- Email: [email protected]
Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad
Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad Hilary L. DeShong, DeMond M. Grant, Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt ⇑ Oklahoma State University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 May 2014 Received in revised form 1 October 2014 Accepted 3 October 2014 Available online 21 October 2014 Keywords: Five-Factor Model Dark Triad Counterproductive workplace behaviors Personality
a b s t r a c t Research has examined the relationship of personality traits with counterproductive workplace behaviors, with many studies focusing on the constructs of the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). The utilization of a general model of personality traits, the Five Factor Model, may provide a more parsimonious explanation for these behaviors. To assess this, the current study used path analysis to determine which personality constructs best describe these behaviors within a sample of undergraduate students working at least 20 hours per week (n = 163). Overall, the results indicated that the best-fitting and most parsimonious model for describing counterproductive workplace behaviors was one in which only agreeableness and conscientiousness were included. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) result in billions of dollars lost per year (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). One avenue of individual differences related to workplace misconduct is personality traits (Elliot, 2010; Hastings & O’Neill, 2009; KishGephart, Harrison, & Trevino, 2010). Understanding the relationship of personality traits with CWBs may enable companies to develop better screening methods when hiring, allowing businesses to potentially avoid future conflicts and reduce decreases in productivity. The present study examined two personality models that have been used in studies of CWBs: The Five Factor Model (FFM) and the Dark Triad. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to compare the two models in predicting levels of CWBs. CWBs lead to several negative outcomes, resulting in both financial losses (e.g., paying or accepting kickbacks, fraud) and damaging the image of the corporation (e.g., discriminating against coworkers; Jones, 1997). The current study investigates one specific type of CWB: social undermining behavior. This is defined as ‘‘behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation’’ (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002, p. 332). These behaviors have been further differentiated with regard to the target of the behavior. Interpersonal CWBs hurt ⇑ Corresponding author at: Oklahoma State University, Department of Psychology, 116 North Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States. Tel.: +1 405 744 9449; fax: +1 405 744 8067. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.N. Mullins-Sweatt). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.001 0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
another individual physically or emotionally (e.g., making fun of or harassing a coworker), whereas organizational CWBs decrease the productivity of the company more directly (e.g., drinking alcohol while working, working slowly). A meta-analysis by Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) suggests that personality is an area of individual differences that may be important for understanding who may engage in CWBs. Personality traits have been linked to a number of problems (Hopwood et al., 2009; Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2010; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), including occupational impairment. One empirically supported model of general personality that may help elucidate this relationship is the Five-Factor Model (FFM). The FFM is a personality model that includes five domains: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The FFM has been used to study work related constructs, including workplace bullying (Lind, Glaso, Pallesen, & Einarsen, 2009), workplace accidents (Clarke & Robertson, 2008), salary earnings (Nyhus & Pons, 2005), and job satisfaction (Jong, Velde, & Jansen, 2001). Therefore, this comprehensive model of personality may be useful in assessing the relationship between personality and CWBs. To date, however, this model is less commonly used, as the Dark Triad constructs are more commonly utilized within this research area. Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term ‘‘Dark Triad’’ to describe three ‘‘socially aversive personalities’’ within the literature: Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy. These constructs tend to be moderately correlated and share the features of egocentricity, callousness, and manipulation (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Though there is empirical evidence for the overlap of these constructs (Fehr, Samson, & Paulhus, 1992;
56
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998), more recent findings support the perspective of three distinct trait domains (Jones & Paulhus, 2010; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Studies have suggested that agreeableness (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), interpersonal manipulation, and callous affect (Jones & Figueredo, 2013) were the only common traits shared by the Dark Triad constructs. Interpersonal manipulation and callous affect have been described by others (e.g., Widiger & Lynam, 1998) as facets of the FFM agreeableness/antagonism domain (low straightforwardness and low tender mindedness), providing evidence that the core of the Dark Triad constructs can be described well within a general trait model. Machiavellianism is characterized by cynical, pragmatic, misanthropic, and immoral beliefs, emotional detachedness, agentic and self-beneficial motives, strategic long-term planning, manipulation and exploitation, and deception (Christie & Geis, 1970; Rauthmann & Will, 2011). Narcissism includes an inflated view of the self, fantasies about control, success, and admiration, and the desire to have self-love reinforced by others (Kernberg, 1989; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Lastly, psychopathy is characterized by glib charm, shallow emotions, parasitic lifestyles, and may include criminal activities (Hare & Neumann, 2009). Previous research has consistently found relationships with the Dark Triad and CWBs. In a recent meta-analysis, O’Boyle and colleagues (2012) found that traits of the Dark Triad were differentially related with CWBs. Individuals high in Machiavellianism engaged in more interpersonal forms of CWBs (e.g., maltreatment of coworkers and betrayal). Individuals high in narcissism engaged in CWBs such as embezzlement, bullying, and white-collar crimes. Lastly, psychopathy was associated with more violent, dangerous, and aggressive workplace behaviors. Each of the Dark Triad constructs has been related to specific FFM domains. Furnham, Richards, Rangel, and Jones (2014) provide a summary of 11 studies that assessed the FFM in relation to the Dark Triad. There is strong evidence for a relationship between the Dark Triad constructs with low agreeableness and neuroticism. Additionally, Machiavellianism and psychopathy show strong relationships with low conscientiousness while narcissism and psychopathy relate to high extraversion. This indicates that the FFM may be able to simplify the multifaceted constructs of the Dark Triad by dismantling the constructs (and explaining their common variance) into the domains of general personality functioning. In fact, a recent meta-analysis by O’Boyle and colleagues (2014) suggests that the domains of the FFM accounted for much of the variance in the constructs of the Dark Triad. To date, however, the relationship of the FFM with CWBs has received little investigation. Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of CWBs and FFM personality traits. The findings indicated neuroticism relates to organizational and interpersonal CWBs, agreeableness strongly relates with interpersonal CWBs, and conscientiousness strongly relates with organizational CWBs. Therefore, the FFM may be a useful and applicable theory to employ as it is both parsimonious and comprehensive. The current study examines the relationship of the FFM and the Dark Triad with CWBs. Path analysis was chosen to analyze the data as a parsimonious way of simultaneously estimating several regression models as well as evaluating competing models in predicting CWBs. The current study had three specific hypotheses. First, interpersonal CWBs would be significantly related to low agreeableness, high neuroticism, and low conscientiousness, while organizational CWBs would be significantly related to low conscientiousness. Both types of CWBs would be significantly positively related to all three Dark Triad constructs. Second, the FFM would provide a better fit to the data in predicting CWBs. Third, the model with the best fit would be one in which agreeableness and conscientiousness are the two sole predictors for interpersonal and organizational CWBs.
2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were undergraduate psychology students at a Midwestern university recruited using an online system. Only those who endorsed that they were currently working at least 20 h a week on a prescreener questionnaire were invited to complete the study. A total of 191 participants completed the study, with 28 participants dropped due to invalid responses. Participants (n = 163) had an average age of 20.89 years (SD = 4.01, range = 18–53), and were primarily female (n = 117; 71.8%) and Caucasian (74.8%; with 8.6% Native American/Alaskan Native, 6.1% Black/African American, 2.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.5% Hispanic). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Elemental psychopathy assessment (EPA; Lynam et al., 2011) The EPA is a 178-item self-report measure of psychopathy, based on the perspective of the FFM. Participants rated each item on a 5point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The EPA has a total score and 18 subscale scores. In the current study, the EPA total psychopathy score had an internal reliability coefficient of .95 (subscales ranged from .65—Arrogance to .89—Thrill-Seeking). 2.2.2. Five factor narcissism inventory (FFNI; Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2011) The FFNI is a 130-item self-report measure of narcissism from the perspective of the FFM. Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The FFNI has a total narcissism score with an internal reliability coefficient of .90. The scale has 15 subscales, with reliability coefficients ranging from .62 (Shame) to .89 (Exploitativeness) for the current study. 2.2.3. Machiavellianism personality scale (MPS; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009) The MPS is a 16-item self-report measure designed to assess the personality facets of Machiavellianism. Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The MPS is comprised of a total Machiavellianism score and four subscales. For the current study, the MPS total score had an internal consistency coefficient of .84, with the subscales ranging from .74 (Distrust of others) to .85 (Amorality). 2.2.4. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) The NEO-PI-R is a 240-item measure designed to assess an individual’s general personality functioning. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The NEO-PI-R is comprised of five domains and six narrower facets within each domain. Internal consistency coefficients for this study ranged from .83 (openness to experience) to.93 (conscientiousness). 2.2.5. Workplace deviance scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) The workplace deviance scale (WDS) is a 19-item self-report measure assessing how often an individual has engaged in a number of CWBs in the workplace in the past year (e.g., made fun of a coworker, falsified a receipt to get more money reimbursed). Participants rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never engaged in the behavior) to 7 (engaged in the behavior daily). The scale has an overall deviance scale and two subscales.
57
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
The organizational deviance scale has 12 items and the interpersonal deviance scale has 7 items. The internal consistency for this study is .89 for the total scale, .81 for the Interpersonal subscale, and .85 for the Organizational subscale. 2.3. Procedure Participants were recruited via an online system at Oklahoma State University. Students who completed a pre-screener and endorsed the question ‘‘Do you currently have a job working 20 or more hours a week’’ were invited to participate in the study. All possible participants were sent a solicitation email that provided an overview of the study’s purpose and requirements. The email also provided the password to access the study online, where they were given the link for the survey that included a demographic form and the above questionnaires. 3. Analytic strategy AMOS 21 (Arbuckle, 2012) was utilized to estimate path analyses to determine the model that offered the best fit to the data. Model fit was evaluated using CFI, TLI, AIC, and RMSEA. CFI and TLI values of .95 or higher and RMSEA values of .06 or below represent a model that has close fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Lastly, the AIC allows for a direct comparison between models, with lower values indicating a better model fit (Akaike, 1987). 4. Results Table 1 presents the correlations, means, and standard deviations of the variables. As predicted, all three constructs of the Dark Triad were significantly related to both types of CWBs. Agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively correlated with both types of CWBs while neuroticism was positively related to organizational CWBs. Next, path analyses were conducted to assess which of the two personality models was better able to predict interpersonal and organizational CWBs. This allows for a direct comparison between the two models while accounting for shared variance between the constructs. The results for each model are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. When all five domains of the FFM were set to zero and the Dark Triad constructs predicted both types of CWBs, the model did not provide an adequate fit, v2(10) = 27.46, p < .01, CFI = .97, TLI = .81, RMSEA = .10, AIC = 137.46, as only one of the three fit indices
indicated an adequate to good fit. The model accounted for 14% and 13% of the variance in organizational and interpersonal CWBs, respectively (see Fig. 1). For the second model, the Dark Triad constructs were set to zero and the FFM predicted CWBs. This model provided a good fit to the data, v2(6) = 8.58, p = ns, CFI = .99, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05, AIC = 126.58, and accounted for 24% and 16% of the variance in organizational and interpersonal CWBs, respectively (see Fig. 2). Additionally, the AIC value was lower when the FFM domains were predictors, indicating the FFM offers a better fit to the data than the Dark Triad. As suggested by Kline (2011) and Joreskog (1993), the model trimming approach was used next, such that a model in which all eight paths free to be estimated was evaluated. This allowed for a comparison of all the domains within both personality models. Following this, two additional models were investigated to find the most parsimonious model which provided the closest fit to the data. As previously stated, a model that included all FFM domains and the three Dark Triad constructs as predictors of both types of CWBs was assessed first. This model perfectly reproduced the correlation matrix and therefore we did not evaluate model fit. Pathways from agreeableness and conscientiousness were significant for both types of CWBs while psychopathy was also a significant pathway for organizational CWBs. The remaining pathways between the other domains and the two types of CWBs were not significant. According to the model trimming approach, the next step is to set all nonsignificant pathways to zero and test the new model. The next model included the five identified significant pathways. This model provided a good fit, v2(11) = 13.59, p = ns, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .04, and AIC = 121.59, and accounted for 14% and 23% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs, respectively. For this model, only four of the five pathways were significant, as psychopathy was no longer a significant pathway. This path was deleted and the final model in which only agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted both types of CWBs was evaluated. This model provided a good fit, v2(12) = 15.10, p = ns, CFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .04, and AIC = 121.10, and accounted for 14% and 22% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs, respectively. Additionally, the AIC for the last model was slightly lower than the model that included psychopathy, indicating it is a better fit to the data. Importantly, all four pathways were statistically significant in this model (see Fig. 3). Therefore the hypothesized model (low agreeableness and low conscientiousness) appears to be the best fit and most parsimonious explanation for the data.
Table 1 Correlations of the FFM, Dark Triad constructs, and CWBs. 1 FFM 1. Neuroticism 2. Extraversion 3. Openness 4. Agreeableness 5. Conscientiousness
*
3
4
5
6
.36** .04 .25** .38**
8
9
10
– .24** .22* .29**
– .09 .04
– .32**
–
.26* .14 .12
.08 .12 .03
.12 .02 .11
.56** .63** .72**
.23** .09 .58**
CWBs 9. Interpersonal 10. Organizational
.12 .24**
.01 .10
.01 .10
.33** .33**
.26** .43**
123.72 21.35
116.92 18.19
p < .05. p < .01; two-tailed.
7
–
Dark Triad 6. Machiavellianism 7. Narcissism 8. Psychopathy
Mean Standard deviation
**
2
90.22 23.11
116.99 21.44
119.61 25.06
– .73** .64** .18* .29** 39.13 10.33
– .72** .24** .22* 474.65 45.17
– .29** .32** 428.00 63.56
– .63** 14.81 7.11
– 22.24 9.96
58
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
Neuroticism Extraversion
Interpersonal CWBs
Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness -.07
.08
.35**
.16 Organizational CWBs
-.07
Machiavellianism Narcissism
.30*
Psychopathy Fig. 1. Model using the Dark Triad constructs in predicting CWBs.
Neuroticism
.06 Extraversion Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
.01
.02
.12 .02
.12
-.23**
Interpersonal CWBs -.30** -.22** Organizational CWBs
-.34**
Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy Fig. 2. Model using the FFM model in predicting CWBs.
Research suggests the individual facets may predict useful variance in personality constructs and behaviors (e.g., Reynolds & Clark, 2001), therefore we completed an exploratory analysis to evaluate the facets of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The first model tested had all six facets of each domain predicting CWBs. This model perfectly reproduced the correlation matrix and therefore we did not evaluate model fit. The model predicted 22% and 30% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs. Using the model trimming method, the nonsignificant pathways were all set to zero and the model was retested until a final model with all significant pathways was found. The final model had compliance negatively predicting interpersonal CWBs and modesty and achievement-striving negatively predicting organizational CWBs. This model provided an adequate fit, v2(21) = 35.09, p = .03, CFI = .99, TLI = .93, and RMSEA = .06, though only accounted for 8% and 14% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs.
5. Discussion While the FFM is a general model of personality, the Dark Triad encompasses three multifaceted constructs: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. These constructs were assessed in relation to CWBs targeted towards other individuals (interpersonal CWBs) and towards the organization (organizational CWBs) within a working sample of undergraduate students. The current study was novel in that it examined the FFM and Dark Triad in predicting interpersonal and organizational CWBs using path analysis, which allowed a comparison of multiple models in order to find the best fitting and most parsimonious model. The results indicate that the FFM domains of agreeableness and conscientiousness relate negatively to interpersonal and organizational CWBs, while neuroticism relates positively to organizational CWBs. This is somewhat discrepant with previous studies, as the meta-analysis by Berry et al. (2007) indicated that agreeableness
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
59
Neuroticism Extraversion
Interpersonal CWBs -.28**
Openness
Agreeableness Conscientiousness
-.18*
-.22* Organizational CWBs
-.35**
Machiavellianism Narcissism
Psychopathy Fig. 3. Hypothesized best-fit model and beta weights for each pathway.
relates only to interpersonal CWBs whereas conscientiousness relates only to organizational CWBs and neuroticism relates to both types of CWBs. As predicted, however, all three constructs of the Dark Triad were significantly related to both types of CWBs. This is consistent with previous literature, which indicates that individuals high in any Dark Triad trait tends to engage in a variety of negative workplace behaviors (O’Boyle et al., 2012). As predicted, the path analysis results indicated that, overall, the FFM was a better fit for the data. These two models were compared with one another first in order to assess each model’s fit in regards to predicting CWBs while controlling for the associations each model has with the other. An additional purpose of the study, however, was to find specific domains of each model that predicted both types of CWBs by finding the most parsimonious model. Using the model trimming approach, we found that, as predicted, agreeableness and conscientiousness were the sole predictors of both types of CWBs. This indicates that individuals low in agreeableness and conscientiousness may be more inclined to engage in these undesired workplace behaviors. Furthermore, this suggests that it may be the underlying low agreeableness that is shared across the Dark Triad that accounts for the relationship between the Dark Triad and CWBs. Notably, however, the means for the CWB total scores were somewhat low (14.81 and 22.24 out of 70), potentially indicating a floor effect. Therefore the results should be interpreted cautiously. 5.1. Limitations and future directions There are some limitations of the current study. Though we assessed a sample of students who worked, these individuals may be less invested in their place of employment as it may be a part-time position unrelated to their desired career. Thus, many of the participants may engage in CWBs because they are not invested in their current job. Assessing the relationship between personality and CWBs in a population of full-time employees may result in different findings. Future studies should investigate whether the relationships from the current study may be dampened when there is greater risk for an individual. Investigating how external or environmental factors may impact the relationship between personality and behavior is an important next step. The study also is limited demographically so it would be important
to investigate these relationships within a more diverse sample. Similarly, the sample was comprised mainly of women (72%), which reduces the generalizability of the results. Another limitation is that only self-report measures were used. Though there is considerable empirical support for the validity of self-report measures of personality (Widiger & Boyd, 2009), future studies may benefit from the use of informant-report personality measures. Specifically, it would be interesting to compare the perceived personality traits of employees by their supervisors to the self-reported traits of the employees. Though previous research indicates that self-reported and other-reported personality traits are typically very similar (Kurtz & Parrish, 2001; Kurtz & Sherker, 2003), it could be that some employees may attempt to portray specific personality traits in order to make a more positive impression. Therefore, it may be expected that supervisor ratings of new employee personality traits would differ compared to self-reported personality traits. Finally, two of the three Dark Triad measures were derived from the FFM, which could have influenced the results of the study. Future studies should investigate these relationships utilizing more traditional Dark Triad measures (e.g., Narcissistic Personality Inventory; Raskin & Hall, 1979). Similarly, it would be interesting for future studies to utilize PCA or EFA testing, as these analyses could not be completed within the current study due to the limited sample size and lacking a cross-validation sample. Future studies should investigate the relationship between the FFM and white-collar crimes, which are defined as ‘‘nonviolent crime for financial gain committed by means of deception’’ (Blickle, Schlegel, Fassbender, & Klein, 2006, p. 221). This includes more severe forms of CWBs, such as fraud, cheating on expense accounts, and paying or accepting kickbacks. Therefore, as one may expect, the Dark Triad constructs are often found to relate strongly to white-collar crimes. These specific types of crimes may relate differently to the FFM traits than the CWBs assessed within the study, as white-collar crimes likely required an ability to plan ahead (i.e., high conscientiousness). Furthermore, future studies should investigate how more adaptive or positive personality traits may relate to workplace behaviors that actually increase productivity. Previous studies have indicated that high levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness are significantly related to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (Chiaburu, Oh,
60
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011), which are desired workplace behaviors that increase productivity by promoting a positive and effective work environment (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
References Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–322. Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). Amos (Version 21) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee ‘‘citizenship’’. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some personality correlates of business white-collar crime. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 220–233. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2008). An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 94–108. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219–257. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–352. Elliot, R. T. (2010). Examining the relationship between personality characteristics and unethical behaviors resulting in economic crime. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 269–276. Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Speilberger & J. M. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 114–121. Glover, N. G., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). The fivefactor narcissism Inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500–512. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2009). Psychopathy: Assessment and forensic implications. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 791–802. Hastings, S. E., & O’Neill, T. A. (2009). Predicting workplace deviance using broad versus narrow personality variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 289–293. Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Ansell, E. B., Grilo, C. M., Sanislow, C. A., McGlashan, T. H., et al. (2009). The convergent and discriminant validity of five-factor traits: Current and prospective social, work, and recreational dysfunction. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 466–476. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The Dark Triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339. Jones, D. N. (1997). Doing the wrong things: 48% of workers admit to unethical or illegal acts. USA Today, Apr 4–6. Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521–531.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz & S. N. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. Jong, R. D., Velde, M. E. G., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 350–356. Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Lang (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kernberg, O. F. (1989). An ego psychology object relations theory of the structure and treatment of pathologic narcissism: An overview. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 723–729. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Kurtz, J. E., & Parrish, C. L. (2001). Semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: The case of the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 315–332. Kurtz, J. E., & Sherker, J. L. (2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and selfother agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71, 21–48. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582. Lind, K., Glaso, L., Pallesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Personality profiles among targets and nontargets of workplace bullying. European Psychologists, 14, 231–237. Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Assessing the basis traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23, 108–124. McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2010). Personality-related problems in living: An empirical approach. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 230–238. Nyhus, E. K., & Pons, E. (2005). The effects of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 363–384. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. (2014). A metaanalytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the Dark Triad and Five Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality. Ozer, D., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590. Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 391–404. Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorders from domains and facets of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199–222. Widiger, T. A., & Boyd, S. (2009). Assessing personality disorders. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (1998). Psychopathy from the perspective of the FiveFactor Model of personality. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birkey-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behaviors (pp. 171–187). New York: Guilford Press.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad Hilary L. DeShong, DeMond M. Grant, Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt ⇑ Oklahoma State University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 May 2014 Received in revised form 1 October 2014 Accepted 3 October 2014 Available online 21 October 2014 Keywords: Five-Factor Model Dark Triad Counterproductive workplace behaviors Personality
a b s t r a c t Research has examined the relationship of personality traits with counterproductive workplace behaviors, with many studies focusing on the constructs of the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). The utilization of a general model of personality traits, the Five Factor Model, may provide a more parsimonious explanation for these behaviors. To assess this, the current study used path analysis to determine which personality constructs best describe these behaviors within a sample of undergraduate students working at least 20 hours per week (n = 163). Overall, the results indicated that the best-fitting and most parsimonious model for describing counterproductive workplace behaviors was one in which only agreeableness and conscientiousness were included. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) result in billions of dollars lost per year (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). One avenue of individual differences related to workplace misconduct is personality traits (Elliot, 2010; Hastings & O’Neill, 2009; KishGephart, Harrison, & Trevino, 2010). Understanding the relationship of personality traits with CWBs may enable companies to develop better screening methods when hiring, allowing businesses to potentially avoid future conflicts and reduce decreases in productivity. The present study examined two personality models that have been used in studies of CWBs: The Five Factor Model (FFM) and the Dark Triad. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to compare the two models in predicting levels of CWBs. CWBs lead to several negative outcomes, resulting in both financial losses (e.g., paying or accepting kickbacks, fraud) and damaging the image of the corporation (e.g., discriminating against coworkers; Jones, 1997). The current study investigates one specific type of CWB: social undermining behavior. This is defined as ‘‘behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation’’ (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002, p. 332). These behaviors have been further differentiated with regard to the target of the behavior. Interpersonal CWBs hurt ⇑ Corresponding author at: Oklahoma State University, Department of Psychology, 116 North Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States. Tel.: +1 405 744 9449; fax: +1 405 744 8067. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.N. Mullins-Sweatt). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.001 0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
another individual physically or emotionally (e.g., making fun of or harassing a coworker), whereas organizational CWBs decrease the productivity of the company more directly (e.g., drinking alcohol while working, working slowly). A meta-analysis by Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) suggests that personality is an area of individual differences that may be important for understanding who may engage in CWBs. Personality traits have been linked to a number of problems (Hopwood et al., 2009; Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2010; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), including occupational impairment. One empirically supported model of general personality that may help elucidate this relationship is the Five-Factor Model (FFM). The FFM is a personality model that includes five domains: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The FFM has been used to study work related constructs, including workplace bullying (Lind, Glaso, Pallesen, & Einarsen, 2009), workplace accidents (Clarke & Robertson, 2008), salary earnings (Nyhus & Pons, 2005), and job satisfaction (Jong, Velde, & Jansen, 2001). Therefore, this comprehensive model of personality may be useful in assessing the relationship between personality and CWBs. To date, however, this model is less commonly used, as the Dark Triad constructs are more commonly utilized within this research area. Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term ‘‘Dark Triad’’ to describe three ‘‘socially aversive personalities’’ within the literature: Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy. These constructs tend to be moderately correlated and share the features of egocentricity, callousness, and manipulation (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Though there is empirical evidence for the overlap of these constructs (Fehr, Samson, & Paulhus, 1992;
56
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998), more recent findings support the perspective of three distinct trait domains (Jones & Paulhus, 2010; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Studies have suggested that agreeableness (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), interpersonal manipulation, and callous affect (Jones & Figueredo, 2013) were the only common traits shared by the Dark Triad constructs. Interpersonal manipulation and callous affect have been described by others (e.g., Widiger & Lynam, 1998) as facets of the FFM agreeableness/antagonism domain (low straightforwardness and low tender mindedness), providing evidence that the core of the Dark Triad constructs can be described well within a general trait model. Machiavellianism is characterized by cynical, pragmatic, misanthropic, and immoral beliefs, emotional detachedness, agentic and self-beneficial motives, strategic long-term planning, manipulation and exploitation, and deception (Christie & Geis, 1970; Rauthmann & Will, 2011). Narcissism includes an inflated view of the self, fantasies about control, success, and admiration, and the desire to have self-love reinforced by others (Kernberg, 1989; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Lastly, psychopathy is characterized by glib charm, shallow emotions, parasitic lifestyles, and may include criminal activities (Hare & Neumann, 2009). Previous research has consistently found relationships with the Dark Triad and CWBs. In a recent meta-analysis, O’Boyle and colleagues (2012) found that traits of the Dark Triad were differentially related with CWBs. Individuals high in Machiavellianism engaged in more interpersonal forms of CWBs (e.g., maltreatment of coworkers and betrayal). Individuals high in narcissism engaged in CWBs such as embezzlement, bullying, and white-collar crimes. Lastly, psychopathy was associated with more violent, dangerous, and aggressive workplace behaviors. Each of the Dark Triad constructs has been related to specific FFM domains. Furnham, Richards, Rangel, and Jones (2014) provide a summary of 11 studies that assessed the FFM in relation to the Dark Triad. There is strong evidence for a relationship between the Dark Triad constructs with low agreeableness and neuroticism. Additionally, Machiavellianism and psychopathy show strong relationships with low conscientiousness while narcissism and psychopathy relate to high extraversion. This indicates that the FFM may be able to simplify the multifaceted constructs of the Dark Triad by dismantling the constructs (and explaining their common variance) into the domains of general personality functioning. In fact, a recent meta-analysis by O’Boyle and colleagues (2014) suggests that the domains of the FFM accounted for much of the variance in the constructs of the Dark Triad. To date, however, the relationship of the FFM with CWBs has received little investigation. Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of CWBs and FFM personality traits. The findings indicated neuroticism relates to organizational and interpersonal CWBs, agreeableness strongly relates with interpersonal CWBs, and conscientiousness strongly relates with organizational CWBs. Therefore, the FFM may be a useful and applicable theory to employ as it is both parsimonious and comprehensive. The current study examines the relationship of the FFM and the Dark Triad with CWBs. Path analysis was chosen to analyze the data as a parsimonious way of simultaneously estimating several regression models as well as evaluating competing models in predicting CWBs. The current study had three specific hypotheses. First, interpersonal CWBs would be significantly related to low agreeableness, high neuroticism, and low conscientiousness, while organizational CWBs would be significantly related to low conscientiousness. Both types of CWBs would be significantly positively related to all three Dark Triad constructs. Second, the FFM would provide a better fit to the data in predicting CWBs. Third, the model with the best fit would be one in which agreeableness and conscientiousness are the two sole predictors for interpersonal and organizational CWBs.
2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were undergraduate psychology students at a Midwestern university recruited using an online system. Only those who endorsed that they were currently working at least 20 h a week on a prescreener questionnaire were invited to complete the study. A total of 191 participants completed the study, with 28 participants dropped due to invalid responses. Participants (n = 163) had an average age of 20.89 years (SD = 4.01, range = 18–53), and were primarily female (n = 117; 71.8%) and Caucasian (74.8%; with 8.6% Native American/Alaskan Native, 6.1% Black/African American, 2.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.5% Hispanic). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Elemental psychopathy assessment (EPA; Lynam et al., 2011) The EPA is a 178-item self-report measure of psychopathy, based on the perspective of the FFM. Participants rated each item on a 5point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The EPA has a total score and 18 subscale scores. In the current study, the EPA total psychopathy score had an internal reliability coefficient of .95 (subscales ranged from .65—Arrogance to .89—Thrill-Seeking). 2.2.2. Five factor narcissism inventory (FFNI; Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2011) The FFNI is a 130-item self-report measure of narcissism from the perspective of the FFM. Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The FFNI has a total narcissism score with an internal reliability coefficient of .90. The scale has 15 subscales, with reliability coefficients ranging from .62 (Shame) to .89 (Exploitativeness) for the current study. 2.2.3. Machiavellianism personality scale (MPS; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009) The MPS is a 16-item self-report measure designed to assess the personality facets of Machiavellianism. Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The MPS is comprised of a total Machiavellianism score and four subscales. For the current study, the MPS total score had an internal consistency coefficient of .84, with the subscales ranging from .74 (Distrust of others) to .85 (Amorality). 2.2.4. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) The NEO-PI-R is a 240-item measure designed to assess an individual’s general personality functioning. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The NEO-PI-R is comprised of five domains and six narrower facets within each domain. Internal consistency coefficients for this study ranged from .83 (openness to experience) to.93 (conscientiousness). 2.2.5. Workplace deviance scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) The workplace deviance scale (WDS) is a 19-item self-report measure assessing how often an individual has engaged in a number of CWBs in the workplace in the past year (e.g., made fun of a coworker, falsified a receipt to get more money reimbursed). Participants rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never engaged in the behavior) to 7 (engaged in the behavior daily). The scale has an overall deviance scale and two subscales.
57
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
The organizational deviance scale has 12 items and the interpersonal deviance scale has 7 items. The internal consistency for this study is .89 for the total scale, .81 for the Interpersonal subscale, and .85 for the Organizational subscale. 2.3. Procedure Participants were recruited via an online system at Oklahoma State University. Students who completed a pre-screener and endorsed the question ‘‘Do you currently have a job working 20 or more hours a week’’ were invited to participate in the study. All possible participants were sent a solicitation email that provided an overview of the study’s purpose and requirements. The email also provided the password to access the study online, where they were given the link for the survey that included a demographic form and the above questionnaires. 3. Analytic strategy AMOS 21 (Arbuckle, 2012) was utilized to estimate path analyses to determine the model that offered the best fit to the data. Model fit was evaluated using CFI, TLI, AIC, and RMSEA. CFI and TLI values of .95 or higher and RMSEA values of .06 or below represent a model that has close fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Lastly, the AIC allows for a direct comparison between models, with lower values indicating a better model fit (Akaike, 1987). 4. Results Table 1 presents the correlations, means, and standard deviations of the variables. As predicted, all three constructs of the Dark Triad were significantly related to both types of CWBs. Agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively correlated with both types of CWBs while neuroticism was positively related to organizational CWBs. Next, path analyses were conducted to assess which of the two personality models was better able to predict interpersonal and organizational CWBs. This allows for a direct comparison between the two models while accounting for shared variance between the constructs. The results for each model are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. When all five domains of the FFM were set to zero and the Dark Triad constructs predicted both types of CWBs, the model did not provide an adequate fit, v2(10) = 27.46, p < .01, CFI = .97, TLI = .81, RMSEA = .10, AIC = 137.46, as only one of the three fit indices
indicated an adequate to good fit. The model accounted for 14% and 13% of the variance in organizational and interpersonal CWBs, respectively (see Fig. 1). For the second model, the Dark Triad constructs were set to zero and the FFM predicted CWBs. This model provided a good fit to the data, v2(6) = 8.58, p = ns, CFI = .99, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05, AIC = 126.58, and accounted for 24% and 16% of the variance in organizational and interpersonal CWBs, respectively (see Fig. 2). Additionally, the AIC value was lower when the FFM domains were predictors, indicating the FFM offers a better fit to the data than the Dark Triad. As suggested by Kline (2011) and Joreskog (1993), the model trimming approach was used next, such that a model in which all eight paths free to be estimated was evaluated. This allowed for a comparison of all the domains within both personality models. Following this, two additional models were investigated to find the most parsimonious model which provided the closest fit to the data. As previously stated, a model that included all FFM domains and the three Dark Triad constructs as predictors of both types of CWBs was assessed first. This model perfectly reproduced the correlation matrix and therefore we did not evaluate model fit. Pathways from agreeableness and conscientiousness were significant for both types of CWBs while psychopathy was also a significant pathway for organizational CWBs. The remaining pathways between the other domains and the two types of CWBs were not significant. According to the model trimming approach, the next step is to set all nonsignificant pathways to zero and test the new model. The next model included the five identified significant pathways. This model provided a good fit, v2(11) = 13.59, p = ns, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .04, and AIC = 121.59, and accounted for 14% and 23% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs, respectively. For this model, only four of the five pathways were significant, as psychopathy was no longer a significant pathway. This path was deleted and the final model in which only agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted both types of CWBs was evaluated. This model provided a good fit, v2(12) = 15.10, p = ns, CFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .04, and AIC = 121.10, and accounted for 14% and 22% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs, respectively. Additionally, the AIC for the last model was slightly lower than the model that included psychopathy, indicating it is a better fit to the data. Importantly, all four pathways were statistically significant in this model (see Fig. 3). Therefore the hypothesized model (low agreeableness and low conscientiousness) appears to be the best fit and most parsimonious explanation for the data.
Table 1 Correlations of the FFM, Dark Triad constructs, and CWBs. 1 FFM 1. Neuroticism 2. Extraversion 3. Openness 4. Agreeableness 5. Conscientiousness
*
3
4
5
6
.36** .04 .25** .38**
8
9
10
– .24** .22* .29**
– .09 .04
– .32**
–
.26* .14 .12
.08 .12 .03
.12 .02 .11
.56** .63** .72**
.23** .09 .58**
CWBs 9. Interpersonal 10. Organizational
.12 .24**
.01 .10
.01 .10
.33** .33**
.26** .43**
123.72 21.35
116.92 18.19
p < .05. p < .01; two-tailed.
7
–
Dark Triad 6. Machiavellianism 7. Narcissism 8. Psychopathy
Mean Standard deviation
**
2
90.22 23.11
116.99 21.44
119.61 25.06
– .73** .64** .18* .29** 39.13 10.33
– .72** .24** .22* 474.65 45.17
– .29** .32** 428.00 63.56
– .63** 14.81 7.11
– 22.24 9.96
58
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
Neuroticism Extraversion
Interpersonal CWBs
Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness -.07
.08
.35**
.16 Organizational CWBs
-.07
Machiavellianism Narcissism
.30*
Psychopathy Fig. 1. Model using the Dark Triad constructs in predicting CWBs.
Neuroticism
.06 Extraversion Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
.01
.02
.12 .02
.12
-.23**
Interpersonal CWBs -.30** -.22** Organizational CWBs
-.34**
Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy Fig. 2. Model using the FFM model in predicting CWBs.
Research suggests the individual facets may predict useful variance in personality constructs and behaviors (e.g., Reynolds & Clark, 2001), therefore we completed an exploratory analysis to evaluate the facets of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The first model tested had all six facets of each domain predicting CWBs. This model perfectly reproduced the correlation matrix and therefore we did not evaluate model fit. The model predicted 22% and 30% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs. Using the model trimming method, the nonsignificant pathways were all set to zero and the model was retested until a final model with all significant pathways was found. The final model had compliance negatively predicting interpersonal CWBs and modesty and achievement-striving negatively predicting organizational CWBs. This model provided an adequate fit, v2(21) = 35.09, p = .03, CFI = .99, TLI = .93, and RMSEA = .06, though only accounted for 8% and 14% of the variance in interpersonal and organizational CWBs.
5. Discussion While the FFM is a general model of personality, the Dark Triad encompasses three multifaceted constructs: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. These constructs were assessed in relation to CWBs targeted towards other individuals (interpersonal CWBs) and towards the organization (organizational CWBs) within a working sample of undergraduate students. The current study was novel in that it examined the FFM and Dark Triad in predicting interpersonal and organizational CWBs using path analysis, which allowed a comparison of multiple models in order to find the best fitting and most parsimonious model. The results indicate that the FFM domains of agreeableness and conscientiousness relate negatively to interpersonal and organizational CWBs, while neuroticism relates positively to organizational CWBs. This is somewhat discrepant with previous studies, as the meta-analysis by Berry et al. (2007) indicated that agreeableness
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
59
Neuroticism Extraversion
Interpersonal CWBs -.28**
Openness
Agreeableness Conscientiousness
-.18*
-.22* Organizational CWBs
-.35**
Machiavellianism Narcissism
Psychopathy Fig. 3. Hypothesized best-fit model and beta weights for each pathway.
relates only to interpersonal CWBs whereas conscientiousness relates only to organizational CWBs and neuroticism relates to both types of CWBs. As predicted, however, all three constructs of the Dark Triad were significantly related to both types of CWBs. This is consistent with previous literature, which indicates that individuals high in any Dark Triad trait tends to engage in a variety of negative workplace behaviors (O’Boyle et al., 2012). As predicted, the path analysis results indicated that, overall, the FFM was a better fit for the data. These two models were compared with one another first in order to assess each model’s fit in regards to predicting CWBs while controlling for the associations each model has with the other. An additional purpose of the study, however, was to find specific domains of each model that predicted both types of CWBs by finding the most parsimonious model. Using the model trimming approach, we found that, as predicted, agreeableness and conscientiousness were the sole predictors of both types of CWBs. This indicates that individuals low in agreeableness and conscientiousness may be more inclined to engage in these undesired workplace behaviors. Furthermore, this suggests that it may be the underlying low agreeableness that is shared across the Dark Triad that accounts for the relationship between the Dark Triad and CWBs. Notably, however, the means for the CWB total scores were somewhat low (14.81 and 22.24 out of 70), potentially indicating a floor effect. Therefore the results should be interpreted cautiously. 5.1. Limitations and future directions There are some limitations of the current study. Though we assessed a sample of students who worked, these individuals may be less invested in their place of employment as it may be a part-time position unrelated to their desired career. Thus, many of the participants may engage in CWBs because they are not invested in their current job. Assessing the relationship between personality and CWBs in a population of full-time employees may result in different findings. Future studies should investigate whether the relationships from the current study may be dampened when there is greater risk for an individual. Investigating how external or environmental factors may impact the relationship between personality and behavior is an important next step. The study also is limited demographically so it would be important
to investigate these relationships within a more diverse sample. Similarly, the sample was comprised mainly of women (72%), which reduces the generalizability of the results. Another limitation is that only self-report measures were used. Though there is considerable empirical support for the validity of self-report measures of personality (Widiger & Boyd, 2009), future studies may benefit from the use of informant-report personality measures. Specifically, it would be interesting to compare the perceived personality traits of employees by their supervisors to the self-reported traits of the employees. Though previous research indicates that self-reported and other-reported personality traits are typically very similar (Kurtz & Parrish, 2001; Kurtz & Sherker, 2003), it could be that some employees may attempt to portray specific personality traits in order to make a more positive impression. Therefore, it may be expected that supervisor ratings of new employee personality traits would differ compared to self-reported personality traits. Finally, two of the three Dark Triad measures were derived from the FFM, which could have influenced the results of the study. Future studies should investigate these relationships utilizing more traditional Dark Triad measures (e.g., Narcissistic Personality Inventory; Raskin & Hall, 1979). Similarly, it would be interesting for future studies to utilize PCA or EFA testing, as these analyses could not be completed within the current study due to the limited sample size and lacking a cross-validation sample. Future studies should investigate the relationship between the FFM and white-collar crimes, which are defined as ‘‘nonviolent crime for financial gain committed by means of deception’’ (Blickle, Schlegel, Fassbender, & Klein, 2006, p. 221). This includes more severe forms of CWBs, such as fraud, cheating on expense accounts, and paying or accepting kickbacks. Therefore, as one may expect, the Dark Triad constructs are often found to relate strongly to white-collar crimes. These specific types of crimes may relate differently to the FFM traits than the CWBs assessed within the study, as white-collar crimes likely required an ability to plan ahead (i.e., high conscientiousness). Furthermore, future studies should investigate how more adaptive or positive personality traits may relate to workplace behaviors that actually increase productivity. Previous studies have indicated that high levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness are significantly related to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (Chiaburu, Oh,
60
H.L. DeShong et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 74 (2015) 55–60
Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011), which are desired workplace behaviors that increase productivity by promoting a positive and effective work environment (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
References Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–322. Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). Amos (Version 21) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee ‘‘citizenship’’. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some personality correlates of business white-collar crime. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 220–233. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2008). An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 94–108. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219–257. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–352. Elliot, R. T. (2010). Examining the relationship between personality characteristics and unethical behaviors resulting in economic crime. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 269–276. Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Speilberger & J. M. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 114–121. Glover, N. G., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). The fivefactor narcissism Inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500–512. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2009). Psychopathy: Assessment and forensic implications. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 791–802. Hastings, S. E., & O’Neill, T. A. (2009). Predicting workplace deviance using broad versus narrow personality variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 289–293. Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Ansell, E. B., Grilo, C. M., Sanislow, C. A., McGlashan, T. H., et al. (2009). The convergent and discriminant validity of five-factor traits: Current and prospective social, work, and recreational dysfunction. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 466–476. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The Dark Triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339. Jones, D. N. (1997). Doing the wrong things: 48% of workers admit to unethical or illegal acts. USA Today, Apr 4–6. Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27, 521–531.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz & S. N. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. Jong, R. D., Velde, M. E. G., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 350–356. Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Lang (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kernberg, O. F. (1989). An ego psychology object relations theory of the structure and treatment of pathologic narcissism: An overview. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 723–729. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Kurtz, J. E., & Parrish, C. L. (2001). Semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: The case of the NEO-PI-R. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 315–332. Kurtz, J. E., & Sherker, J. L. (2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and selfother agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71, 21–48. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582. Lind, K., Glaso, L., Pallesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Personality profiles among targets and nontargets of workplace bullying. European Psychologists, 14, 231–237. Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Assessing the basis traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23, 108–124. McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2010). Personality-related problems in living: An empirical approach. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 230–238. Nyhus, E. K., & Pons, E. (2005). The effects of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 363–384. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. (2014). A metaanalytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the Dark Triad and Five Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality. Ozer, D., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590. Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 391–404. Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorders from domains and facets of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199–222. Widiger, T. A., & Boyd, S. (2009). Assessing personality disorders. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (1998). Psychopathy from the perspective of the FiveFactor Model of personality. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birkey-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behaviors (pp. 171–187). New York: Guilford Press.