academics
Metin Piskin a *, Muge Ersoy-Kart b, İlkay Savci c , Ozgur Guldu d
b
a
First affiliation, Address, City and Postcode, Country
Second affiliation, Address, City and Postcode, Country
c
Third affiliation, Address, City and Postcode, Country
d
Third affiliation, Address, City and Postcode, Country
Abstract
Click here and insert abstract your text. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant
aspects of the paper. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the
paper. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an
abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an abstract of between
200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words,
giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief
account of the most relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most
relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of
the paper. Insert an abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an
abstract of between 200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the paper. Insert an abstract of between
200-250 words, giving a brief account of the most relevant aspects of the paper.
© 2013 European Journal of Research on Education by IASSR.
Keywords: First keywords, second keywords, third keywords, forth keywords;
1. Introduction
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is defined as “voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson
and Bennett, 1995). According to Henle (2005), these “intentional” behaviors can be directed toward organizations
(e.g., theft, sabotage) and also toward individuals in the workplace (e.g., making fun of others, playing mean
pranks). Some theorists (e.g., Berkowitz, 1998) have linked these “bad” employee behaviors to negative emotions
such as anger and/or frustration. Spector et al. (2006) developed a classification of CWBs that categorizes these
deviant behaviors into five dimensions: abuse—harmful and nasty behaviors that affect other people; production
deviance—purposely doing one’s job incorrectly or allowing errors to occur; sabotage—destroying organizational
property; theft—wrongfully taking the personal goods or property of another; and withdrawal—avoiding work
through being late or absent. This model of CWBs can be seen in Table 1.
These behaviors are likely to be influenced by individuals’ personality traits for the reason that individuals make
conscious choices about whether to engage in these behaviors (Mount et al., 2006). Big Five taxonomy is known the
most widely accepted method of assessing personality (Mount et al., 2006). Specifically, extraversion refers to a
pronounced engagement with the external world; agreeableness reflects the degree of one’s sense of cooperation and
* E-mail address: author@institute.xxx
Title of the study
social harmony; conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses;
neuroticism refers to one’s tendency to experience negative feelings; and openness to experience describes
imaginable and creative individuals (Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993). A meta-analysis by Berry et al. (2007) indicated
that agreeableness and conscientiousness were the strongest predictors of a CWB composite score. Specifically,
agreeableness was predictive of interpersonally directed CWBs, while conscientiousness was predictive of
organizationally directed CWBs. Hogan (2004) stated that personality traits ‘do matter at work’.
Table 1 - The Model of Counterproductive Work Behaviors (Robinson and Bennett, 1995)
Organizational
Interpersonal
severe
Property deviance (A)
serious organization directed offences
Personal aggression (B)
serious interpersonally directed
offences
minor
Production deviance (C)
minor organizationally directed
offences
Political deviance (D)
interpersonally directed but minor
offences
Another variable that can contribute to exhibition of CWBs is cognitive distortions (CDs). As Fair (1986)
defined, these are systematic logic errors in the individual’s mind. Researchers suggest that CDs can also be
observed in normal individuals, but depressive individuals perceive stressful situations more negatively and
exaggeratedly than the normal ones (Leahey, 2007). According to Murad (2002), CDs are strongly related to
aggressive behavior. It is observed that individuals who take refuge behind CDs have a more external locus of
control and lower self-respect, internalize loneliness, are weaker in coping with stress, and are more prone to
depression and anxiety. They can be described as possessing a tendency to blame themselves for negative unwanted
events that have occurred in their lives, (i.e., self-blame), feeling unable to control important aspects of their lives
(i.e., helplessness), lacking perseverance in tasks requiring an expectation of a positive future outcome (i.e.,
hopelessness), and expressing a tendency to view the world as a dangerous place (i.e., preoccupation with danger)
(Brown et al., 2009).
The aim of the present study was to determine whether type of CWBs was influenced by personality traits and
CD levels of individuals. Our sample was chosen from career academics. The proposed model is presented below.
The research questions derived from this model are as follows:
1. Do CWB levels of the participants differ significantly with regard to demographic variables (age, sex,
education level, term of employment)?
2. Are there any significant differences between personality types groups (high-low) with regard to CWB
exhibited?
3. Are there any significant differences among CD levels of the participants in terms of exhibited levels of the
CWB subscales?
4. Can CWB exhibited be predicted by personality types and CD?
5. Are there any significant correlations between CWB types, personality, and CD dimensions?
213
Authors’ Name
2. Method
2.1. Respondents
The sample consisted of 71 academics: 38 women (53.5%) and 33 men (46.5%). In terms of age, 73.2% of the
respondents were under 35 years old, while 26.8% of them were 35 years old or older. About 96% of the
participants had a master’s degree, whereas only 4% of them were studying for their PhDs. The frequencies and
percentages of the demographics of the participants are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 - The distribution of the sample by sex, age, educational level, and term of employment
Sex
Age
Educational
level
Term of
employment
Female
Male
Under 35 years
35 years old or older
Master’s degree
PhD students
Less than 1 year
1–5 years
5–10 years
10–15 years
15–20 years
More than 20 years
Frequencies
38
33
52
19
68
Percentages
53.5
46.5
73,2
26,8
96.0
3
9
21
11
18
5
3
4.0
12.7
29.6
15.5
25.4
7.0
4.2
2.2. Measures
The Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C), CD Scale (CDS) (Briere, 2000), and the Big Five
Personality Scale (BFPS) (Benet-Martinez and John, 1998) were used to obtain answers to the research questions.
Additionally, a demographic information form was completed by the respondents.
CWB-C. The main instrument used for the study was the 32-item Turkish adaptation of the English version of the
CWB-C (Öcel, 1993), originally developed by Spector et al. (2006). The scale measures five components of CWB:
abuse toward others, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal but from these only four were used in the
Turkish version (abuse toward others, theft, withdrawal, and sabotage). Öcel (2010) found that the Turkish version
of the scale is valid and reliable.
Cognitive Distortion Scale: The 40-item CD Scale (Briere, 2000) assesses five factors: self-criticism, self-blame,
helplessness, hopelessness, and preoccupation with danger. Ağır (2007) reported a high internal consistency of the
scale for a Turkish sample (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .88 to .91).
Big Five Personality Scale: Personality was measured with the 44-item Big Five Personality Inventory (BenetMartinez and John, 1998), which assesses five main personality traits: agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the scale
were assessed by Sümer (2005). He found that the Turkish version of the scale is valid and reliable (Çetin, 2008).
214
Title of the study
3. Results
The aim of the present study was to investigate whether CWB type was influenced by personality traits and CD
levels of the respondents. In all analyses of variance, personality type and distortion style were chosen as
independent variables. An alpha value of 0.05 was used throughout. The analyses were conducted with SPSS 18.0
(SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
3.1. Analysis of Comparisons between Groups
According to the personality types, there were significant differences with regard to abuse (F (1, 56) = 4.48,
p<.05) and sabotage behaviors (F (1, 56) = 5.79, p<.05) in terms of agreeableness scores. The group classified as
high in agreeableness (Group 1) had a mean score of 16.75, whereas the group classified as low in agreeableness
(Group 2) had a mean score of 19.84 for the abuse scale. Furthermore, the group classified as high in agreeableness
(Group 1) had a mean score of 3.27 and the one classified as low in agreeableness (Group 2) had a mean score of
2.79 for the sabotage scale. These results indicate that while agreeableness levels of the participants increase, the
levels of the sabotage and abuse behaviors decrease.
With respect to withdrawal score, there was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the main
effect of conscientiousness level (F (1, 56) = 4.18, p<.05). The results showed that in the conscientiousness scale,
the mean score of Group 1 was 7.67, while that of Group 2 was 9.18, which indicated that the more
conscientiousness the employee was, the lower his or her withdrawal behaviors were.
With respect to withdrawal score, there was also a significant difference between the groups in terms of the
interaction effect of openness to experience and helplessness (F (1, 56) = 5.15, p<.05). The group means that
constituted this difference are 6.43 for Group 1 (high helplessness and high openness) and 10.31 for Group 2 (high
helplessness and low openness). The results revealed that the group that has high helplessness and high openness
levels exhibits significantly less withdrawal behaviors than Group 2 does.
In terms of sabotage behaviors, there was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the interaction
effect of neuroticism and hopelessness (F (1, 56) = 4.30, p<.05). The group means that constituted this difference
are 3.35 for Group 1 (low hopelessness and high neuroticism) and 2.15 for Group 2 (high hopelessness and low
neuroticism). The results show that the group that has a high level of neuroticism but a low level of hopelessness
engages in sabotage behaviors significantly less than Group 2 does.
3.2. Regression Analysis of CWB Types
It has been theorized that personality and CD scores are useful in predicting the academics’ CWB levels. The
regression equations for CWBs dimensions are shown below:
Abuse = 16.79 – 0.26 neuroticism + 0.16 extroversion + 0.54 self-criticism [Multiple correlation between these
variables and abuse is 0.68, and this is a significant value (F [10,60] =11.86, p > .05). In other words, these variables
were responsible for explaining 46% of the total variance].
Sabotage = 3.50 + 0.17 self-criticism [Multiple correlation between sabotage and self-criticism is 0.58, and this is a
significant value (F [10,60] =7.04, p > .05). In other words, this variable was responsible for explaining 34% of the
total variance].
Theft = 7.19 – 0.17 neuroticism + 0.25 self-criticism [Multiple correlation between theft and these variables are
0.61, and this is a significant value (F [10,60] =8.42, p > .05). In other words, neuroticism and self-criticism were
responsible for explaining 38% of the total variance].
Withdrawal = 6.10 + 0.12 extroversion + 0.27 self-criticism [Multiple correlation between withdrawal and these
variables are 0.49, and this is a significant value (F [10,60] =4.38, p > .05). In other words, extroversion and selfcriticism variables were responsible for explaining 38% of the total variance].
215
Authors’ Name
3.3. Results of Correlation Analysis
The correlation coefficients among personality types, CD styles, and CWB dimensions are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 - Correlation Coefficients among Personality-CD and CWB-Types
Neuroticism
Extroversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Helplessness
Hopelessness
Preoccupation with danger
Self-criticism
Self-blame
Age
Abuse
Theft
Withdrawal
Sabotage
.00
-.01
-.11
-.26*
-.19*
.49*
.49*
.49*
.62*
.49*
.06
-.06
-.06
-.10
-.21*
-.15
.43*
.44*
.42*
.56*
.93*
.02
.05
.05
-.07
-.17*
-.20*
.33*
.34*
.33*
.43*
.75*
-.06
.02
-.02
-.12
-.25*
-.18*
.36*
.39*
.40*
.53*
.87*
.14
p< .05
As can be seen from Table 3, agreeableness is correlated negatively with all CWB types. These results indicate
that those who scored high in the agreeableness dimension engage in CWBs more seldom. Similarly, the more
conscientiousness the academics are, the less CWBs (except theft) they are expected to exhibit. However, the results
of correlation analysis signify that when participants’ CD scores rise, their engagement in CWB grows. In contrast,
the age of respondents is not correlated significantly with their CWB scores.
4. Discussion
CWB is a new research area in Turkey. CWB sometimes can be seen as an innocent reaction to unfair treatment
by employers. As is known, labor unions are becoming steadily weaker in every country, including Turkey.
Therefore, workers have been left petrified and powerless in the labor market. The only weapon they can use to
stand up for their rights is engaging in CWBs, especially the passive type. As well as employers, organizational
conditions can cause CWBs too. Instrumental deviance can be seen therefore as a means to overcome these two
“hostiles”. Aggression can also be a result of these feelings. Actually, fairness perceptions in work settings relate to
retaliatory behaviors against the organization (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), but sometimes individuals engage in CDs
when they perceive and interpret real-life situations. Moreover, personality differences can play an important role in
the display of deviant behaviors at work.
Our findings show that two personality traits (openness to experience and neuroticism) and two dimensions
(hopelessness and helplessness) of CD together reveal two dimensions (withdrawal and sabotage) of CWBs. In other
words, while the scores of openness to experience decrease, at the same time helplessness of the participants
increases and withdrawal increases too. While hopelessness and neuroticism scores are increasing together, sabotage
behaviors (CWB) are also increasing. According to the results from regression analysis, self-criticism predicts all
dimensions of CWBs positively and neuroticism predicts abuse and theft behaviors negatively. According to the
results of correlation analysis, the most remarkable findings are as follows: there are significant negative
correlations between CWBs and agreeableness, and also between CWBs and conscientiousness. Briefly, there are
significant positive correlations between all dimensions of CD and CWBs.
No doubt these findings are important to explain personal traits and perceptions as factors to influence the
workplace environment negatively. In the research the structural circumstances of the workplace were ignored as
variables. This limitation should be kept in mind. However, it is clear that structural factors have important effects
216
Title of the study
on the lives of individuals. Personality and CD are influenced by previous life experiences of the individual.
Therefore, structural factors work as latent variables in our model. Moreover, it must be added that CWB
terminology was created after the 1980’s. It should be kept in mind that new organizational management models
have been developed such as HRM and TQM in which an individual is on his/her own when seeking his/her rights
in opposition to management policies. Individualistic HR approaches such as performance evaluation, determination
of salaries individually, seeking appropriate career opportunities, and lack of collective negotiating tools (for
example unions) create deviant workplace behaviors. To sum up, while psychology is uncovering the realities of
workplace behaviors, care must be taken to ensure that it is not used as an instrument to enable capitalist
management applications. We can give an example from this research; according to our results, a manager can make
the decision not to give job opportunities to people who do not have suitable personality traits and CD in order to
prevent CWBs in the workplace!
References
Ağır, M. (2007). Üniversite Öğrencilerin Bilişsel Çarpıtma Düzeyi ile Problem Çözme Becerileri ve Umutszuluk Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişki.
Ankara: Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.
Brown,C., Trangsrud, H.B., & Linnemeyer, R.M. (2009). Battered Women’s Process of Leaving. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(4), 439-456.
Çetin, F. (2008). Kişilerarası İlişkilerde Kendilik Algısı, Kontrol Odağı ve Kişilik Yapısının Çatışma Çözme Yaklaşımları Üzerine Etkileri:
Uygulamalı Bir Araştırma. Ankara: Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Henle, C. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 17, 247–264.
Hogan, R. (2004). Personality psychology for organizational researchers. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and Organizations
(pp. 3–21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnson, J.A., & Ostendorb. F. (1993). Clarification of the Five Factor Model with the Abridged Big Five-Dimensional Circumplex. Journal of
Personality and Social Psvchology, 65, 563-576.
Leahy, R.L. (2007). Bilişsel Terapi ve Uygulamaları–Tedavi Müdahaleleri
İçin Bir Kılavuz. İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık.
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.
Murad, H. A.I (2002). Cognitive Processes and Aggression in Middle School Children. U.S.A.
Öcel, H. (2010). Üretim Karşıtı İş Davranışları Ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 13 (26), 18-26.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82,434-443.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.),
Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Spector, P. E., Fox S., Penney L. M., Bruursema K., Goh A., & Kessler S., (2006). The Dimensionality of Counterproductivity: Are All
Counterproductive Behaviors Created Equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.
217