ابعاد کنترل روانشناختی والدین: ارتباطات با پرخاشگری فیزیکی و رابطه پیش دبستانی در روسیه

Investigations of personality as it relates to deviant behaviors in the workplace, such as theft, absenteeism, and mistreatment of co-workers, have largely overlooked theoretically-relevant personality traits not captured by the Big Five. Using univariate and multivariate analyses based on both attenuated and disattenuated correlations, we found that traits such as Integrity, Risk Taking, and Seductiveness, among others, explained substantial variance in workplace deviance. We conclude that research on personality and workplace deviance needs to move beyond the Big Five to include alternative personality variables that can enhance both prediction and the development of theory regarding personality-deviance relations.

Recently the criterion space for judging worker effectiveness has expanded beyond job performance to include behaviors that are counterproductive (e.g., theft, tardiness, mistreating co-workers; Bennett & Robinson, 2000). This collection of behaviors, often referred to as workplace deviance, can be bifurcated into dimensions known as interpersonal and organizational deviance (ID and OD, respectively; see Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). ID occurs when counterproductive behaviors are directed toward co-workers (e.g., acting rudely, teasing); OD occurs when counterproductive behaviors are directed toward the organization (e.g., theft, absenteeism). Some estimates suggest that 95% of organizations in the United States experience employee theft ( Case, 2000), and that all forms of deviance together account for losses of up to 50 billion dollars annually ( Coffin, 2003). Given the huge amounts of resources and productivity lost each year as a result of deviant workplace behaviors, maximizing the prediction of workplace deviance is an important priority for research and practice (Hastings & Finegan, in press). One significant limitation of most research on deviance, however, is that it considers only the “Big Five” framework of personality (e.g., Berry et al., 2007). Although some have contended that the five-factor space encompasses the constellation of human personality attributes (e.g., Saucier & Goldberg, 1998), several personality traits relevant to workplace deviance have been identified as falling largely outside the Big Five domain. For example, personality variables such as Integrity, Egotism, Risk Taking, and Manipulativeness have been found to be largely independent of the Big Five factors, yet the substance of these traits is well aligned to that of workplace deviance criteria. To the extent that these and other “non-Big Five” traits correlate with workplace deviance, the current meta-analytic evidence on personality and deviance relations will underestimate the criterion validity of personality. This could hinder both the advancement of theory that promotes an understanding of why personality relates to deviance and the overall predictive power of personality, thereby reducing the capacity for organizations to identify and manage those who are prone to counterproductivity. Accordingly, in this study we sought to demonstrate that relevant non-Big Five traits can account for important variance in workplace deviance, which, if shown, could lead to theoretical and practical advances. We begin by providing a rationale for the existence of personality traits not captured by the Big Five personality factors. 1.1. Identification of non-Big Five traits In a comprehensive study with the goal of identifying traits beyond the Big Five, Saucier and Goldberg (1998) reviewed the literature on personality and identified a total of 74 trait clusters that appeared to be reflective of the entire constellation of human personality attributes. Upon consideration of their statistical overlap with the Big Five, Saucier and Goldberg concluded that all but a trait cluster composed of items relating to religiosity terms could be accommodated by the Big Five. In an important reanalysis of that study, however Paunonen and Jackson (2000) argued, with empirical evidence, that there were actually nine trait clusters not well represented by the Big Five: religious, devout, reverent; sly, deceptive, manipulative; honest, ethical, moral; sexy, sensual, erotic; thrifty, frugal, miserly; conservative, traditional, down-to-earth; masculine-feminine; egotistical, conceited, snobbish; and humorous, witty, amusing. To those nine trait clusters they added the dimension of risk taking/thrill-seeking, as it has historically been difficult to place in the Big Five-factor space. Paunonen (2002) subsequently developed a measure of those 10 personality traits, which he referred to as the Supernumerary Personality Inventory (SPI; see Table 1). Considerable evidence supports the claim that the SPI traits fall largely beyond the Big Five (e.g., Lee et al., 2005 and Paunonen et al., 2003). Table 1. Descriptives and reliabilities for study variables, mean expert ratings of expected trait-criterion linkages, and univariate personality-variable validities. Trait M SD α Interpersonal deviance Organizational deviance Overall deviance Expert rating r Expert rating r Expert rating r Conventionality Wants to preserve existing traditions and institutions; is opposed to radical change or innovation 3.40 .35 .59 .40 .04 (.06) −.80 −.04 (−.06) −.80 −.01(−.01) Egotism Has an exaggerated sense of self-importance; feels superior to others and may be contemptuous of them 3.47 .45 .83 2.00 .10 (.12) 1.60 −.05(-.06) 1.20 .01 (.01) Femininity Is considered feminine for his or her own sex; displays behaviors and emotions that might be considered effeminate 3.27 .50 .73 −.60 −.11 (−.14) −.40 −.03 (−.04) −.60 −.07 (−.09) Humorousness Has the ability to arouse amusement and laughter in other people; is also quick to see the humor in situations 3.25 .57 .85 −.80 .17 (.20) 0 .20 (.23) −.10 .21 (.24) Integrity Shuns behaviors involving stealing, cheating, or deceiving; believes that such behaviors are never acceptable 3.47 .56 .82 −1.6 −.33(−.40) −2.00 −.50(−.59) −2.00 −.48(−.56) Manipulativeness Tries to use others to help achieve his or her goals; may use diplomacy, flattery, ingratiation, or even deceptions 3.07 .46 .77 1.8 .25 (.31) 1.40 .17 (.21) 1.40 .23 (.27) Religiosity Is devoted to some ultimate reality or deity, a higher power that is believed to control one’s destiny; is spiritual 2.77 .86 .94 −1.2 −.08 (−.09) −1.20 −.23(−.25) −.50 −.19 (−.21) Risk Taking Seeks out and is stimulated by situations involving risk of bodily harm; is positively aroused by danger 3.00 .57 .76 .80 .30 (.38) 1.40 .29 (.35) 1.80 .33 (.40) Seductiveness Engages in behaviors intended to attract the romantic or sexual interests of others; can be charming and flirtatious 3.15 .55 .81 1.00 .36 (.44) .20 .22 (.26) .30 .31 (.36) Thriftiness Does not waste resources on self-gratification; is economical and not given to extravagances 3.06 .54 .78 0 −.09 (−.11) −1.0 −.10 (−.12) −.60 −.10 (−.12) Agreeableness Tends to be sympathetic, kind, appreciative, trusting, soft-hearted, warm, and sensitive 3.73 .59 .84 −2.00 −.27 (−.32) −1.80 −.24 (−.28) −1.70 −.28 (−.32) Conscientiousness Is organized, thoughtful, planful, efficient, responsible, and dependable 3.52 .61 .83 −1.20 −.14 (−.17) −1.60 −.42 (−.49) −1.40 −.42 (−.48) Extraversion Tends to be talkative, assertive, energetic, outgoing, outspoken, and sociable 3.48 .74 .90 −1.00 −.14 (−.16) 0 −.05 (−.06) −.11 −.05 (−.06) Neuroticism Tends to be tense, anxious, nervous, moody, worrying, fearful, emotional, and unstable 2.53 .66 .83 1.20 .06 (.07) .80 .14 (.16) 1.10 .12 (.14) Openness Tends to have wide interests, and be imaginative, intelligent, original, insightful, and curious 3.45 .59 .74 0 −.06 (−.08) 0 −.07 (−.09) 0 −.07 (−.09) Interpersonal deviance 2.31 1.21 .84 Organizational deviance 2.37 1.06 .88 Overall deviance 2.34 1.02 .91 Note. n = 149. Correlations in parentheses are corrected for unreliability. The top five judge−selected SPI traits for each deviance criterion are boldfaced. Uncorrected correlations above .16 are significant at p < .05. Table options 1.2. Background research and the current study Berry et al. (2007) meta-analysis reported corrected correlations involving the relation between deviance and the Big Five as follows: Agreeableness (−.44), Conscientiousness (−.35), Emotional Stability (−.26), Openness to Experience (−.08) and Extraversion (−.03). As noted above, however, there is evidence for the existence of personality variables not encapsulated by the Big Five. Ashton and Lee (2008) provided empirical evidence that their sixth personality factor, Honesty-Humility, explains considerable variance beyond the Big Five in a variety of relevant workplace criteria such as sexual harassment, delinquency, and ethical business decision-making. Ashton (1998) found that a Risk Taking and Responsibility composite was more strongly related to deviance than was a composite of the most predictive Big Five factors, namely Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. Paunonen, Lonnqvist, Verkasalo, Leikas, and Nissinen (2006) found that, in the context of a regression equation, the Big Five did not significantly explain leadership effectiveness in military cadets but high Egotism and Self-esteem coupled with low Manipulativeness and Impression Management were predictive. In light of the existence of non-Big Five personality traits and their potential relatedness to workplace deviance, there is a pressing need for an empirical study investigating the extent to which these traits can supplement the prediction afforded by Big Five factors alone. Our approach was to compare the predictive and incremental validities of Big Five to non-Big Five traits (as measured by the SPI) in the prediction of workplace deviance. If SPI traits explain non-trivial variance in deviance, and they account for incremental variance beyond the Big Five, then theoretical understanding and testing payoffs for organizations are likely to be suboptimal when consideration is limited to the Big Five.