Predicting Counterproductive Work Behavior from Guilt Proneness
We investigated the relationship between guilt proneness and counterproductive work behavior (CWB) using a diverse sample of employed adults working in a variety of different industries at various levels in their organizations. CWB refers to behaviors that harm or are intended to harm organizations or people in organizations. Guilt proneness is a personality trait characterized by a predisposition to experience negative feelings about personal wrongdoing. CWB was engaged in less frequently by individuals high in guilt proneness compared to those low in guilt proneness, controlling for other known correlates of CWB. CWB was also predicted by gender, age, intention to turnover, interpersonal conflict at work, and negative affect at work. Given the detrimental impact of CWB on people and organizations, it may be wise for employers to consider guilt proneness when making hiring decisions.
KeywordsCounterproductive work behavior Guilt proneness Unethical behavior Morality Personality Individual differences
This research was made possible through the support of the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University and a grant by the Berkman Faculty Development Fund at Carnegie Mellon University. We also wish to thank the members of the Character Project at Wake Forest University for valuable feedback on this research.
- Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0026739.
- Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2011). Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010658108.
- Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., Turan, N., & Morse, L. A. (2012). The WECT Project: Workplace experiences and character traits [project information]. Retrieved from http://WECTProject.org.
- Flynn, F. J., & Schaumberg, R. L. (2011). When feeling bad leads to feeling good: Guilt-proneness and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0024166.
- Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (Eds.). (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Funder, D. C. (2008). Persons, situations and person–situation interactions. In O. P. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality (3rd ed., pp. 568–580). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Hampson, S. E. (2011). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin”. Annual Review of Psychology. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100419.
- Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2012). Using diary methods in psychological research. In H. Cooper, P. Camic, D. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methodology in psychology (3 volumes). Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus User’s Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Nesselroade, J. R. (2007). Factoring at the individual level: Some matters for the second century of factor analysis. In R. Cudeck & R. C. MacCallum (Eds.), Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions (pp. 249–264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Spector, P. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342–352.Google Scholar
- Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Google Scholar
- Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stucky, B., Gottfredson, N. C., & Panter, A. T. (2012). Item factor analysis. In H. Cooper, P. Camic, D. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methodology in psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
- Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Tangney, J. P., Youman, K., & Stuewig, J. (2009). Proneness to shame and proneness to guilt. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 192–209). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010a). 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC User Guide). http://www.bls.gov/soc/#materials.
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010b). American time use survey. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm.
- Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Honesty–humility and a person–situation interaction at work. European Journal of Personality, 24, 569–582.Google Scholar