Researchers have developed different theoretical models for CWB as they strive to understand and represent the causal factors of this construct (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Martinko, Gundlach & Douglas, 2002, Spector & Fox, 2005; Jenson, Opland & Ryan 2010). The following paragraphs outline some of the more prominent models. The argument is then made as to why this thesis relies on Spector and Fox’s (2005) stressor-emotion model of CWB to explain the dispositional or personality predictors most able to provide a
parsimonious assessment of the antecedents to CWB.
Douglas and Martinko’s (2001) individual differences model of CWB proposed a number of individual attributes as important predictors to workplace aggression. These attributes included trait anger, attribution style, self control, negative affect, attitudes towards revenge and previous experiences of workplace aggression. This model focuses largely on aggression which may serve to limit its applicability to non-interpersonal related aspects of CWB, or CWBO behaviours in particular.
The causal reasoning model of CWB (Martinko, Gundlach & Douglas, 2002) brings together a number of other theoretical perspectives that accounted for CWB. This model proposes that a range of situational and individual difference variables contribute to an individual’s
cognitive processing about workplace events. Specifically, the model proposes that the individual’s perceptions of fairness and their attribution style contributes to emotions and behaviours that have to potential to result in CWB. The causal reasoning model of CWB allows for consideration of a wide range of situational and dispositional variables in the prediction of CWB. The specific dispositional variables identified as antecedents to CWB by this model include a collation of the range of dispositional variables that have been
established as predictors in the numerous empirical studies investigating CWB. The causal link between these dispositional predictors and CWB is somewhat less well defined and hence this model, whilst identifying the antecedents, does not provide the causal mechanism that would allow a researcher, a priori, to consider one personality assessment tool as more parsimonious than another.
Jensen et al (2010) drew on the research in the ‘psychological contract’ (Rousseau, 1989) domain to postulate a causal theory for CWB. The psychological contract theory proposes that employees have a set of beliefs about the mutual obligations that they have with an
employer. The expectations that individuals have about what they will contribute and what they expect the employer to do in return are key elements of a psychological contract. Jensen et al (2010) proposed that a breach of the psychological contract in the employment domain by the employer may lead to CWB because of the individual’s effort to restore balance in the relationship between themselves and the employer. The application of the psychological contract theory to considerations of CWB allowed for increased understanding of
employer/employee relationship and the expectation dynamic as antecedents to CWB. This theory of the causal mechanisms for CWB is likely to be optimally used for decreasing CWB in individuals already employed in the workplace. It does not provide employers with
information that allows for the parsimonious assessment of the dispositional predictors for CWB in a personnel selection process. It also does not capture those CWB that arise without such breaches in the psychological construct.
Spector and Fox’s (2005) stressor-emotion model of CWB provides a comprehensive causal model for CWB that allows for the consideration of a range of contextual and individual factors as precursors for CWB (see Figure 2.2). The stressor-emotion model is likely to have the advantage over models outlined in this section as it focuses on the factors within the individual that are able to predict engagement in CWB and theorises a causal link between these factors and CWB. It is these factors that an employer is trying to predict in the employment selection context.
The stressor-emotion model builds on other models postulating that human aggression results from frustration. These models propose that aggression is the behavioural outcome that occurs when there is a strong anger reaction because the individual is thwarted in their pursuits (e.g. Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). Spector and Fox (2005)
expanded Dollard et al’s (1939) frustration-aggression models by proposing that there are a range of negative emotions in addition to anger that have the potential to lead to CWB. Their stressor-emotion model postulates that when an environmental stressor impacts on the
individual, the individual appraises the environmental stressor which creates the potential for it to be perceived as stressful. The perceived stressor then leads the individual to experience negative emotion which, in turn, leads to CWB. The CWB is an attempt by the individual to balance in the relationship.
Figure 2.2. Stressor-Emotion Model of CWB (Spector & Fox, 2005, p.226).
The stressor-emotion model proposes that the level of control or influence that an individual perceives he or she has impacts on the potential for CWB at a number of points. The first impact of perceived control is an individual’s perception of the stressor. An individual who has the resources and the capacity to control a situation is less likely to perceive a stimulus as stressful which then decreases the likelihood of CWB. In this scenario, perceived control
serves as a moderator for CWB. Perceived control also impacts directly on negative emotion and on CWB. Spector and Fox (2005) argued a low level of perceived control over a
situation is associated with negative emotion and feelings of powerless. The model proposes that the individual then uses engagement in CWB as a mechanism to restore personal control to a situation where they felt powerless.
Fox and Spector’s (2005) propose that personality is “vitally important” (p. 228) in a CWB outcome. It is widely evident across the psychological literature that individuals who are exposed to the same set of conditions will react differently. Spector and Fox (2005) proposed that an individual’s personality directly influences how he or she is likely to perceive a
stressor, the likelihood of a negative emotional response and CWB itself. The model proposes that trait anger, trait anxiety, locus of control and narcissism are particularly influential in a CWB outcome. Additionally, it is suggested that the influence of these personality variables is largely due to their relationship with control and emotion, which are other key elements in the stressor-emotion model (see Figure 2.2).
In summary, the stressor-emotion model provides a theoretical framework that considers the impact of a range of situational and dispositional tendencies on CWB. This model provides a framework that identifies the causal relationship between dispositional tendencies and CWB. This allows employers to contextualise how dispositional tendencies impact on CWB directly as well as their impact on other variables that contribute to CWB. A personnel selection process that allows employers the opportunity to assess the dispositional tendencies
predicting CWB will ensure that personnel selection decisions result in the recruitment of a workforce that is less likely to engage in CWB, and hence, cause less harm to the
anxiety, locus of control and narcissism) it does not exclude the influence of other personality variables. The next section reviews the range of dispositional traits that have been
established as effective predictors of CWB and, therefore, suggests a breadth of dispositional factors that have the potential to aid employers in optimal personnel selection decisions.