Sex as a Moderator of the Relationships Between Predictor Variables and Counterproductive Work Behavior
- 771 Downloads
The purpose of the current study was to examine sex as a moderator of the relationships between four predictor variables—job satisfaction, organizational commitment, interpersonal conflict, and organizational constraints—and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).
Using a two-wave design (time lag = 6 months), we collected self-report data from workers employed in a variety of different settings (N = 220).
We found relatively stronger predictor–CWB relationships for men than for women in five of the eight interactions that we tested. These moderator effects were partially explained by sex differences in between-person variability of CWBs (i.e., relatively lower variability was observed for women than for men) as well as sex differences in the reliability with which CWBs were assessed (i.e., relatively lower reliability was observed for women than for men).
In order to reduce the incidence of CWBs, it is important to gain a better understanding of predictor–CWB relationships. The current study found that predictor variables that are typically examined by CWB researchers might be more useful for predicting CWBs among men than among women.
Although several studies have examined the predictors of CWBs, the current study is among the first to examine sex as a moderator of predictor–CWB relationships.
KeywordsCounterproductive work behavior Workplace deviance Sex differences Job attitudes Occupational stress
- Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Cramer, E. M. (1972). Significance tests and tests of models in multiple regression. The American Statistician, 26, 26–30.Google Scholar
- Geen, R. G. (1995). Human aggression. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 282–417). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18.Google Scholar
- Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, 391–397.Google Scholar
- Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.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, qualitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spector, P. E., & Zhou, Z. E. (2013). The moderating role of gender in relationships of stressors and personality with counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9307-8.
- The StudyResponse Project. (2011). The StudyResponse Project: An online social science research resource. Retrieved from http://www.studyresponse.net/index.htm.
- Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar