In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance.

Because employees may be reluctant to admit to performing deviant acts, the authors of this study reexamined the commonly used self-report measure of workplace deviance developed by R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson (2000). Specifically, the self-report measure was modified into a non-self-report measure based on multiple other-reported assessments to address methodological concerns with self-reported information regarding deviant workplace behaviors. The authors assessed the psychometric properties of this new measure by first conducting an exploratory factor analysis, which indicated a 3-factor structure (production deviance, property deviance, and personal aggression). Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on a different sample verified these findings. Taken together, the results suggest that the content and psychometric qualities of this non-self-report measure of workplace deviance closely represent S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett's (1995) original typology of workplace deviance. The potential usefulness of this measure in organizational studies is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

How leaders perceive employee deviance: Blaming victims while excusing favorites.

Drawing from theories of attribution and perception, we posit that employees who are victims of rudeness are themselves (inappropriately) evaluated by leaders as being interpersonally deviant. We further theorize that employees who are themselves rude to others at work are evaluated negatively, but not when they have high-quality relationships with leaders or are seen as high performers. We tested our predictions across 4 studies. Our first study included 372 leader-follower pairs. Our second study extended to dyadic interactions among employees by using an employee roster method, resulting in paired data from 149 employees (2,184 dyads) across 5 restaurant locations. Our third and fourth studies utilized a policy-capturing design in which individuals provided performance evaluations for fictitious employees. We find that victims of rudeness are viewed by leaders as deviant, and that leaders are less likely to perceive rude employees as deviant when these perpetrators are seen as having high levels of leader-member exchange (LMX) or performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

An integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behavior.

This study presents an integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression. In this typology, self-report and conditional reasoning (L. R. James, 1998) methodologies are used to assess 2 separate, yet often congruent, components of aggressive personalities. Specifically, self-report is used to assess explicit components of aggressive tendencies, such as self-perceived aggression, whereas conditional reasoning is used to assess implicit components, in particular, the unconscious biases in reasoning that are used to justify aggressive acts. These 2 separate components are then integrated to form a new theoretical typology of personality assessment for aggression. Empirical tests of the typology were subsequently conducted using data gathered across 3 samples in laboratory and field settings and reveal that explicit and implicit components of aggression can interact in the prediction of counterproductive, deviant, and prosocial behaviors. These empirical tests also reveal that when either the self-report or conditional reasoning methodology is used in isolation, the resulting assessment of aggression may be incomplete. Implications for personnel selection, team composition, and executive coaching are discussed.

Acquaintance ratings of the Big Five personality traits: incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance.

It is widely established that the Big Five personality traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability are antecedents to workplace deviance (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). However, these meta-analytic findings are based on self-reported personality traits. A recent meta-analysis by Oh, Wang, and Mount (2011) identified the value of acquaintance-reported personality in the prediction of job performance. The current investigation extends prior work by comparing the validities of self- and acquaintance-reported personality in the prediction of workplace deviance across 2 studies. We also hypothesized and tested an interactive, value-added integration of self- with acquaintance-reported personality using socioanalytic personality theory (R. T. Hogan, 1991). Both studies assessed self- and acquaintance-rated Big Five traits, along with supervisor-rated workplace deviance. However, the studies varied the measures of workplace deviance, and the 2nd study also included a self-rated workplace deviance criterion for additional comparison. Across both studies, the traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness were strong predictors of workplace deviance, and acquaintance-reported personality provided incremental validity beyond self-reports. Additionally, acquaintance-reported conscientiousness and agreeableness moderated the prediction of workplace deviance by interacting with the corresponding self-reported traits. Implications for personality theory and measurement are discussed along with applications for practice.

Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores: a replication and extension.

Context-specific personality items provide respondents with a common frame of reference unlike more traditional, noncontextual personality items. The common frame of reference standardizes item interpretation and has been shown to reduce measurement error while increasing validity in comparison to noncontextual items (M. J. Schmit, A. M. Ryan. S. L. Stierwalt. & S. L. Powell, 1995). Although the frame-of-reference effect on personality scales scores has been well investigated (e.g., M. J. Schmit et al., 1995), the ability of this innovation to obtain incremental validity above and beyond the well-established, noncontextual personality scale scores has yet to be examined. The current study replicates and extends work by M. J. Schmit et al. (1995) to determine the incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect. The results indicate that context-specific personality items do indeed obtain incremental validity above and beyond both noncontextual items and cognitive ability, and in spite of socially desirable responding induced by applicant instructions. The implications of these findings for personnel selection are discussed.

Private self-consciousness factors: relationships with need for cognition, locus of control, and obsessive thinking in Iran and the United States.

The authors measured Internal State Awareness (ISA) and Self-Reflectiveness (SR) factors from the Private Self-Consciousness Scale in Iranian (N = 325) and U.S. (N = 401) university students. In both societies, positive correlations with Need for Cognition and Internal Control and negative correlations with external control and obsessive thinking confirmed ISA as an adaptive form of self-consciousness. In partial correlations in which the authors controlled for ISA, SR was associated cross-culturally with greater Obsessive Thinking. This outcome conformed with the authors' expectations that SR would have negative mental health implications, but other data revealed complexities in the SR association with adjustment. Differences between samples failed to yield any simple support for F. Fukuyama's (1992) suggestion that Iranians might be more "alienated" (pp. 236-237) in their psychological functioning. The present study most importantly offered cross-cultural evidence in favor of the claim that better measures of an introspective self-awareness need to be developed.

Two facets of self-knowledge: cross-cultural development of measures in Iran and the United States.

Self-knowledge is an ideal not only within psychological theory and practice but also within the religious and philosophical foundations of many cultures. In 6 studies conducted in Iran and the United States, the authors sought to construct and to validate scales for measuring two facets of self-knowledge. Experiential self-knowledge was defined as an ongoing sensitivity to the self in the present. Reflective self-knowledge was described in terms of personal efforts to integrate experience within self-schemas developed in the past. Thirteen-item experiential self-knowledge and reflective self-knowledge scales were created by the authors using samples of Iranian and American university students. A confirmatory factor analysis verified this 2-factor structure in a second study, and these results were replicated in a 3rd study. Correlations with a broad array of self-report variables established the two scales as valid measures of adjustment. Both displayed adequate test-retest reliability. Correlations with peer reports suggested that the two factors had behavioral implications in both cultures. Reflective self-knowledge proved to be as important as educational abilities in predicting the academic performance of Americans who were motivated to attend class. Experiential self-knowledge and reflective self-knowledge also interacted to predict better grades. In short, the experiential self-knowledge and reflective self-knowledge scales operationalized cross-cultural personality processes that deserve additional research attention.