- Email: [email protected]
Predicting counterproductive work behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy: Beyond the Five Factor Model of personality
Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Predicting counterproductive work behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy: Beyond the Five Factor Model of personality Kelly T. Scherer a,⇑, Michael Baysinger b, Dana Zolynsky c, James M. LeBreton a a
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States Kronos Inc., Beaverton, OR, United States c Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 27 November 2012 Received in revised form 1 March 2013 Accepted 4 March 2013 Available online 12 April 2013 Keywords: Sub-clinical psychopathy Five Factor Model Counterproductive work behavior Personality
a b s t r a c t Organizational psychologists examining personality’s relation to work behavior have focused largely on the ‘‘normal’’ traits comprising the Five Factor Model (FFM). However, given the aversive nature of subclinical psychopathy (e.g., callous affect, impulsivity), we posit that this toxic personality profile will enhance the prediction of negative work outcomes, namely forms of counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). Study 1 (N = 193) examined the value of sub-clinical psychopathy and the FFM in predicting intentions to engage in CWB; results support prior research indicating that both agreeableness and conscientiousness significantly correlated with CWB. In addition, sub-clinical psychopathy predicted CWB above and beyond the FFM. Study 2 (N = 360) extended the findings of Study 1 by examining interpersonally deviant behavior in a team context. While agreeableness was significantly related to interpersonal deviance in Study 2, conscientiousness was not. Results from Study 2 replicate Study 1, suggesting that sub-clinical psychopathy accounted for the majority of the explained variance in interpersonal deviance. Overall, the results support the value of using sub-clinical psychopathy to predict CWB. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are voluntary behaviors that result in harm to an organization or the people in it (e.g., theft, sabotage; Gruys & Sackett, 2003). Organizational psychologists typically use the Five Factor Model (FFM) as a personality predictor of CWB (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). However, we propose that compound personality traits such as sub-clinical psychopathy, when used in tandem with the FFM, could improve the prediction of CWBs (LeBreton & Wu, 2009; Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Given prior research linking sub-clinical psychopathy to a number of antisocial behaviors in non-work contexts (cf. Jones & Paulhus, 2010; Nathanson, Paulhus, & Williams, 2006a, 2006b), we examined whether this trait might also predict antisocial behaviors in a work context. 1.1. The Five Factor Model and counterproductive work behaviors The FFM includes neuroticism (psychological maladjustment), extraversion (sociability), conscientiousness (dutifulness), openness (tendency to embark on new experiences), and agreeableness
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2081, United States. Tel.: +1 724 816 4494; fax: +1 765 496 1264. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.T. Scherer). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.007
([cooperation] Goldberg, 1999; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993). Past research supports a negative relationship between agreeableness and interpersonally-directed CWBs (e.g., verbal aggression) and between conscientiousness and organizationally-directed CWBs (e.g., organizational theft; Berry et al., 2007; Bolton, Becker, & Barber, 2010; Salgado, 2002). As such, we plan to corroborate this evidence with both of our studies. Hypothesis 1. Agreeableness and conscientiousness will negatively correlate with CWB.
1.2. Dark traits and work outcomes Past research links dark traits (e.g., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy) to workplace effectiveness and ineffectiveness (Furnham, Trickey, & Hyde, 2012), and managerial failure (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Though researchers have also used dark traits such as trait anger (Penney & Spector, 2002), Machiavellianism (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), narcissism (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), and implicit aggression (James & LeBreton, 2010) to predict CWB, virtually no research links the dark trait psychopathy to counterproductive outcomes (see Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012 for a notable exception). A recent meta-analysis (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012) found a positive relationship between the Dark Triad (i.e., psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism; Paulhus & Williams,
301
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305
2002) and CWBs. However, the overwhelming majority of samples measuring psychopathy relied on tests designed to measure clinical psychopathy. This is potentially problematic because the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 1990/1992) prohibits discrimination on the basis of physical and mental disabilities. Thus, using an inventory designed to identify clinical-level impairments (e.g., the MMPI) constitutes a pre-employment medical examination, thus violating the ADA. Consequently, for fear of litigation, organizations rarely use clinical measures for selection except for high-security occupations (e.g., military special forces; Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Such occupations formed the basis for the O’Boyle et al. (2012) review. Thus, organizational scholars are left wondering whether sub-clinical variants of psychopathy, or any non-clinical, legally defensible, dark trait (e.g., sub-clinical psychopathy; sub-clinical narcissism; the Honesty–Humility factor of the HEXACO model; Lee & Ashton, 2005), predict CWBs or whether such relationships only emerge with clinical levels of dark traits.
psychopathy (Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Furthermore, given the positively skewed distribution of CWBs, it makes sense to identify personality traits with similar marginal distributions (e.g. dark traits; Wu & LeBreton, 2011). As such, we predict that we can maximize our prediction of CWB through aligning the joint marginal distributions of our predictor (sub-clinical psychopathy) and criterion (CWB). Although we acknowledge the relevant contribution of the FFM in predicting CWB, we hypothesize that because of the similar distributions of sub-clinical psychopathy and CWB, subclinical psychopathy will increment the FFM traits and will emerge as the most important predictor of CWB. Hypothesis 3. Sub-clinical psychopathy will increment the prediction of CWB above and beyond agreeableness and conscientiousness.
Hypothesis 4. Sub-clinical psychopathy will demonstrate greater relative importance compared to the FFM traits.
1.3. Psychopathy predicting CWB Psychopaths are impulsive, arrogant, manipulative, and lack the ability to empathize or experience guilt (Hare, 1999). Clinical psychopaths (1% base rate; Hare, 1996) are impaired in their ability to maintain relationships across situations (e.g., work, family, social). In contrast, sub-clinical psychopaths (5–15% base rate; LeBreton, Binning, & Adorno, 2006) function with levels of psychopathy that do not significantly impair their day-to-day life (Furnham et al., 2012). Though sub-clinical psychopathy shares qualititative similarities (i.e., types of behaviors) with clinical psychopathy which do negatively affect an individual’s relationships and judgment (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005), sub-clinical psychopathy operates at a lower intensity (LeBreton et al., 2006). One popular framework for studying sub-clinical psychopathy emphasizes three distinct personality dimensions (i.e., callous affect, interpersonal manipulation, erratic lifestyle) and one behavioral dimension (criminal tendencies; Mahmut, Menictas, Stevenson, & Homewood, 2011). Callous affect reflects a sub-clinical psychopath’s lack of ability to empathize and not experiencing guilt when harming others; the interpersonal manipulation dimension refers to a sub-clinical psychopath’s selfishness and tendency to lie, deceive, and manipulate; erratic lifestyle refers to the tendency to behave impulsively and lack of self-regulatory resources (cf. Jonason & Tost, 2010; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). This latter tendency likely contributes to apropensity for criminal behavior (Mahmut et al., 2011). As such, we predict that sub-clinical psychopaths will report a high likelihood of counterproductive work behavior. Hypothesis 2. Sub-clinical psychopathy will positively correlate with CWB. In addition to corroborating past evidence linking CWB to agreeableness and conscientiousness, we examined whether variance in CWBs systematically related to variance in sub-clinical
2. Study 1 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and procedure Participants consisted of 193 undergraduates from a large urban Midwestern University, who earned course credit for completing our survey, via their introductory psychology course. Some of the characteristics of this sample differed from those of a typical college sample: mean age of 24 years (SD = 8.06), average work hours per week = 23, 66% of the sample was currently (or previously) employed full-time, and 73% of the sample was female. 2.1.2. Materials 2.1.2.1. Big Five personality traits. The global FFM traits were measured using a 50-item questionnaire (Goldberg, 1999), consisting of 10 items per trait. Participants responded to each item using a scale ranging from ‘‘1-very inaccurate’’ to ‘‘5-very accurate.’’ Sample items are ‘‘I am the life of the party’’ and ‘‘I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.’’ Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and estimates of internal consistency reliability for the study variables. 2.1.2.2. Sub-clinical psychopathy. We assessed sub-clinical psychopathy using a 48-item survey (Williams et al., 2007) measuring the three personality facets of callous affect (CA), interpersonal manipulation (IM), and erratic lifestyle (EL), again using a five-point Likert type scale. This scale had reasonable internal consistency reliability. Higher scores correspond to higher levels of sub-clinical psychopathy. Because we sought to predict deviant behavior, we opted to remove items measuring behavior (cf. Williams & Paulhus, 2004), as including them would artificially inflate the
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for CWB, the FFM, and sub-clinical psychopathy for Study 1. Variable
M
SD
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1.58 4.02 3.73 3.27 3.73 3.32 2.37
.64 .58 .58 .78 .56 .69 .47
CWB Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion SCP
1
2 .97 .17** .15* .24** .06 .04 .31**
3 .80 .29** .14 .42** .26** .40**
4
.78 .34** .23** .07 .39**
5
.88 .12 0.18* .23**
.79 .24** .07
6
7
.85 .09
.90
Note. N = 193. CWB = counter-productive work behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. Internal consistency reliabilities (alphas) appear in bold on the diagonal. p < .05. ** p < .01. *
302
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305
Table 2 Hierarchical regression analysis examining the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of CWB. Hierarchical regression Predictors Step 1 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion
b .10 .00 .18* .15 .04
F change
R2
4.29***
.10
DR 2
Table 3 Relative weights analysis for the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of CWB. Predictor
RW
Rescaled RW (%)
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion FFM total
0.017 0.009 0.038 0.012 0.002
11.6 5.9 26.4 8.0 1.4 53.3
SCP
0.068
46.7
2
Step 2 SCP
.25
9.27
**
.15
**
.05
Note. Dependent variable: CWB. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. b = Standardized regression coefficients * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note. Model R = .16. CWB = counter-productive work behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. RW = raw relative weight. Rescaled RW = relative weight as a percentage of R2.
ance in CWB than any of the global FFM traits, thus supporting Hypothesis 4. 3. Study 2
relationship between sub-clinical psychopathy scores and CWB (Patrick & Zempolich, 1999). Omitting these items yields a more conservative test of our hypotheses. 2.1.2.3. Counterproductive work behavior. We measured CWB with a 66-item scale (Gruys & Sackett, 2003) assessing the likelihood of engaging in CWBs in the future. Participants responded to each item using a scale ranging from ‘‘1-No matter what the circumstances, I would not engage in the behavior’’ to ‘‘6-In a variety of circumstances, I would engage in the behavior.’’
Study 2 extended the findings from Study 1 by examining how personality predicted reports of actual deviant behavior. Specifically, we examined negative socioemotional behaviors (SEBs), which reflect group members’ aggressive interpersonal actions and lack of concern for others. Negative SEB is a form of interpersonal CWB that negatively affects interpersonal relationships and task-related interpersonal interactions (Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). Negative SEB also encompasses the poor attitude and inappropriate verbal dimensions measured by common CWB surveys (Gruys & Sackett, 2003).
2.2. Results 3.1. Method Results fully supported Hypothesis 1 such that both agreeableness (r (191) = .17, p < .05) and conscientiousness (r (191) = .15, p < .05) significantly correlated with CWB. Results also supported Hypothesis 2 such that sub-clinical psychopathy significantly correlated with CWB (r (191) = .31, p < .05). Although our remaining hypotheses focused on the predictive validity of sub-clinical psychopathy relative to agreeableness and conscientiousness, we also included the remaining global traits of the FFM in all of our analyses. This yielded a more conservative test of our hypotheses as sub-clinical psychopathy correlates with all five of the FFM traits1 (Nathanson et al., 2006a, 2006b; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Williams et al., 2007). We tested Hypothesis 3 using hierarchical regression and found that sub-clinical psychopathy significantly predicted CWB above and beyond all five of the FFM traits (DF (1, 186) = 9.27, p < .01, DR2 = .05; see Table 2). To test Hypothesis 4, as per the recommendations of LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald, and Ployhart (2007)2, we supplemented our hierarchical regression analysis with relative weight analysis (Johnson, 2000) which estimated the relative contributions of sub-clinical psychopathy and the FFM to the prediction of CWB (see Table 3). Results indicated that sub-clinical psychopathy (46.7%) accounted for most of the explained variance in CWB. Surprisingly, conscientiousness (5.9%) modestly contributed, while agreeableness (11.6%) contributed slightly more to the prediction of CWB. In sum, sub-clinical psychopathy explained far more vari1 Our results were robust to changes in our analytic strategy such that in running the regression with only ‘‘agreeableness’’ and ‘‘conscientiousness’’ we also found support for Hypothesis 3 (DF (1, 189) = 12.70, p < .00, DR2 = .06). 2 Specifically, LeBreton et al. (2007) recommended integrating incremental importance with relative importance because an over-reliance on regression coefficients and tests of incremental validity may distort the contributions that variables make relative to one another.
3.1.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 360 undergraduates from a large Midwestern University (mean age = 20 years, SD = 1.42) they were mostly male (52%) and had held full-time employment prior to participating in the study (52%). In part 1 of this study, respondents completed internet-based measures of sub-clinical psychopathy and the FFM. In part 2 (occurring several weeks later), participants were assigned to a group containing a total of 3–5 members (k = 81 groups; mean group size = 4.44, SD = .77). Participants then completed two lab-based group decision-making tasks that presented them with a survival scenario in which they were asked to imagine they were shipwrecked on the moon (task 1) or lost in the wilderness (task 2). Their goal was to rank order a set of 15 items based on their utility for survival. For 10 min, participants individually ranked items and then as a group, participants spent 20 min reaching consensus on a final group ranking. After each task, participants completed measures of group cohesion, commitment, and interaction processes (which included negative SEB). These tasks were well-suited for this study because we sought an activity that (a) required interpersonal communication, cooperation, and problem-solving; and (b) provided individuals an opportunity to engage in negative, counterproductive behaviors within the context of group interactions. 3.1.2. Materials 3.1.2.1. Personality. Participants completed the same Study 1 measures of the FFM (Goldberg, 1999) and sub-clinical psychopathy (Williams et al., 2007). 3.1.2.2. Negative socioemotional behaviors. Participants completed two items measuring negative SEB which were from Green and Taber (1980) group process measure: ‘‘I rejected others’ opinions and suggestions’’ and ‘‘I expressed negative opinions about a group
303
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305 Table 4 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for negative SEB, the FFM, and sub-clinical psychopathy for Study 2. Variable
M
SD
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1.70 3.95 3.49 3.12 3.48 3.40 2.85
.87 .48 .63 .70 .55 .74 .68
Negative SEB Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion SCP
1
2 .73 .16** .04 .05 .01 .02 .18**
3 .90 .25** .01 .25** .31** .53
4
.79 .03 .07 .05 .36**
5
.83 .03 .17** .01
.87 .23** .16**
6
7
.73 .16**
.68
Note. N = 360. SEB = socioemotional behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. Internal consistency reliabilities (alphas) appear in bold on the diagonal. p < .05. ** p < .01. ⁄⁄⁄ p < .001. ⁄
member’s behavior.’’ Because of the close temporal proximity of the exercises, we averaged responses across the two problem-solving tasks.3 Table 4 contains descriptive statistics for all study variables.
3.2. Results Because data included individuals nested in groups, we estimated the ICCs to determine the impact of nesting on SEB scores (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The obtained ICC(1) = .10 revealed a significant grouping effect. The effects of nesting could be handled in one of two ways, both of which would enable us to examine the pooled within-groups correlations and regressions. The first approach involves using random-coefficient regression (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). However, Hypothesis 4 requires the estimation of relative weights and, to date, no solution exists for such an analysis using random coefficient regression. Thus, we opted to use a second approach for which we group mean centered all variables; thus eliminating the between-groups relationships. This approach is mathematically identical to including a set of K 1 dummy variables to control for the nesting effects in the K groups. All of the analyses conducted in Study 2 refer to the group centered variables. We obtained mixed support for Hypothesis 1. We found a significant correlation between negative SEB and agreeableness (r (358) = .16, p < .01) but no such correlation with conscientiousness (r (358) = .04, p > .05; see Table 4). In retrospect, this was not necessarily surprising as prior work demonstrates that agreeableness more closely links to interpersonally-directed forms of CWB whereas conscientiousness tends to relate to organizationallydirected forms of CWB. As with Study 1, we found support for Hypothesis 2 in a significant correlation between sub-clinical psychopathy and SEB (r (358) = .18, p < .01). We observed a small but significant increment when adding sub-clinical psychopathy to a model already containing the FFM traits (DF (1, 353) = 4.12, p < .05, DR2 = .01; see Table 5), thus supporting Hypothesis 3. Based on the rescaled relative weights (see Table 6), the best predictors of negative SEB were sub-clinical psychopathy (51.6%) and agreeableness (37.4%). Consistent with Study 1, conscientiousness provided a modest contribution to predicted criterion variance (2.1%). Together, the FFM traits accounted for a little less than 50% of the explained variance in negative SEB, whereas subclinical psychopathy alone accounted for slightly more than 50%. 3 To evaluate potential differences across tasks, the analyses in this section were performed separately for negative SEB in Task A and Task B. Substantive conclusions from these analyses were consistent with results based on the combined variable.
Table 5 Hierarchical regression analysis examining the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of negative SEB. Hierarchical regression Predictors
F change
R2
.10 .04 .05 .04 .01
2.20*
0.03
0.14
4.12*
0.04
b
Step 1 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion Step 2 SCP
DR2
.01*
Note. Dependent variable: negative socioemotional behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. b = Standardized regression coefficients. * p < .05. ⁄⁄ p < .01. ⁄⁄⁄ p < .001.
Table 6 Relative weights analysis for the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of negative SEB. Predictor
RW
Rescaled RW (%)
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion FFM total
0.015 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001
37.4 2.1 5.6 1.2 2.1 48.4
SCP
0.021
51.6
2
Note. Model R = .041. SEB = socioemotional behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. RW = raw relative weight. Rescaled RW = relative weight as a percentage of R2.
4. Discussion The purpose of these studies was to determine the usefulness for researchers and organizations to use measures of sub-clinical psychopathy to predict CWBs. We also sought to determine whether sub-clinical psychopathy provided predictive information above and beyond the omnibus FFM. Previous work links the SRP-III to a variety of different outcomes including membership in adventurous peer-groups (Nathanson et al., 2006a); scholastic cheating & plagiarism (Nathanson et al., 2006a); sexual deviance (Williams, Cooper, Howell, Yuille, & Paulhus, 2009); impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2011); and a wide array of aversive behaviors including drug use, bullying, and criminal behavior (Williams & Paulhus, 2004). However, no research has sought to link sub-clinical psychopathy to the
304
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305
type of organizationally relevant criteria we test in our studies, despite the need for such research (cf. Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Thus, finding support for our hypotheses furnishes evidence that, in addition to the FFM, scores on a popular measure of sub-clinical psychopathy may be useful for predicting CWBs. Our findings also complement the results obtained by O’Boyle et al. (2012) who found that scores on measures of clinical psychopathy were correlated with CWB. Our results also replicate previous findings of a negative association between both agreeableness and conscientiousness, and CWB (supported by Study 1 and partially supported by Study 2; cf. Berry et al., 2007; Bolton et al., 2010; Salgado, 2002). We also found that neuroticism was significantly and positively correlated with CWB (r = .24, p < .01) which is consistent with prior research (Berry et al., 2007). Findings from Study 2 support the value of sub-clinical psychopathy as a predictor of verbal forms of interpersonal deviance. Although the global traits of the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy together accounted for a modest amount of variance in negative SEB, given the large number of proximal influences on such behavior (e.g., workgroup conflict, cohesion, task difficulty), the study served as a relatively conservative test of these relationships. In addition, that we observed these relationships in a lab-based study of limited duration and using a narrow form of CWB as the criterion, speaks to the potential value of examining aversive traits in broader organizational contexts. Because some readers may be interested in how the specific facets of sub-clinical psychopathy were related to CWBs, we also tested our hypotheses at the facet level, (callous affect, interpersonal manipulation, and erratic lifestyle). Callous affect (34.3%) and interpersonal manipulation (26.1%) were the dominant subclinical psychopathy facets in terms of predictive validity for Study 2, whereas erratic lifestyle (36.8%) was the dominant facet in Study 1. This discrepancy suggests that the sub-clinical psychopathy facets may have differential importance for predicting different types of deviant outcomes. The outcome in Study 1 reflects the full range of CWBs, including drug use, physical aggression, production deviance, and verbal aggression. Given that ‘‘erratic lifestyle’’ connotes impulsive and irresponsible cognition and behavior, it is not surprising that this facet would exhibit stronger relationships with a composite variable that encompasses the full range of CWBs. In contrast, Study 2 concerns a fairly narrow form of CWB: inappropriate verbal behavior. Given that verbal and physical behaviors almost invariably occur within an interpersonal context, it is not surprising that the more interpersonally-oriented aspects of sub-clinical psychopathy (i.e., callous affect and interpersonal manipulation) accounted for more variance in negative SEB. 4.1. Limitations Our student samples place some limits on the generalizability of our findings. However, in both studies, we sought to collect data that would more readily generalize to work contexts. In Study 1, all participants had worked in the past or were employed at the time of the study (many full-time). Similarly, in Study 2, many participants had previously held full-time employment. Another potential limitation of our study involved the possibility for common method bias inflating correlations. Although debates about the pervasiveness, magnitude, and consequences of common method bias continue in applied psychology (cf., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006), there are several reasons to not dismiss our findings. First, results were cross-validated using an independent sample, an alternative research design, and an alternative indicator of CWB. Second, if common method bias were pervasive, we would expect
all correlations to be significant (Spector, 2006). Instead, only those predictors theoretically related to CWB emerged as significant (see Tables 1 and 4). Third, data were collected as anonymous (Study 1) or confidential (Study 2), which should have bolstered the likelihood of honest responding. Fourth, we did not use the data for administrative purposes, which again should enhance the likelihood of honest responding (Zedeck & Cascio, 1982).Finally, if common method response biases were a problem, they would likely have inflated the magnitude of all correlations in our study. This would impact the absolute value of correlations, but not the results of our relative weight analyses (Hypothesis 4). 4.2. Conclusions As predicted, in Study 1, sub-clinical psychopathy significantly correlated with reported likelihood of engaging in future CWB. Additionally, sub-clinical psychopathy predicted unique variance in future CWB beyond the FFM traits. Study 2 sought to cross-validate the findings from Study 1 using a different sample, context, and criterion. Results indicated either partial support or full support for our hypotheses. In short, both studies provide evidence for sub-clinical psychopathy incrementing the FFM in the prediction of CWB. Clearly, researchers should seek to cross-validate our findings using additional criterion measures and collecting data from different sources. That said, our study represents one of the first to examine the linkages between CWBs and sub-clinical psychopathy. When framed in that context, we believe our paper makes a novel contribution to the literature and we hope it serves as a catalyst for additional work in this area. References Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S. C.A.§12101 et seq. 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. Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 537–541. Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright aspects to dark side traits: Dark side traits associated with work success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908–913. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. de Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Green, S., & Taber, T. (1980). The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 97–106. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). The dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 30–42. Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Journal of General Psychology, 9, 169–180. James, L. R., & LeBreton, J. M. (2010). Assessing aggression using conditional reasoning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 30–35. Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19. Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the five factor model with the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 563–576. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453. Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and selfcontrol. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 611–615. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–18. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 679–682.
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305 Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. LeBreton, J. M., Binning, J. F., & Adorno, A. J. (2006). Sub-clinical psychopaths. In J. C. Thomas & D. Segal (Eds.). Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 388–411). New York, NY: Wiley. LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475–498. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. LeBreton, J. M., & Wu, J. (2009). Beyond the traits of the five factor model: Using deviant personality traits to predict deviant behavior in organizations. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Personality assessment: New research (pp. 383–390). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 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. Mahmut, M. K., Menictas, C., Stevenson, R. J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Validating the factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 23, 670. Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006a). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 97–122. Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006b). Personality and misconduct correlates of body modification and other cultural deviance markers. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 779–802. 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. Patrick, C. J., & Zempolich, K. A. (1999). Emotion and aggression in the psychopathic personality. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 303–338.
305
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126–134. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior and status in task groups? The American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1189–1212. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. Williams, K. M., Cooper, B. S., Howell, T. M., Yuille, J. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Inferring sexually deviant behavior from corresponding fantasies: The role of personality and pornography consumption. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 198–222. Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 765–778. Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–219. Wu, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality traits. Personnel Psychology, 64, 593–626. Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W. F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752–758.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Predicting counterproductive work behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy: Beyond the Five Factor Model of personality Kelly T. Scherer a,⇑, Michael Baysinger b, Dana Zolynsky c, James M. LeBreton a a
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States Kronos Inc., Beaverton, OR, United States c Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 27 November 2012 Received in revised form 1 March 2013 Accepted 4 March 2013 Available online 12 April 2013 Keywords: Sub-clinical psychopathy Five Factor Model Counterproductive work behavior Personality
a b s t r a c t Organizational psychologists examining personality’s relation to work behavior have focused largely on the ‘‘normal’’ traits comprising the Five Factor Model (FFM). However, given the aversive nature of subclinical psychopathy (e.g., callous affect, impulsivity), we posit that this toxic personality profile will enhance the prediction of negative work outcomes, namely forms of counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). Study 1 (N = 193) examined the value of sub-clinical psychopathy and the FFM in predicting intentions to engage in CWB; results support prior research indicating that both agreeableness and conscientiousness significantly correlated with CWB. In addition, sub-clinical psychopathy predicted CWB above and beyond the FFM. Study 2 (N = 360) extended the findings of Study 1 by examining interpersonally deviant behavior in a team context. While agreeableness was significantly related to interpersonal deviance in Study 2, conscientiousness was not. Results from Study 2 replicate Study 1, suggesting that sub-clinical psychopathy accounted for the majority of the explained variance in interpersonal deviance. Overall, the results support the value of using sub-clinical psychopathy to predict CWB. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are voluntary behaviors that result in harm to an organization or the people in it (e.g., theft, sabotage; Gruys & Sackett, 2003). Organizational psychologists typically use the Five Factor Model (FFM) as a personality predictor of CWB (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). However, we propose that compound personality traits such as sub-clinical psychopathy, when used in tandem with the FFM, could improve the prediction of CWBs (LeBreton & Wu, 2009; Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Given prior research linking sub-clinical psychopathy to a number of antisocial behaviors in non-work contexts (cf. Jones & Paulhus, 2010; Nathanson, Paulhus, & Williams, 2006a, 2006b), we examined whether this trait might also predict antisocial behaviors in a work context. 1.1. The Five Factor Model and counterproductive work behaviors The FFM includes neuroticism (psychological maladjustment), extraversion (sociability), conscientiousness (dutifulness), openness (tendency to embark on new experiences), and agreeableness
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2081, United States. Tel.: +1 724 816 4494; fax: +1 765 496 1264. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.T. Scherer). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.007
([cooperation] Goldberg, 1999; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993). Past research supports a negative relationship between agreeableness and interpersonally-directed CWBs (e.g., verbal aggression) and between conscientiousness and organizationally-directed CWBs (e.g., organizational theft; Berry et al., 2007; Bolton, Becker, & Barber, 2010; Salgado, 2002). As such, we plan to corroborate this evidence with both of our studies. Hypothesis 1. Agreeableness and conscientiousness will negatively correlate with CWB.
1.2. Dark traits and work outcomes Past research links dark traits (e.g., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy) to workplace effectiveness and ineffectiveness (Furnham, Trickey, & Hyde, 2012), and managerial failure (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Though researchers have also used dark traits such as trait anger (Penney & Spector, 2002), Machiavellianism (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), narcissism (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), and implicit aggression (James & LeBreton, 2010) to predict CWB, virtually no research links the dark trait psychopathy to counterproductive outcomes (see Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012 for a notable exception). A recent meta-analysis (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012) found a positive relationship between the Dark Triad (i.e., psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism; Paulhus & Williams,
301
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305
2002) and CWBs. However, the overwhelming majority of samples measuring psychopathy relied on tests designed to measure clinical psychopathy. This is potentially problematic because the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 1990/1992) prohibits discrimination on the basis of physical and mental disabilities. Thus, using an inventory designed to identify clinical-level impairments (e.g., the MMPI) constitutes a pre-employment medical examination, thus violating the ADA. Consequently, for fear of litigation, organizations rarely use clinical measures for selection except for high-security occupations (e.g., military special forces; Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Such occupations formed the basis for the O’Boyle et al. (2012) review. Thus, organizational scholars are left wondering whether sub-clinical variants of psychopathy, or any non-clinical, legally defensible, dark trait (e.g., sub-clinical psychopathy; sub-clinical narcissism; the Honesty–Humility factor of the HEXACO model; Lee & Ashton, 2005), predict CWBs or whether such relationships only emerge with clinical levels of dark traits.
psychopathy (Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Furthermore, given the positively skewed distribution of CWBs, it makes sense to identify personality traits with similar marginal distributions (e.g. dark traits; Wu & LeBreton, 2011). As such, we predict that we can maximize our prediction of CWB through aligning the joint marginal distributions of our predictor (sub-clinical psychopathy) and criterion (CWB). Although we acknowledge the relevant contribution of the FFM in predicting CWB, we hypothesize that because of the similar distributions of sub-clinical psychopathy and CWB, subclinical psychopathy will increment the FFM traits and will emerge as the most important predictor of CWB. Hypothesis 3. Sub-clinical psychopathy will increment the prediction of CWB above and beyond agreeableness and conscientiousness.
Hypothesis 4. Sub-clinical psychopathy will demonstrate greater relative importance compared to the FFM traits.
1.3. Psychopathy predicting CWB Psychopaths are impulsive, arrogant, manipulative, and lack the ability to empathize or experience guilt (Hare, 1999). Clinical psychopaths (1% base rate; Hare, 1996) are impaired in their ability to maintain relationships across situations (e.g., work, family, social). In contrast, sub-clinical psychopaths (5–15% base rate; LeBreton, Binning, & Adorno, 2006) function with levels of psychopathy that do not significantly impair their day-to-day life (Furnham et al., 2012). Though sub-clinical psychopathy shares qualititative similarities (i.e., types of behaviors) with clinical psychopathy which do negatively affect an individual’s relationships and judgment (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005), sub-clinical psychopathy operates at a lower intensity (LeBreton et al., 2006). One popular framework for studying sub-clinical psychopathy emphasizes three distinct personality dimensions (i.e., callous affect, interpersonal manipulation, erratic lifestyle) and one behavioral dimension (criminal tendencies; Mahmut, Menictas, Stevenson, & Homewood, 2011). Callous affect reflects a sub-clinical psychopath’s lack of ability to empathize and not experiencing guilt when harming others; the interpersonal manipulation dimension refers to a sub-clinical psychopath’s selfishness and tendency to lie, deceive, and manipulate; erratic lifestyle refers to the tendency to behave impulsively and lack of self-regulatory resources (cf. Jonason & Tost, 2010; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). This latter tendency likely contributes to apropensity for criminal behavior (Mahmut et al., 2011). As such, we predict that sub-clinical psychopaths will report a high likelihood of counterproductive work behavior. Hypothesis 2. Sub-clinical psychopathy will positively correlate with CWB. In addition to corroborating past evidence linking CWB to agreeableness and conscientiousness, we examined whether variance in CWBs systematically related to variance in sub-clinical
2. Study 1 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and procedure Participants consisted of 193 undergraduates from a large urban Midwestern University, who earned course credit for completing our survey, via their introductory psychology course. Some of the characteristics of this sample differed from those of a typical college sample: mean age of 24 years (SD = 8.06), average work hours per week = 23, 66% of the sample was currently (or previously) employed full-time, and 73% of the sample was female. 2.1.2. Materials 2.1.2.1. Big Five personality traits. The global FFM traits were measured using a 50-item questionnaire (Goldberg, 1999), consisting of 10 items per trait. Participants responded to each item using a scale ranging from ‘‘1-very inaccurate’’ to ‘‘5-very accurate.’’ Sample items are ‘‘I am the life of the party’’ and ‘‘I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.’’ Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and estimates of internal consistency reliability for the study variables. 2.1.2.2. Sub-clinical psychopathy. We assessed sub-clinical psychopathy using a 48-item survey (Williams et al., 2007) measuring the three personality facets of callous affect (CA), interpersonal manipulation (IM), and erratic lifestyle (EL), again using a five-point Likert type scale. This scale had reasonable internal consistency reliability. Higher scores correspond to higher levels of sub-clinical psychopathy. Because we sought to predict deviant behavior, we opted to remove items measuring behavior (cf. Williams & Paulhus, 2004), as including them would artificially inflate the
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for CWB, the FFM, and sub-clinical psychopathy for Study 1. Variable
M
SD
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1.58 4.02 3.73 3.27 3.73 3.32 2.37
.64 .58 .58 .78 .56 .69 .47
CWB Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion SCP
1
2 .97 .17** .15* .24** .06 .04 .31**
3 .80 .29** .14 .42** .26** .40**
4
.78 .34** .23** .07 .39**
5
.88 .12 0.18* .23**
.79 .24** .07
6
7
.85 .09
.90
Note. N = 193. CWB = counter-productive work behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. Internal consistency reliabilities (alphas) appear in bold on the diagonal. p < .05. ** p < .01. *
302
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305
Table 2 Hierarchical regression analysis examining the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of CWB. Hierarchical regression Predictors Step 1 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion
b .10 .00 .18* .15 .04
F change
R2
4.29***
.10
DR 2
Table 3 Relative weights analysis for the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of CWB. Predictor
RW
Rescaled RW (%)
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion FFM total
0.017 0.009 0.038 0.012 0.002
11.6 5.9 26.4 8.0 1.4 53.3
SCP
0.068
46.7
2
Step 2 SCP
.25
9.27
**
.15
**
.05
Note. Dependent variable: CWB. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. b = Standardized regression coefficients * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note. Model R = .16. CWB = counter-productive work behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. RW = raw relative weight. Rescaled RW = relative weight as a percentage of R2.
ance in CWB than any of the global FFM traits, thus supporting Hypothesis 4. 3. Study 2
relationship between sub-clinical psychopathy scores and CWB (Patrick & Zempolich, 1999). Omitting these items yields a more conservative test of our hypotheses. 2.1.2.3. Counterproductive work behavior. We measured CWB with a 66-item scale (Gruys & Sackett, 2003) assessing the likelihood of engaging in CWBs in the future. Participants responded to each item using a scale ranging from ‘‘1-No matter what the circumstances, I would not engage in the behavior’’ to ‘‘6-In a variety of circumstances, I would engage in the behavior.’’
Study 2 extended the findings from Study 1 by examining how personality predicted reports of actual deviant behavior. Specifically, we examined negative socioemotional behaviors (SEBs), which reflect group members’ aggressive interpersonal actions and lack of concern for others. Negative SEB is a form of interpersonal CWB that negatively affects interpersonal relationships and task-related interpersonal interactions (Ridgeway & Johnson, 1990). Negative SEB also encompasses the poor attitude and inappropriate verbal dimensions measured by common CWB surveys (Gruys & Sackett, 2003).
2.2. Results 3.1. Method Results fully supported Hypothesis 1 such that both agreeableness (r (191) = .17, p < .05) and conscientiousness (r (191) = .15, p < .05) significantly correlated with CWB. Results also supported Hypothesis 2 such that sub-clinical psychopathy significantly correlated with CWB (r (191) = .31, p < .05). Although our remaining hypotheses focused on the predictive validity of sub-clinical psychopathy relative to agreeableness and conscientiousness, we also included the remaining global traits of the FFM in all of our analyses. This yielded a more conservative test of our hypotheses as sub-clinical psychopathy correlates with all five of the FFM traits1 (Nathanson et al., 2006a, 2006b; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Williams et al., 2007). We tested Hypothesis 3 using hierarchical regression and found that sub-clinical psychopathy significantly predicted CWB above and beyond all five of the FFM traits (DF (1, 186) = 9.27, p < .01, DR2 = .05; see Table 2). To test Hypothesis 4, as per the recommendations of LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald, and Ployhart (2007)2, we supplemented our hierarchical regression analysis with relative weight analysis (Johnson, 2000) which estimated the relative contributions of sub-clinical psychopathy and the FFM to the prediction of CWB (see Table 3). Results indicated that sub-clinical psychopathy (46.7%) accounted for most of the explained variance in CWB. Surprisingly, conscientiousness (5.9%) modestly contributed, while agreeableness (11.6%) contributed slightly more to the prediction of CWB. In sum, sub-clinical psychopathy explained far more vari1 Our results were robust to changes in our analytic strategy such that in running the regression with only ‘‘agreeableness’’ and ‘‘conscientiousness’’ we also found support for Hypothesis 3 (DF (1, 189) = 12.70, p < .00, DR2 = .06). 2 Specifically, LeBreton et al. (2007) recommended integrating incremental importance with relative importance because an over-reliance on regression coefficients and tests of incremental validity may distort the contributions that variables make relative to one another.
3.1.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 360 undergraduates from a large Midwestern University (mean age = 20 years, SD = 1.42) they were mostly male (52%) and had held full-time employment prior to participating in the study (52%). In part 1 of this study, respondents completed internet-based measures of sub-clinical psychopathy and the FFM. In part 2 (occurring several weeks later), participants were assigned to a group containing a total of 3–5 members (k = 81 groups; mean group size = 4.44, SD = .77). Participants then completed two lab-based group decision-making tasks that presented them with a survival scenario in which they were asked to imagine they were shipwrecked on the moon (task 1) or lost in the wilderness (task 2). Their goal was to rank order a set of 15 items based on their utility for survival. For 10 min, participants individually ranked items and then as a group, participants spent 20 min reaching consensus on a final group ranking. After each task, participants completed measures of group cohesion, commitment, and interaction processes (which included negative SEB). These tasks were well-suited for this study because we sought an activity that (a) required interpersonal communication, cooperation, and problem-solving; and (b) provided individuals an opportunity to engage in negative, counterproductive behaviors within the context of group interactions. 3.1.2. Materials 3.1.2.1. Personality. Participants completed the same Study 1 measures of the FFM (Goldberg, 1999) and sub-clinical psychopathy (Williams et al., 2007). 3.1.2.2. Negative socioemotional behaviors. Participants completed two items measuring negative SEB which were from Green and Taber (1980) group process measure: ‘‘I rejected others’ opinions and suggestions’’ and ‘‘I expressed negative opinions about a group
303
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305 Table 4 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for negative SEB, the FFM, and sub-clinical psychopathy for Study 2. Variable
M
SD
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1.70 3.95 3.49 3.12 3.48 3.40 2.85
.87 .48 .63 .70 .55 .74 .68
Negative SEB Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion SCP
1
2 .73 .16** .04 .05 .01 .02 .18**
3 .90 .25** .01 .25** .31** .53
4
.79 .03 .07 .05 .36**
5
.83 .03 .17** .01
.87 .23** .16**
6
7
.73 .16**
.68
Note. N = 360. SEB = socioemotional behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. Internal consistency reliabilities (alphas) appear in bold on the diagonal. p < .05. ** p < .01. ⁄⁄⁄ p < .001. ⁄
member’s behavior.’’ Because of the close temporal proximity of the exercises, we averaged responses across the two problem-solving tasks.3 Table 4 contains descriptive statistics for all study variables.
3.2. Results Because data included individuals nested in groups, we estimated the ICCs to determine the impact of nesting on SEB scores (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The obtained ICC(1) = .10 revealed a significant grouping effect. The effects of nesting could be handled in one of two ways, both of which would enable us to examine the pooled within-groups correlations and regressions. The first approach involves using random-coefficient regression (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). However, Hypothesis 4 requires the estimation of relative weights and, to date, no solution exists for such an analysis using random coefficient regression. Thus, we opted to use a second approach for which we group mean centered all variables; thus eliminating the between-groups relationships. This approach is mathematically identical to including a set of K 1 dummy variables to control for the nesting effects in the K groups. All of the analyses conducted in Study 2 refer to the group centered variables. We obtained mixed support for Hypothesis 1. We found a significant correlation between negative SEB and agreeableness (r (358) = .16, p < .01) but no such correlation with conscientiousness (r (358) = .04, p > .05; see Table 4). In retrospect, this was not necessarily surprising as prior work demonstrates that agreeableness more closely links to interpersonally-directed forms of CWB whereas conscientiousness tends to relate to organizationallydirected forms of CWB. As with Study 1, we found support for Hypothesis 2 in a significant correlation between sub-clinical psychopathy and SEB (r (358) = .18, p < .01). We observed a small but significant increment when adding sub-clinical psychopathy to a model already containing the FFM traits (DF (1, 353) = 4.12, p < .05, DR2 = .01; see Table 5), thus supporting Hypothesis 3. Based on the rescaled relative weights (see Table 6), the best predictors of negative SEB were sub-clinical psychopathy (51.6%) and agreeableness (37.4%). Consistent with Study 1, conscientiousness provided a modest contribution to predicted criterion variance (2.1%). Together, the FFM traits accounted for a little less than 50% of the explained variance in negative SEB, whereas subclinical psychopathy alone accounted for slightly more than 50%. 3 To evaluate potential differences across tasks, the analyses in this section were performed separately for negative SEB in Task A and Task B. Substantive conclusions from these analyses were consistent with results based on the combined variable.
Table 5 Hierarchical regression analysis examining the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of negative SEB. Hierarchical regression Predictors
F change
R2
.10 .04 .05 .04 .01
2.20*
0.03
0.14
4.12*
0.04
b
Step 1 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion Step 2 SCP
DR2
.01*
Note. Dependent variable: negative socioemotional behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. b = Standardized regression coefficients. * p < .05. ⁄⁄ p < .01. ⁄⁄⁄ p < .001.
Table 6 Relative weights analysis for the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy as predictors of negative SEB. Predictor
RW
Rescaled RW (%)
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion FFM total
0.015 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001
37.4 2.1 5.6 1.2 2.1 48.4
SCP
0.021
51.6
2
Note. Model R = .041. SEB = socioemotional behavior. SCP = sub-clinical psychopathy. RW = raw relative weight. Rescaled RW = relative weight as a percentage of R2.
4. Discussion The purpose of these studies was to determine the usefulness for researchers and organizations to use measures of sub-clinical psychopathy to predict CWBs. We also sought to determine whether sub-clinical psychopathy provided predictive information above and beyond the omnibus FFM. Previous work links the SRP-III to a variety of different outcomes including membership in adventurous peer-groups (Nathanson et al., 2006a); scholastic cheating & plagiarism (Nathanson et al., 2006a); sexual deviance (Williams, Cooper, Howell, Yuille, & Paulhus, 2009); impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2011); and a wide array of aversive behaviors including drug use, bullying, and criminal behavior (Williams & Paulhus, 2004). However, no research has sought to link sub-clinical psychopathy to the
304
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305
type of organizationally relevant criteria we test in our studies, despite the need for such research (cf. Wu & LeBreton, 2011). Thus, finding support for our hypotheses furnishes evidence that, in addition to the FFM, scores on a popular measure of sub-clinical psychopathy may be useful for predicting CWBs. Our findings also complement the results obtained by O’Boyle et al. (2012) who found that scores on measures of clinical psychopathy were correlated with CWB. Our results also replicate previous findings of a negative association between both agreeableness and conscientiousness, and CWB (supported by Study 1 and partially supported by Study 2; cf. Berry et al., 2007; Bolton et al., 2010; Salgado, 2002). We also found that neuroticism was significantly and positively correlated with CWB (r = .24, p < .01) which is consistent with prior research (Berry et al., 2007). Findings from Study 2 support the value of sub-clinical psychopathy as a predictor of verbal forms of interpersonal deviance. Although the global traits of the FFM and sub-clinical psychopathy together accounted for a modest amount of variance in negative SEB, given the large number of proximal influences on such behavior (e.g., workgroup conflict, cohesion, task difficulty), the study served as a relatively conservative test of these relationships. In addition, that we observed these relationships in a lab-based study of limited duration and using a narrow form of CWB as the criterion, speaks to the potential value of examining aversive traits in broader organizational contexts. Because some readers may be interested in how the specific facets of sub-clinical psychopathy were related to CWBs, we also tested our hypotheses at the facet level, (callous affect, interpersonal manipulation, and erratic lifestyle). Callous affect (34.3%) and interpersonal manipulation (26.1%) were the dominant subclinical psychopathy facets in terms of predictive validity for Study 2, whereas erratic lifestyle (36.8%) was the dominant facet in Study 1. This discrepancy suggests that the sub-clinical psychopathy facets may have differential importance for predicting different types of deviant outcomes. The outcome in Study 1 reflects the full range of CWBs, including drug use, physical aggression, production deviance, and verbal aggression. Given that ‘‘erratic lifestyle’’ connotes impulsive and irresponsible cognition and behavior, it is not surprising that this facet would exhibit stronger relationships with a composite variable that encompasses the full range of CWBs. In contrast, Study 2 concerns a fairly narrow form of CWB: inappropriate verbal behavior. Given that verbal and physical behaviors almost invariably occur within an interpersonal context, it is not surprising that the more interpersonally-oriented aspects of sub-clinical psychopathy (i.e., callous affect and interpersonal manipulation) accounted for more variance in negative SEB. 4.1. Limitations Our student samples place some limits on the generalizability of our findings. However, in both studies, we sought to collect data that would more readily generalize to work contexts. In Study 1, all participants had worked in the past or were employed at the time of the study (many full-time). Similarly, in Study 2, many participants had previously held full-time employment. Another potential limitation of our study involved the possibility for common method bias inflating correlations. Although debates about the pervasiveness, magnitude, and consequences of common method bias continue in applied psychology (cf., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006), there are several reasons to not dismiss our findings. First, results were cross-validated using an independent sample, an alternative research design, and an alternative indicator of CWB. Second, if common method bias were pervasive, we would expect
all correlations to be significant (Spector, 2006). Instead, only those predictors theoretically related to CWB emerged as significant (see Tables 1 and 4). Third, data were collected as anonymous (Study 1) or confidential (Study 2), which should have bolstered the likelihood of honest responding. Fourth, we did not use the data for administrative purposes, which again should enhance the likelihood of honest responding (Zedeck & Cascio, 1982).Finally, if common method response biases were a problem, they would likely have inflated the magnitude of all correlations in our study. This would impact the absolute value of correlations, but not the results of our relative weight analyses (Hypothesis 4). 4.2. Conclusions As predicted, in Study 1, sub-clinical psychopathy significantly correlated with reported likelihood of engaging in future CWB. Additionally, sub-clinical psychopathy predicted unique variance in future CWB beyond the FFM traits. Study 2 sought to cross-validate the findings from Study 1 using a different sample, context, and criterion. Results indicated either partial support or full support for our hypotheses. In short, both studies provide evidence for sub-clinical psychopathy incrementing the FFM in the prediction of CWB. Clearly, researchers should seek to cross-validate our findings using additional criterion measures and collecting data from different sources. That said, our study represents one of the first to examine the linkages between CWBs and sub-clinical psychopathy. When framed in that context, we believe our paper makes a novel contribution to the literature and we hope it serves as a catalyst for additional work in this area. References Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S. C.A.§12101 et seq. 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. Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Big Five trait predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 537–541. Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright aspects to dark side traits: Dark side traits associated with work success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908–913. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. de Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Green, S., & Taber, T. (1980). The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 97–106. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). The dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 30–42. Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Journal of General Psychology, 9, 169–180. James, L. R., & LeBreton, J. M. (2010). Assessing aggression using conditional reasoning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 30–35. Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19. Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the five factor model with the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 563–576. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453. Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and selfcontrol. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 611–615. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–18. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 679–682.
K.T. Scherer et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 300–305 Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. LeBreton, J. M., Binning, J. F., & Adorno, A. J. (2006). Sub-clinical psychopaths. In J. C. Thomas & D. Segal (Eds.). Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 388–411). New York, NY: Wiley. LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475–498. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. LeBreton, J. M., & Wu, J. (2009). Beyond the traits of the five factor model: Using deviant personality traits to predict deviant behavior in organizations. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Personality assessment: New research (pp. 383–390). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 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. Mahmut, M. K., Menictas, C., Stevenson, R. J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Validating the factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 23, 670. Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006a). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 97–122. Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006b). Personality and misconduct correlates of body modification and other cultural deviance markers. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 779–802. 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. Patrick, C. J., & Zempolich, K. A. (1999). Emotion and aggression in the psychopathic personality. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 303–338.
305
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126–134. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior and status in task groups? The American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1189–1212. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. Williams, K. M., Cooper, B. S., Howell, T. M., Yuille, J. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Inferring sexually deviant behavior from corresponding fantasies: The role of personality and pornography consumption. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 198–222. Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 765–778. Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–219. Wu, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality traits. Personnel Psychology, 64, 593–626. Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W. F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752–758.