Narcissism and Counterproductive Work

Behavior: Do Bigger Egos Mean Bigger Problems?

Lisa M. Penney* and Paul E. Spector
University of South Florida
In accordance with the theory of threatened egotism and aggression, the relationships
among narcissism, trait anger, job constraints and counterproductive work behavior
(CWB) were explored in a questionnaire study. The results were supportive of the
hypotheses that narcissism would relate to trait anger, job constraints, and CWB and
that the relationship between narcissism and CWB would be mediated by anger. In
addition, narcissism was found to moderate the relationship between job constraints
and CWB, such that individuals high in narcissism reported more CWB when
constraints were high, than individuals low in narcissism.
Introduction
C
ounterproductive work behaviors (CWB) are
behaviors by employees intended to harm their organ-
ization or organization members, such as theft, sabotage,
interpersonal aggression, work slowdowns, wasting time
and/or materials, and spreading rumors. These behaviors
have been studied under a variety of different terms such as
antisocial workplace behavior (Giacalone and Greenberg
1997), workplace aggression (Neuman and Baron 1998),
and workplace deviance (Robinson and Bennett 1995).
Though researchers differ in the terminology and
theoretical basis used to describe CWB, they do agree that
these behaviors are harmful to organizations and the people
associated with the organization (e.g. employees, cus-
tomers). For example, a recent study (Geddes and Baron
1997) reported that 68.9% of managers indicated they had
experienced some form of verbal aggression (e.g. insults,
profanity, threats of retaliation, silent treatment) in
response to negative performance appraisals. Other
researchers have reported that up to 75% of employees
steal from their employer at least once (McGurn 1988) and
that American businesses losses due to employee theft may
exceed $200 billion annually (Govoni 1992).
Because the prevalence and cost of CWB are so great,
CWB has increasingly become a topic of great interest to
organizations and researchers alike. Traditionally, CWB
has been examined within the conceptual framework of
equity theory (Adams 1965) and theories of aggression
(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer and Sears 1939; Spector
1978) and therefore the focus has been on identifying
environmental or situational predictors of CWB such as low
distributive, procedural, or interactional justice (Barling
and Phillips 1993; Dailey and Kirk 1992; Greenberg 1990,
1993; Lee 1995; Moorman, Niehoff and Organ 1993;
Skarlicki and Folger 1997; Tansky 1993), the presence of
frustrators (Fox and Spector 1999; Spector 1978, 1997) or
stressors in the workplace (Chen and Spector 1992; Fox,
Spector and Miles, in press), extreme temperatures, noise,
crowding, and poor lighting and air quality (Anderson,
Anderson and Deuser 1996; Baron 1994). In addition,
researchers have explored the impact of the social
characteristics of the work environment. Supervisory and
work group norms (Greenberg and Scott 1996), as well as
work group levels of CWB and task interdependence of
group members (Robinson and O'Leary-Kelly 1998) have all
been found to affect individual levels of CWB.
Other research has sought to identify personality
characteristics that may increase an individual's propen-
sity to engage in CWB. The majority of this research is
related to the validation of personality-based integrity
tests for selection purposes, that, according to Ones,
Viswesvaran and Schmidt (1993), are likely capture a
general conscientiousness factor. However, some re-
searchers have examined lower-order personality traits
in relation to CWB. To date, various forms of CWB have
been linked to Machiavellianism (Giacalone and Knouse
1990), locus of control (Perlow and Latham 1993; Storms
and Spector 1987), negative affectivity, and agreeableness
(Skarlicki, Folger and Tesluk 1999). However, one
personality trait that has recently been linked to
aggressive behavior, narcissism, has not yet been
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 126
* Address for correspondence: Lisa M. Penney, 100 South Ashley Drive,
Suite 775, Tampa, FL 33602, USA. e-mail: Lisa.Penney
@personneldecisions.com
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 10 NUMBERS 1/2 MARCH/JUNE 2002
investigated in relation to the broader category of CWB.
Based on an interdisciplinary review of research,
Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996) proposed the theory
of threatened egotism and aggression. This theory
contends that acts of aggression are often caused by the
combination of high self-esteem and an ego threat, which
they described as any event that challenges or jeopardizes
favorable views of the self (p. 8). However, the theory
does not suggest that all individuals with high self-esteem
would be prone to aggressive behavior. Instead, it
proposes that a subset of individuals with high self-
esteem, particularly those most vulnerable to ego threats,
would be most likely to perpetrate aggressive acts.
Baumeister et al. presented their theory in a diagram
illustrating the proposed relationship between high self-
esteem or egotism and aggressive behavior (see Figure 1).
An abbreviated model of their theory is presented in
Figure 2 for the purposes of the current study. As noted by
Bushman and Baumeister (1998), it is important to
distinguish between high self-esteem due to an accurate
appraisal of one's positive traits versus that due to an
inflated or grandiose self-image. One way of conceptual-
izing the later form of high self-esteem is narcissism.
Unlike individuals whose high self-esteem is well founded,
individuals with narcissistic self-esteem hold a positive
self-image that is not grounded in objective reality.
Because their self-appraisal is distorted by their desire to
be superior, narcissists expect to be better than most
across situations and may seek confirmation of their
dominance in situations that may not always provide
feedback consistent with their self-appraisal. Hence, they
are likely to encounter information that refutes their
positive, but inaccurate self-appraisal and threatens their
self-esteem.
The correlations between self-esteem and narcissism
vary greatly across studies, although the majority fall in
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the relation of threatened egotism to violent behavior.
Note. From `Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self esteem,' by
R.F. Baumeister, L. Smart, and J.M. Boden, 1996, Psychological Review, 3, p. 12. Copyright 1996 by the
American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission).
NARCISSISM AND CWB 127
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002
between .25 and .35. While a number of factors likely
contribute to this variability, including the instruments
used, sampling error, and other artifacts, it is possible
that the conceptualization of narcissism as simply a
subset of high self-esteem may be inaccurate. An
alternative explanation defines narcissism as the
motivated preference for being superior to others. That
is, narcissists have an extreme emotional investment in
establishing their superiority, even if they are unsure that
their superiority is merited (Bushman and Baumeister
1998). Therefore, it is possible for narcissists to have high
or low self-esteem. Raskin et al. (1991) offered a similar
conceptualization of narcissism as a mechanism to
regulate self-esteem. They suggest that the grandiosity
associated with narcissistic self-esteem regulation acts as
a defense against having an unfavorable self-image and
the feelings of failure and shame that accompany it (for a
detailed discussion on the relationships among self-
esteem, narcissism, and defensive self-enhancement, see
Raskin et al. 1991). Except for the requirement that high
esteem is necessary for aggression, this perspective is
consistent with the theory of threatened egotism and
suggests that narcissists would be extremely vulnerable to
ego-threatening information. Research has demonstrated
that people are very reluctant to lose self-esteem
(Baumeister 1995; Baumeister et al. 1996) and this would
be especially true of narcissists, who are vigilant in their
desire to maintain a sense of superiority over others and
defend their egos against unpleasant evaluative infor-
mation, even if the information is factual and accurate.
Encountering an ego threat, therefore, would arouse
negative emotions, such as anger or frustration, that in
turn, would lead to aggression.
According to the theory of threatened egotism, an
aggressive response would be expected in reaction to an
ego threat because it could serve several purposes
(Baumeister et al. 1996; p. 11). For example, an
aggressive response could serve to punish and discourage
the source of the ego threat, as well as others, from
expressing negative feedback or challenging them in the
future. Another possibility is that a successful act of
aggression could signify dominance over another which
would affirm their self-perceived superiority. A third
explanation is based on the zero-sum aspect of self-
esteem proposed by Anderson (1994). According to
Anderson, the amount of esteem available in a group
hierarchy is fixed and therefore, in order for one to gain
esteem it must be taken from another. Historically and
culturally, aggressive responses such as fighting are
linked to gains in status. In sum, the theory of threatened
egotism and aggression proposes that narcissistic
individuals, because they are hyper-sensitive to negative
information, will be more likely to encounter
information or situations that challenge their positive
self-appraisals. In response to these challenges, or ego
threats, these individuals will likely experience negative
emotions, such as anger, frustration, or hostility, that in
turn, lead to aggression.
There is research evidence to support the link between
narcissism and hostility and aggression. Smalley and
Stake (1996) investigated the effects of narcissism on the
evaluation of human vs. instrument sources of ego
threatening feedback in a laboratory setting. They
predicted and found that narcissists were more likely to
experience increased hostility and derogate the evaluator,
as opposed to the instrument, in response to receiving
negative feedback in order to uphold their exaggerated
self-appraisal. Laboratory studies by Bushman and
Baumeister (1998) found that, overall, individuals high
in narcissism were more aggressive toward competitors
than individuals low in narcissism. The high narcissists
were more aggressive, as indicated by the intensity of
blasts of noise administered to another, when their
competitor gave them a negative evaluation of an essay
they wrote, and less aggressive when their competitor
praised their work. Additionally, a second study
demonstrated that narcissists' aggression was high only
toward the source of the evaluation and not toward an
innocent third party. In each of these studies, narcissists
opted to aggress against individuals perceived as the
source of the ego threat as opposed to other targets, such
as the instrument or an innocent third party. This would
suggest that the purpose of the aggression may be to
punish the evaluator or reaffirm one's dominance over
the evaluator, thereby achieving an `ego boost' to lessen
the impact of the ego threat.
The discussion thus far has examined the tenets of
theory of threatened egotism in the context of aggression
Figure 2. Abbreviated model of the theory of threatened egotism and aggression.
128 LISA M. PENNEY AND PAUL E. SPECTOR
International Journal of Selection and Assessment Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
in general. However, the purpose of the current study is
to examine the relationships proposed by the theory in
the context of aggressive behavior in the workplace, or
CWB. Although narcissism has not been examined in
research on CWB, evidence exists in the CWB literature
that supports other portions of the theory of threatened
egotism.
One of the central points of the theory is that
aggression occurs in response to ego-threatening
information. The workplace has the potential to provide
an abundance of information to an individual that may
be interpreted as ego-threatening. Although it is likely
that individuals vary in the kinds of information they
would find threatening, it stands to reason that infor-
mation that undermines beliefs central to one's definition
of self would be particularly intolerable. For example, in
the USA, most people at least partially define themselves
by their occupation. It is, therefore, reasonable to
presume that, regardless of their profession, most
individuals would identify with or perceive themselves
as being good performers in their job. Consequently, any
information that suggests one is incapable of effective job
performance or any situation that prevents one from
demonstrating effective job performance would qualify
as an ego threat.
According to Peters and O'Connor (1980), situational
constraints are circumstances or conditions in the
immediate work situation that prevent individuals from
using their abilities and motivation toward effective
performance. The eight organizational constraint areas
outlined by Peters and O'Connor are: (a) job-related
information; (b) tools and equipment; (c) materials and
supplies; (d) budgetary support; (e) required services; (f)
task preparation; (g) time availability; and (h) work
environment. To the extent that constraints obstruct
successful job performance and, therefore, confirmation
of one's ability to do a job well, constraints could be
perceived as ego-threatening. Prior research has
demonstrated a positive relationship between job
constraints and CWB (Fox and Spector 1999; Fox et
al., in press), however, these variables have not been
examined in conjunction with narcissism.
Additionally, recall that the theory of threatened
egotism argues that encountering ego-threatening
information elicits negative emotions such as anger and
frustration, that lead to aggression. This portion of the
theory mirrors Spector's model of organizational
frustration (Spector 1978; Spector 1997). According to
Spector's model, an individual will experience frustration
if he or she interprets an event or situation at work as
interfering with a goal. For narcissists, one possible goal
is being better than everyone else, and thus any
information that indicates otherwise would be a source
of frustration. The emotional reaction associated with
the experienced frustration can range from `minor
annoyance to rage' (Spector 1997, p. 2), that may in
turn lead to CWB. Several studies provide evidence in
support of this model (Fox and Spector 1999; Fox et al.,
in press; Spector 1975; Storms and Spector 1987). Thus,
the process by which narcissists would come to engage in
aggressive behavior is similar in both models. However,
the theory of threatened egotism suggests that individuals
high in narcissism would experience a wider range of
events or situations as ego-threatening or frustrating due
to their strong preference to be superior to others.
Although these findings support portions of the theory
of threatened egotism and aggression, there apparently
have not been any attempts to explore the theory as a
whole in the context of the workplace. It is clear from the
literature that CWB includes acts that are aggressive.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that personality
variables that are related to aggressive behavior in
general would also be related to workplace aggression,
and more broadly, CWB. The purpose of the current
study is to examine the relationships proposed by the
theory of threatened egotism and aggression in the
context of the workplace. Based on the theory and
previous research regarding the role of negative emotions
in predicting CWB, the following relationships are
proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Narcissism will be positively related to
trait anger.
Hypothesis 2: Narcissism and trait anger will be
positively related to CWB.
Hypothesis 3: Trait anger will mediate the
relationship between narcissism and CWB.
In addition, the theory of threatened egotism and
aggression holds that narcissists are most likely to engage
in aggressive behavior in response to ego threats. Using
job constraints as an indicator of ego threats, it would be
expected that job constraints be positively related to both
narcissism and CWB. It also follows that narcissists
would be more likely to behave aggressively when they
encounter ego-threatening information than when they
do not encounter such information. That is, narcissists
would be more likely to engage in CWB when they
experience job constraints than when they do not
experience job constraints. Therefore, the following
additional hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4a: Job constraints will be positively
related to narcissism and CWB.
Hypothesis 4b: Narcissism will moderate the
relationship between job constraints and CWB such
that when narcissism is high, the relationship between
job constraints and CWB will be stronger than when
narcissism is low.
NARCISSISM AND CWB 129
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002
Method
Participants
Participants were employed students, recruited from
upper level undergraduate psychology and management
courses at the University of South Florida (N = 215).
Some 154 participants were female and 59 were male. As
a commuter school in an urban area, the student
population is older (mean graduation age = 26) than
the typical college population, with the majority (over
95%) of students working full- or part-time. In the
current sample, 66% of students were employed part-
time, and the remainder full-time. Although the use of
students as subjects in research has been questioned, a
comparison of this population with an employed
community (non-university) sample by Fox et al. (in
press) found no significant differences in the frequency or
type of club between these groups.
Measures
Narcissism. The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI,
Raskin and Hall 1979) was developed using the DSM-III
behavioral criteria as a conceptual template to measure
`individual differences in narcissism in non-clinical
populations' (Raskin and Terry 1988, p. 892). Studies
by Raskin and Terry (1988) indicate the NPI is composed
of seven factors: (a) Authority (e.g. I am a born leader);
(b) Self-Sufficiency (e.g. I am more capable than other
people); (c) Superiority (e.g. I am an extraordinary
person); (d) Exhibitionism (e.g. I really like to be the
center of attention); (e) Exploitativeness (e.g. I can read
people like a book); (f) Vanity (e.g. I like to look at my
body); and (g) Entitlement (e.g. If I ruled the world it
would be a much better place). Construct validity of the
NPI is indicated by positive relationships with California
Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough 1956) scores for
Dominance (r = .66), Social Presence (r = .62), and
Capacity for Status (r = .37) and negative correlations
with Femininity (r =.39), Self-Control (r =.36), and
Tolerance (r = .30). NPI scores were also positively
related with other-ratings for self-confidence, aggression,
rudeness, assertiveness, and ambition. The 40 NPI items
were presented in a Likert format ranging from `Disagree
Very Much' to `Agree Very Much'. High NPI scores
indicate higher levels of narcissism.
Anger. The ten-item Spielberger Trait Anger Scale (TAS)
from the State-Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-2;
Spielberger 1998) measures individual differences in the
frequency that angry feelings are experienced. According
to Speilberger, Reheiser and Sydeman (1995), individuals
with higher trait anger `perceive a wider range of
situations as anger provoking' and are `more likely to
experience more frequent and intense levels of state anger
whenever annoying or frustrating circumstances are
encountered' (p. 55). The TAS includes items such as,
`I am quick-tempered' and `It makes me furious when I
am criticized in front of others.' The scale was presented
in a 4-point Likert format with responses ranging from
`Almost Never' to `Almost Always'. The possible score
range was 10-40 where higher scores indicate higher
levels of trait anger.
Counterproductive workplace behaviors. The Job
Reactions Survey (JRS) by Fox et al. (in press) was
developed to measure a wide range of CWB by collapsing
other available scales measuring these types of behavior
and eliminating overlapping items. Respondents were
presented with items describing behavioral reactions and
were asked to indicate how often they have engaged in
each behavior (e.g. insulted someone about their job
performance; purposely did your work incorrectly; stolen
something belonging to your employer). The JRS used by
Fox et al. (in press) included 19 item pairs that
distinguished co-worker from supervisor targets. Because
results from Fox et al. (in press) indicated high
correlations within these item pairs, they were collapsed
into 19 single items targeting `a person at work'. The
response choices were presented in a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from `Never' to `Every day'. Higher scores
indicate higher levels of CWB.
Job constraints. The Organizational Constraints Scale
(Spector and Jex 1998) contains 11 items and is based on
the taxonomy developed by Peters and O'Connor (1980).
Participants were asked to indicate how frequently they
find it difficult or impossible to their job because of each
constraint (e.g. poor equipment or supplies, interruptions
by other people, your supervisor, inadequate training).
Higher scores indicate an individual perceives more
constraints.
Procedure
Permission was obtained from instructors to recruit
participants and administer the instruments during class
time. Only students who were currently employed, either
part-time or full-time, were allowed to participate.
Students were also informed that their participation
was voluntary and could be terminated at any time
without penalty and that their responses would be
anonymous. In return for their participation, students
received either one point of extra credit or were entered
in a drawing for a free video rental certificate. All
participants were provided with a brief written
description of the study of CWB, as well as a short list
of references.
130 LISA M. PENNEY AND PAUL E. SPECTOR
International Journal of Selection and Assessment Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
Results
Tests of hypotheses
Descriptive statistics, including intercorrelations among
all the measures are listed in Table 1. Scale reliabilities
are displayed in the diagonal. All of the scales
demonstrated good reliabilities that ranged from 0.87
to 0.96. Although the distribution of scores on the Job
Reactions Scale appeared to be positively skewed (m =
64.87), significant correlations were nonetheless detected
between it and the other measures. Support was found
for the first hypothesis which predicted that narcissism
would be positively related to trait anger (r = 0.39, p <
.001). The second hypothesis, which predicted that
narcissism and trait anger would both be positively
correlated with CWB, was also supported (r = 0.27 and
0.46, respectively; both ps < .001).
The third hypothesis predicted that trait anger would
mediate the relationship between narcissism and CWB.
In order to test for mediation, the regression of CWB
onto narcissism was compared with the regression of
CWB onto both narcissism and anger. If the beta
coefficient for narcissism decreases to nonsignificance
after anger is entered in the regression, the mediational
role of anger is confirmed. The results of the multiple
regression supported this hypothesis (see Table 2).
Narcissism significantly predicted CWB (b = 0.27, p
< .001), and the standardized beta weight for narcissism
decreased to nonsignificance (b = 0.10, n.s.) when trait
anger (b = 0.42, p < .001) was added to the regression.
The fourth hypothesis predicted that job constraints
would be positively related to both narcissism and CWB.
Although the correlation between constraints and
narcissism was not substantial, it met the criteria for
significance (r = 0.14, p < .05). In addition, a significant
correlation was found between job constraints and CWB
(r = 0.48, p < .001). It was also hypothesized that
narcissism would moderate the relationship between job
constraints and CWB. A significant job constraints-
narcissism interaction was found (Table 3). The pattern
of the data showed that when narcissism was high, there
was a steeper slope between constraints and CWB than
when narcissism was low (Figure 3).
Discussion
The main purpose of the current study was to examine
the relationships proposed by the theory of threatened
egotism and aggression in the context of the workplace.
This theory proposes that narcissistic individuals will be
more likely to encounter information or situations that
challenge their positive self-appraisals. In response to
these challenges, or ego threats, these individuals will
likely experience negative emotions, such as anger,
frustration, or hostility, that in turn leads to aggression.
Based on the theory and previous research, several
hypotheses were proposed. Overall, the results obtained
were supportive of the hypotheses.
The use of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)
as a measure of egotism appeared to be appropriate for it
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for measures and intercorrelation matrix with scale alpha coefficient reliabilities
on the main diagonal
Scale N Mean SD Min. Max. NPI TAS JC JRS
Narcissistic Personality Inventory 215 154.09 27.34 75 225 .94
(NPI)
Trait Anger Scale (TAS) 215 20.53 5.93 10 40 .39** .90
Job Constraints (JC) 215 22.65 8.98 11 55 .14* .30** .87
Job Reactions Scale (JRS) 215 64.87 16.95 45 188 .27
*
.46** .48** .96
Notes: * p <.05, ** p <.001.
Table 2. Multiple regression of Narcissism (NPI) and Trait Anger (TAS) onto CWB (JRS)
Predictor Entry Standardized t-test Adjusted R
2
F
Multiple R
Step 1 NPI 0.265 4.02** .26 .07 16.17**
Step 2 NPI 0.097 1.50
TAS 0.420 6.38** .46 .22 29.96**
Note: **p <.001
NARCISSISM AND CWB 131
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002
was found that individuals high in narcissism reported
experiencing anger more frequently and reported
engaging in more CWB than individuals lower in
narcissism. In addition, the relationship between trait
anger and CWB was also significant indicating that
individuals with higher trait anger were more likely to
engage in CWB than individuals lower in trait anger. All
of these findings are consistent with the theory of
threatened egotism. The theory also predicts that anger
will precede an aggressive response. Therefore, it was
expected that the relationship between narcissism and
CWB would be mediated by trait anger. The results were
supportive of the mediator hypothesis suggesting that the
reason narcissistic individuals engage in more CWB is
because they are angry. These results are also supportive
of other research that has highlighted the importance of
negative emotional arousal to counterproductive
behavioral responses, particularly the model of organiz-
ational frustration proposed by Spector and his
colleagues (Fox and Spector 1999; Spector 1978, 1997).
Other findings of the current study involved the
perception of situational constraints at work. As
hypothesized, a small but significant positive correlation
was found between narcissism and job constraints
suggesting that narcissistic individuals were more likely
to perceive constraints. In addition, job constraints and
CWB were strongly positively correlated. This finding is
consistent with results reported in other research (Fox et
al., in press; Fox and Spector 1999) demonstrating a link
between the experience of job constraints and CWB. The
more interesting finding, however, was the moderating
effect of narcissism on the relationship between job
constraints and CWB. Specifically, the results indicated
that when narcissism was low, the incidence of CWB
remained low across levels of constraints. However,
when narcissism was high, the slope of the line changed
such that CWB increased as constraints increased.
These findings suggest that job constraints, or
circumstances that prevent successful job performance,
do not affect everyone in the same manner. That is, there
are individuals differences in the way people respond to
constraining circumstances. Similarly, a recent study by
Skarlicki et al. (1999) found that differences in negative
affectivity and agreeableness affected individual
responses to the perceived lack of organizational justice.
Specifically, they found that individuals who were high in
negative affectivity or low in agreeableness were more
likely to retaliate in response to low distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice than individuals
low in negative affectivity or high in agreeableness. In
addition, Storms and Spector (1987) reported that locus
of control moderated the relationship between
frustration and CWB, such that individuals with an
external locus of control were more likely to respond to
frustration by engaging in CWB. Taken together, these
findings suggest that personality traits may be effective
predictors of CWB under difficult or trying conditions.
However, additional research is needed to explore this
possibility.
The current study contained several limitations that
may have affected the results. First, the use of
undergraduate students as subjects has been questioned.
However, as stated previously, Fox et al. (in press) found
that students were no different from non-student workers
in reporting CWB. Therefore, the use of students may
not have posed a serious threat to the current findings.
However, future research on this topic should include the
use of a more heterogeneous population.
Second, all of the data were collected by self-report
and, therefore, it is possible that participant biases
common across measures may have distorted the
observed relations. Unfortunately, it is difficult to obtain
measures of personality without using self-report.
Likewise, the assessment of individual engagement in
CWB is difficult to assess through objective measures or
Table 3. Results of moderated regression analysis for job constraints as moderator
Criterion = JRS b t(F)
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) 0.159 1.705+
Job Constraints (JC) 1.364 2.014*
Product Term (NPI*JC) 0.014 3.317**
Adjusted Multiple R .54
R
2
(F) .297 (31.134)**
Notes: + p <.10, * p <.05, **p <.01
Figure 3. Job constraints as a moderator of the
relationship between narcissm and CWB.
132 LISA M. PENNEY AND PAUL E. SPECTOR
International Journal of Selection and Assessment Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
supervisor ratings because very often CWB occurs in a
covert manner making it difficult to identify through
these other methods. Self-reports of CWB, therefore, may
be the best means to link individuals to specific
behaviors. In addition, it seems likely that individuals
under-report CWB due to a self-presentation bias. If this
is the case, the correlations with CWB obtained in this
study may actually be underestimates of the true
relationships. However, as Fox and Spector (1999) note,
there have been no studies to date that have shown
different results for self-report versus other methods of
measuring CWB. Finally, the sample used in this study
was predominantly female (only 26% of subjects were
male). Although subgroup analyses did not indicate any
differences in the correlations among the variables
between males and females, the results did find gender
differences in narcissism, job constraints, and CWB.
Future studies may wish to further explore these gender
differences.
Overall, the results of this study were supportive of the
theory of egotism and aggression. It appears that
individuals with high narcissism experience anger more
frequently and are more likely to express their anger by
engaging in CWB, especially when job constraints are
high. These findings suggest that narcissistic individuals
are likely to handle ego-threatening information or
situations with less equanimity. Thus, narcissism is
another individual difference variable that may be an
important factor in determining CWB, particularly under
conditions perceived to be difficult or stressful.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz
(ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2.
New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, C.A., Anderson, K.B and Deuser, W.E. (1996)
Examining an affective aggression framework: Weapon
and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect and
attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
366376.
Anderson, E. (1994) The code of the streets. Atlantic Monthly,
273 (May), 8194.
Barling, J. and Phillips, M. (1993), Interactional, formal, and
distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study,
Journal of Psychology, 127, 649656.
Baron, R.A. (1994) The physical environment of work settings:
Effects on task performance, interpersonal relations, and job
satisfaction. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds)
Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 16. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Baumeister, R.F. (1995) Self and identity: An introduction. In A.
Tesser (ed.) Advanced Social Psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L. and Boden, J.M. (1996) Relation of
threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side
of high self esteem. Psychological Review, 3, 533.
Bushman, B.J. and Baumeister, R.F. (1998) Threatened egotism,
narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression:
Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219229.
Chen, P.Y. and Spector, P.E. (1992) Relationship of work
stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance
abuse: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65, 177184.
Dailey, R.C. and Kirk, D.J. (1992) Distributive and procedural
justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to
turnover. Human Relations, 45, 305317.
Dollard, J., Doob, L.W., Miller, N.E., Mowrer, O.H. and
Sears, R.R. (1939) Frustration and Aggression. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (1999) A model of work frustration-
aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 20, 915
931.
Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D. (in press) Counter-
productive work behavior (CWB) in response to job
stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and
moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of
Vocational Behavior.
Geddes, D. and Baron, R.A. (1997) Workplace aggression as a
consequence of negative performance feedback. Manage-
ment Communications Quarterly, 10, 433454.
Giacalone, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (eds) (1997) Antisocial
Behavior in Organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Giacalone, R.A. and Knouse, S.B. (1990) Justifying wrongful
employee behavior: The role of personality in organizational
sabotage. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 5561.
Gough, H.G. (1956) California Psychological Inventory. Palo
Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Govoni, S.J. (1992) To catch a thief. CFO, February, 2432.
Greenberg, J. (1990) Employee theft as a reaction to under-
payment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 561568.
Greenberg, J. (1993) Stealing in the name of justice:
Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft
reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81103.
Greenberg, J. and Scott, K.S. (1996) Why do workers bite the
hands that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange
process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 111156.
Lee, C. (1995) Prosocial organizational behaviors: The roles of
workplace justice, achievement striving, and pay
satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 197
206.
McGurn, T. (1988) Spotting the thieves who work among us.
Wall Street Journal, 7 March, p. 16A.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993)
Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and procedural justice.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209225.
Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1998) Workplace violence and
workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms,
potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of
Management, 24, 391419.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C. and Schmidt, F.L. (1993)
Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities:
Findings and implications for personnel selection and
theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 679703.
Perlow, R. and Latham, L.L. (1993) Relationship of client abuse
with locus of control and gender: A longitudinal study in
mental retardation facilities. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 831834.
Peters, L.H. and O'Connor, E.J. (1980) Situational constraints
and work outcomes: The influence of a frequently
NARCISSISM AND CWB 133
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002
overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5,
391397.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J. and Hogan, R. (1991) Narcissism, self-
esteem, and defensive self-enhancement. Journal of
Personality, 59, 1938.
Raskin, R. and Hall, C.S. (1979) Anarcissistic personality
inventory. Psychological Reports. 45, 590.
Raskin, R. and Terry, H. (1988) A principal-components
analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further
evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 890902.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995) A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555572.
Robinson, S.L. and O'Leary-Kelly, A.M. (1998) Monkey see,
monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial
behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 658672.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997) Retaliation in the
workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and
interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
434443.
Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R. and Tesluk, P. (1999) Personality as a
moderator in the relationship between fairness and
retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100108.
Smalley, R.L. and Stake, J.E. (1996) Evaluating sources of ego-
threatening feedback: Self-esteem and narcissism effects.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 483495.
Spector, P.E. (1975) Relationships of organizational frustration
with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 635637.
Spector, P.E. (1978) Organizational frustration: A model and
review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 32, 815829.
Spector, P.E. (1997) The role of frustration in antisocial
behavior at work. In R.A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg
(eds) Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. London: Sage
Publications.
Spector, P.E. and 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,
356367.
Spielberger, C.D. (1998) Manual for the State-Trait Anger
Expression Inventory (STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc. (PAR).
Spielberger, C.D., Reheiser, E.C. and Sydeman, S.J. (1995)
Measuring the experience, expression, and control of anger.
In H. Kassinove (ed.) Anger Disorders: Definitions,
Diagnosis, and Treatment. Washington, DC: Taylor &
Francis.
Storms, P.L. and Spector, P.E. (1987) Relationship of
organizational frustration with reported behavioral
reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227234.
Tansky, J.W. (1993) Justice and organizational citizenship
behavior: What is the relationship? Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 195207.
134 LISA M. PENNEY AND PAUL E. SPECTOR
International Journal of Selection and Assessment Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002