European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Why employee psychopathy leads to

counterproductive workplace behaviours : an
analysis of the underlying mechanisms

Miriam Schilbach, Anja Baethge & Thomas Rigotti

To cite this article: Miriam Schilbach, Anja Baethge & Thomas Rigotti (2020): Why
employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an analysis of the
underlying mechanisms, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650

View supplementary material

Published online: 20 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650

Why employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an

analysis of the underlying mechanisms
a
Miriam Schilbach , Anja Baethgeb and Thomas Rigotti a,c

a
Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany; bDepartment of Psychology, Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; cDepartment
of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study is to examine possible explanatory mechanisms linking employee secondary Received 16 September 2019
psychopathy to counterproductive workplace behaviour (CWB). Based on the emotion-centred model of Accepted 4 March 2020
voluntary work behaviour we argue that secondary psychopathy is characterized by unfavourable KEYWORDS
cognitive appraisal tendencies, which in turn positively relate to negative affectivity. We further assume corporate psychopathy;
that this cognitive-affective process enhances CWB. We also include primary psychopathy into our appraisal; negative affect;
research model to test if the presumed mechanism applies to both psychopathy dimensions. We Counterproductive Work
collected daily-survey data from 470 employees (1670 days) and analysed these data using multilevel Behaviour (CWB); serial
structured equation modelling. We found strong support for the hypothesized serial mediation model, mediation
indicating that secondary psychopathy triggers dysfunctional cognitive-affective tendencies and conse-
quently increases the likelihood of CWB. The proposed model did not hold up for primary psychopathy.
Our study outlines the presence of distorted cognition-affective patterns in employee secondary psycho-
pathy only. These patterns seem to play a key role in explaining the link between employee secondary
psychopathy and deviant workplace behaviour. Based on this procedural knowledge relevant implica-
tions for theory and practice are provided.

Introduction commonly operationalized psychopathy as a unidimensional

construct (e.g., Baloch et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2017). A
Depending on the utilized diagnostic criteria, prevalence
recently conducted study however highlighted the pivotal
rates for corporate psychopathy range from roughly 1% up
role of disinhibition, a hallmark feature of secondary psycho-
to 9.5% (Coid et al., 2012; Hare, 2003). On a subclinical level,
pathy in positively predicting CWB (Neo et al., 2018). Fittingly,
the numbers are assumed to be much higher (cf., Forster &
Blickle and Schütte (2017) as well as Schütte et al. (2018) show
Lund, 2018). Thus, individuals exhibiting psychopathic ten-
that secondary psychopathy positively relates to CWB while
dencies represent a substantial part of our workforce, striv-
primary psychopathy only relates to CWB if education or poli-
ing for power and control, potentially willing to engage in
tical skills were low. Consequently, the present study attempts
unethical behaviour to attain their goals (Jonason & Ferrell,
to derive an explanatory mechanism linking secondary psycho-
2016; Semenyna & Honey, 2015). Empirical research high-
pathy, the seemingly more predictive psychopathy dimension
lights the detrimental effects psychopathic tendencies may
for deviant workplace behaviour, to CWB. We will further ana-
have via extreme work behaviours, such as manipulation,
lyse if the presumed process explaining the link between sec-
intimidation or coercion causing conflicts, impaired well-
ondary psychopathy and CWB also applies to primary
being among co-workers, and decreased organizational pro-
psychopathy. By doing so we intent to test whether the
ductivity (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Boddy et al., 2015; Walker
hypothesized relationships are indeed specific to secondary
& Jackson, 2017). The financial damages in the United States
psychopathy.
associated with such behaviours are estimated at several
Based on the emotion-centred model of voluntary work
hundred billion dollars every year (McGee & Fillon, 1995;
behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002) we argue that cognitive
Murphy, 1993) not taking into account the vast negative
appraisal of the workday and the resulting emotions represent
impact on psychological well-being of individuals who have
an explanatory process as to why secondary psychopathy posi-
fallen victim to psychopathic schemes. Thus, the present
tively relates to CWB. Presumably, due to high levels of disin-
study aims to better comprehend underlying mechanisms
hibition and reflection impulsivity we hypothesize that
causing employees with psychopathic features to engage in
secondary psychopathy contributes to viewing the workday
counterproductive work behaviours (CWB).
as less challenging and simultaneously more hindering as well
Despite the widely acknowledged two-dimensionality of
as threatening. We further argue that this pattern of cognitive
psychopathy (i.e., primary and secondary psychopathy;
appraisal relates to negative emotions, which in turn enhance
Cleckley, 1976; Falkenbach et al., 2008; Levenson et al., 1995),
CWB (Dalal et al., 2009; Spector & Fox, 2002).
earlier research on the link between psychopathy and CWB

CONTACT Miriam Schilbach mischilb@uni-mainz.de; rigotti@uni-mainz.de

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
2 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.
The present study contributes to the growing body of
research suggesting secondary psychopathy to be of high rele-
vance in predicting CWB (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Neo et al.,
2018; Schütte et al., 2018). Taking appraisal and emotional
processes into account, our study provides an explanatory
mechanism as to why secondary psychopathy traits may trans-
late into deviant workplace behaviour. Understanding mechan-
isms behind the behavioural manifestation of psychopathic
traits represents a first step towards preventing the negative
impact secondary psychopathy potentially disperses within the
work environment. Additionally, by including primary psycho-
pathy into our analyses we outline that the two psychopathy
dimensions may be characterized by diverging cognitive-affec-
tive processes within the work context which may partly
explain the differential results reported in earlier studies (see
Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Schütte et al., 2018). Further, this
research contributes to the emotion-centred model of volun-
tary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002) as we (a) apply it to a
specific personality trait and test if the presumed mechanisms
hold up and (b) integrate the cognitive appraisal forms of
challenge, hindrance and threat which to our knowledge has
not been done previously.
On the upcoming pages, we introduce our key constructs,
beginning with psychopathy and CWB. Following this, we
implement our presumed mediator variables and outline the
hypothesized process linking secondary psychopathy with
deviant workplace behaviour.
Corporate primary and secondary psychopathy
Psychopathy is a personality construct constituted of a combi-
nation of various affective, interpersonal, and behavioural def-
icits, including impulsivity, manipulativeness, pathological
lying, lack of empathy, and high levels of emotional detach-
ment (Hare, 1996; Patrick et al., 1993; Walker & Jackson, 2017).
These features are present on a continuum ranging from very
low to very high and thus may reflect various levels of psycho-
pathic tendencies (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Marcus et al., 2012).
Corporate psychopathy refers to individuals within an organi-
zational setting who exhibit psychopathic traits and may cause
harm in ways other than overt criminal conduct (Babiak & Hare,
2006; Boddy, 2014; Neo et al., 2018). Through social learning
(Bandura, 1979) the exhibited toxic behaviours may be carried
out by others and potentially multiply within an organization,
causing even greater damage to the organizational climate as
well as the well-being and satisfaction of the employees
(Boddy, 2014; Mathieu et al., 2014).
The dual process model (Fowles & Dindo, 2009; Levenson
et al., 1995) distinguishes between two forms of psychopathy:
primary and secondary psychopathy. These dimensions exist
in criminal as well as non-criminal populations (Drislane,
Patrick, Sourander et al., 2014; Miller & Lynam, 2012) and differ
in the presence of various characteristics. There is widespread
agreement that primary psychopathy is an inherited affective
deficit leading to callous and manipulative behaviours (Del
Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008; Karpman, 1941; Skeem et al., 2007).
Individuals with increased levels of primary psychopathy tend
to experience shallow affect, little or no remorse, guilt, or
empathy, and a grandiose sense of self-worth (Miller et al.,
2010). Furthermore they often appear to be charming persua-
sive individuals with high intelligence and abilities on first
impression (Lilienfeld et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 2009).
Secondary psychopathy on the other hand, develops from
environmental causes and thus represents an acquired affec-
tive disturbance (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008; Skeem et al.,
2007). It is associated with poor behavioural control often
linked to high levels of impulsivity, a lacking ability to set
long-term, realistic goals, and a proneness to boredom
(Hare, 2003; Levenson et al., 1995). Unlike the low levels of
anxiety and inability to feel remorse in primary psychopathy
(Cleckley, 1976; Harpur et al., 1989), secondary psychopathy is
associated with high levels of neuroticism and a propensity
for feelings of guilt (Benning et al., 2003; Gudjonsson &
Roberts, 1983).
In their triarchic model of psychopathy, Patrick et al. (2009)
state that both primary and secondary psychopathy are com-
posed of a combination of three different phenotypic features:
disinhibition, boldness, and meanness (see also differential-
configuration-model; Lilienfeld et al., 2015). The authors view
these constructs to be pivotal to understand psychopathy in its
various manifestations, namely primary and secondary, criminal
and noncriminal. The feature disinhibition refers to a propen-
sity towards impulse control problems, such as deficient beha-
vioural restraint. Boldness describes the capacity to remain
calm and focused in high-pressure situations, the ability to
recover quickly from stressful events (resilience) as well as
high levels of social efficacy. Meanness refers to a constellation
of various attributes including deficient empathy, the tendency
to exploit others, or empowerment through cruelty (Patrick et
al., 2009). Whereas primary psychopaths score high on bold-
ness and meanness, secondary psychopaths tend to show high
levels of disinhibition and meanness. Boldness does not seem
to feature in secondary psychopathy while disinhibition does
not seem to hallmark primary psychopathy (Drislane, Patrick,
Sourander et al., 2014). Among other personality traits, such as
narcissism or machiavelism, previous studies report a positive
link between psychopathy and CWB (Blickle & Schütte, 2017;
O’Boyle et al., 2012; Schütte et al., 2018). Following, we intro-
duce the concept of CWB and outline why psychopathy and
especially secondary psychopathy may predict deviant work
behaviour.
Linking corporate psychopathy to CWB
CWB is defined as voluntary behaviour that significantly vio-
lates organizational norms leading to a decrease in the well-
being of the organization, its members, or both (Robinson &
Bennett, 1995). CWB consists of two factors: There are CWB
harming individuals within the organization (CWBI) and CWB
harmful directly to the organization (CWBO; Fox et al., 2001;
Robinson & Bennett, 1995). An example for CWBI is the exclu-
sion of a colleague from group activities. An individual enga-
ging in CWBO on the other hand might talk disrespectfully
about the company or reduce his work pace. The negative
psychological impact of working in a CWB-enhanced climate
or being the target of CWBI can be substantial and often
becomes apparent in the form of depressive (Kivimäki et al.,
2003) or psychosomatic symptoms (Mikkelsen & Einarsen,
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2002), job dissatisfaction, and turnover intentions (Boddy &
Taplin, 2016; Lim et al., 2008).
The emotion-centred model of voluntary work behaviour
provides a procedural framework aiming to clarify the antece-
dents and determining factors of organizational citizenship
behaviour and CWB (Spector & Fox, 2002). Besides other com-
ponents which will be discussed later on, Spector and Fox
(2002) acknowledge the importance of personality characteris-
tics as precursors to behavioural tendencies and propose a
direct effect of personality on CWB. Concerning general corpo-
rate psychopathy, O’Boyle et al. (2012) conducted a meta-ana-
lysis and report a weak but positive link between psychopathy
and CWB. However, and as in other employee related studies
(Palmer et al., 2017; Scherer et al., 2013) authors did not
account for the multi-dimensionality of the psychopathic per-
sonality which may distort results (Blickle & Schütte, 2017). In
fact, recently conducted studies indicate that individuals with
secondary psychopathic tendencies may be particularly prone
to engage in CWB. For example, Neo et al. (2018) assessed the
link between the triarchic psychopathy features and CWB.
Results show that only disinhibition, the hallmark feature of
secondary psychopathy positively predicts CWB. Other findings
are similar in that secondary psychopathy positively relates to
CWB while primary psychopathy only relates to CWB if educa-
tion or political skills are low (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Schütte et
al., 2018). To begin to comprehend why secondary psychopa-
thy seems to be more pivotal in predicting CWB we started by
analysing what the two dimensions have in common and how
they differ.
In general individuals with psychopathic characteristics
experience affective deficits and a lack of empathy as well as
insensitivity (Cleckley, 1976; Patrick et al., 1993). Hence, under-
standing how others feel if treated disrespectfully and further
to care about other individuals’ well-being is something corpo-
rate psychopaths struggle with. As a result, the overall inhibi-
tion threshold to engage in CWB should be lower in individuals
with psychopathic tendencies. However, primary psychopathy
is characterized by various features which may detain indivi-
duals from engaging in CWB. First, primary psychopathy is
associated with the ability to set agendas, plan and follow
long term goals (Lilienfeld et al., 2012b; Snowden & Gray,
2011). As a result, individuals are more likely to engage in
CWB only if this action brings them closer to attaining their
goals. Additionally, individuals with primary psychopathic ten-
dencies are persuasive, skilled at impression management and
can influence others without acting in a destructive or impul-
sive manner (Titze et al., 2017). Thus, there may be means to
achieve goals other than engaging in CWB for individuals with
primary psychopathic tendencies. In secondary psychopathy
on the other hand the ability to pursue goals and plan beha-
viour is limited (Snowden & Gray, 2011). Further, there is defi-
cient anticipation of negative consequences of inappropriate
behaviour as well as rebelliousness (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).
Individuals with secondary psychopathic tendencies therefore
tend to evaluate which behaviour brings immediate benefit
and in their evaluation, do not account for potentially negative
future outcomes (Bjørnebekk & Gjesme, 2009; Snowden & Gray,
2011). Last, the already low inhibition threshold to engage in
CWB is met by high levels of general disinhibition in secondary
3
psychopathy which may lower the threshold even further.
Hence while both dimensions of psychopathy seem to have a
tendency to engage in CWB, primary psychopathy features
protective factors which allow individuals to engage in a
broader range of non-deviant behaviours. Contrary, secondary
psychopathy characteristics seem to strengthen the tendency
to engage in CWB.
Previous research already reported a positive link between
secondary psychopathy and CWBI (Schütte et al., 2018) as well
as secondary psychopathy and CWBO (Blickle & Schütte, 2017).
The present study attempts to replicate these results.
Respectively, we derive the following hypothesis:
H1: Secondary psychopathy is positively linked to (a) CWBI and
(b) CWBO.
Mechanisms linking secondary psychopathy
with CWB
To further expand the knowledge as to why secondary psycho-
pathy seems to be pivotal in predicting CWB, we drew upon the
afore mentioned emotion-centred model of voluntary work
behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002). The model proposes that
personality influences cognitive appraisal which may result in
negative emotions, eliciting avoidance- and retaliation-type
actions, such as CWB. Based on the model we argue that two
procedural components explain behavioural tendencies in sec-
ondary psychopathy: (a) secondary psychopathy is character-
ized by unfavourable cognitive appraisal patterns; and (b) the
appraisal patterns lead to negative emotional states, which in
turn promote the use of CWB. Hence, according to our hypoth-
eses, behavioural tendencies in secondary psychopathy to
engage in CWB originate in a catenation of appraisal patterns
and negative affect. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed process
model.
1st Procedural component: appraisal patterns in
secondary psychopathy
According to the transactional stress model, individuals per-
ceive situations as challenging, hindering or threatening
(Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Searle &
Auton, 2015; Webster et al., 2011). Whereas challenges produce
positive feelings and a sense of achievement, hindrances inter-
fere with an individual’s ability to achieve valued goals and are
commonly viewed as irritating (Cavanaugh et al., 2000).
Perceived threats refer to job demands or circumstances that
tend to be associated with personal harm or loss (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Threats impact felt levels of anxiety and may
negatively affect self-worth (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Tuckey
et al., 2015). Hence, we operationalize cognitive appraisal via
the perception of a workday as challenging, hindering, or
threatening. Following, we outline the proposed relationships
between secondary psychopathy and each of the cognitive
appraisal forms.
A feeling of challenge occurs if employees get closer to
attaining a valued goal (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). In accordance,
transactional stress theory states that an environmental
4 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.
Challenge
Appraisal
Secondary Hindrance
Psychopathy Appraisal
Threat
Appraisal
Figure 1. Presumed Process Linking Secondary Psychopathy with CWB.
Direct paths from secondary psychopathy to negative affect, CWBI and CWBO as well as direct paths from challenge appraisal, hindrance appraisal and threat appraisal to CWBI and CWBO are
omitted for clarity of presentation. Further primary psychopathy will be included in the statistical analyses to test if the proposed mechanisms applies to both dimensions.
condition is a source of benefit only if it confronts a person’s
motivational and cognitive characteristics (Folkman & Lazarus,
1987; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, the environmental con-
dition (e.g., goals set by the organization) must fit an indivi-
dual’s motives so that a perception of challenge and potential
benefits can occur.
Secondary psychopathy is characterized by a lacking ability to
plan behaviour and to anticipate positive or negative conse-
quences of one’s actions (Bjørnebekk & Gjesme, 2009; Snowden
& Gray, 2011). Thus, comprehension of how work-related actions
may be beneficial in the future for either the development of
personal competences or the attainment of task specific goals
should be limited. As a result, individuals with secondary psycho-
pathic tendencies should experience less motivation for goal
attainment and consequently reduced levels of challenge apprai-
sal in the work context. This assumption is supported by the
results of Hall et al. (2004) where secondary psychopathy nega-
tively related to achievement motivation.
As outlined earlier, a hallmark characteristic of secondary
psychopathy is the high level of disinhibition resulting in impul-
sive tendencies (Patrick et al., 2009). Researchers consider
impulsivity to be a multifactorial construct (Aron et al., 2004;
Clark et al., 2006). One particular form of impulsivity is the
reflection impulsivity which was introduced by Kagan (1966).
It refers to the tendency to gather and evaluate information
before reaching a decision (Clark et al., 2006). Based on the
increased disinhibitory levels in secondary psychopathy we
argue that reflection impulsivity is high, i.e., individuals do not
reflect upon situations by gathering and evaluating informa-
tion carefully, but rather reach a decision impulsively. Thus,
disinhibition and impulsivity are not only reflected on a beha-
vioural level, but may also be a key determinant of cognitive
processes in secondary psychopathy:
First, impulsive individuals struggle with delayed gratifica-
tion making immediate need satisfaction within or outside the
work setting a central goal (Bjørnebekk & Gjesme, 2009; Block
et al., 2002). Job requirements may hinder immediate need
satisfaction and thus are perceived as obstacles to achieving a
goal, i.e., hindrances (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Reflection impul-
sivity will further prevent individuals to take into account con-
text and other relevant information, which would allow for
prompt or slightly delayed need satisfaction. Based on this
argumentation we assume secondary psychopathy to posi-
tively relate to the appraisal of a workday as hindering.
CWBI
Negative
Affect
CWBO
Next to disinhibition, neuroticism is another key feature of
secondary psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976; Karpman, 1941; Lilienfeld
et al., 2012a). Previously conducted research highlights the effect
of neuroticism on appraisal tendencies, showing that individuals
high in neuroticism commonly view available resources as inade-
quate and consequently perceive situations as rather threatening
to the self (Gallagher, 1990; Schneider, 2004). Reflection impulsivity
will further prevent individuals to carefully assess possible out-
comes and (re)evaluate the actual threat posed in a work-related
situation. As a result, individuals scoring higher on secondary
psychopathy, should be more likely to perceive threats within
the work setting. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Secondary psychopathy is positively related to the appraisal
of a workday as (a) unchallenging, (b) hindering, and (c)
threatening.
2nd procedural component: emotional response to
appraisal and its impact on CWB
Cognitive interpretation of environmental events affects our
emotional state (Lazarus, 1982; Schachter & Singer, 1962).
Early research highlighted the natural fusion of cognition and
emotion and showed how emotions are the immediate
response to situational perception (Folkman et al., 1979;
Lazarus, 1991; Payne, 1999). The model of emotion-centred
voluntary work behaviour also acknowledges this relation
between appraisal and emotions (Spector & Fox, 2002).
Situations that are perceived as challenging have the poten-
tial to promote personal gain and consequently tend to trigger
positive emotions (Searle & Auton, 2015; Skinner & Brewer,
2002). Regarding an absence of perceived challenges, there is
only limited knowledge about the emotional responses.
However, evidence suggests that personal thriving is inhibited
in the absence of challenge perception (Prem et al., 2017).
Further, the perception of reduced personal thriving positively
relates to negative emotions (Porath et al., 2012). Hence, since
the absence of challenge appraisal prevents individuals from
anticipating future gains as well as experiencing thriving, we
assume increased levels of negative emotions if challenge
appraisal is low.
Regarding hindrance appraisals, Daniels et al. (2004) use their
model of work events and unpleasant affect to argue that if goal
progress is perceived to be impeded and slower than desired,
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
unpleasant affect occurs. This assumption is based on previous
findings where the velocity towards goal attainment predicted
positive and negative emotions (Lawrence et al., 2002). Other
researchers also concluded that job conditions, which interfered
with an individual’s goals would induce negative emotions
(Carver & Scheier, 1990; Spector, 1978). Per definition, hindrances
represent obstacles to achieving valued goals (Cavanaugh et al.,
2000) and are therefore assumed to increase the likelihood for
negative affectivity.
Threat appraisal at work refers to circumstances that are
perceived to cause personal harm or loss (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984; Tuckey et al., 2015). Facing personal harm and conse-
quently a threat to self-worth and self-efficacy is a highly aver-
sive situation. Multiple studies show that this aversive cognitive
state of threat perception positively relates to negative emo-
tions such as anger, anxiety or nervousness (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984; Lepine et al., 2005; Tuckey et al., 2015). Hence, we argue
that the presumed cognitive appraisal tendencies in secondary
psychopathy as described above enhance negative emotions.
H3: The appraisal of the workday as (a) unchallenging (b) hinder-
ing and (c) threatening positively relate to negative affect.
3rd procedural component: the impact of emotional
responses on CWB
Emotions further energize and motivate subsequent behaviour
(Cartwritght & Cooper, 1997; Spector, 1998). The emotion-centred
model of voluntary work behaviour views CWB as a consequence
of negative emotions (Spector & Fox, 2002). In this context, several
studies have highlighted the predictive power of negative emo-
tions regarding deviant workplace behaviour towards individuals
and the organization (Fox et al., 2001; Samnani et al., 2014).
Various explanations as to why this link exists have been sug-
gested. One possible view is that CWB represents a behavioural
manifestation of negative emotions (Dalal et al., 2009). In this
context, emotions hold information about behavioural judge-
ment. Negative information is easily accessible during states of
negative emotionality and tends to result in negative behaviour-
related judgement. Thus, negative emotions are linked to negative
views of the work environment (co-workers, managers, company)
and less favourable evaluations of others – CWB is a behavioural
manifestation of these judgements (Dalal et al., 2009).
H4: Negative affect positively relates to (a) CWBI and (b) CWBO.
Linking secondary psychopathy with CWB: a serial
mediation model
As outlined above we assume that a lacking ability to follow
goals and plan behaviour as well as disinhibitory tendencies in
secondary psychopathy promote unfavourable cognitive apprai-
sal patterns (H2a-c). Based on the emotion-centred model of
voluntary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002), we further state
that the dysfunctional appraisal tendencies in secondary psy-
chopathy are a precursor of negative emotionality (H3a-c).
Negative emotions potentially manifest on a behavioural level
5
in the form of CWB (H4a,b; Dalal et al., 2009). Combining these
main effects, we hypothesize the following mechanisms to link
secondary psychopathy with CWBI and CWBO:
H5a: There is a positive indirect effect between (I) secondary
psychopathy and CWBI and (II) secondary psychopathy and
CWBO, via the cognitive appraisal of the workday as unchallen-
ging and negative emotions.
H5b: There is a positive indirect effect between (I) secondary
psychopathy and CWBI and (II) secondary psychopathy and
CWBO, via the cognitive appraisal of the workday as hindering
and negative emotions.
H5 c: There is a positive indirect effect between (I) secondary
psychopathy and CWBI and (II) secondary psychopathy and
CWBO, via the cognitive appraisal of the workday as threaten-
ing and negative emotions.
We do not assume these mechanisms to apply to primary
psychopathy. As outlined earlier, boldness and related to that
the immunity to stress are key features of primary psychopathy
(Lykken, 1995; Patrick et al., 2009). Further, primary psychopa-
thy is neither characterized by the inability to pursue goals nor
high levels of disinhibition and reflection impulsivity. As a
result, we do not derive any hypotheses linking primary psy-
chopathy to the appraisal forms and hence we do not assume
the presumed cognitive-affective mechanism to apply to pri-
mary psychopathy. Nevertheless, to empirically analyse if the
mechanism would be similar in primary psychopathy, we will
include primary psychopathy into our statistical model.
Method
Procedure and sample
To recruit participants, we contacted German organizations. In
return for participation, we offered to conduct part of a psycho-
logical risk assessment, which in Germany is legally mandatory.
Employees within organizations were recruited via informative
meetings, email, intranet, or video-messages. To be eligible for
participation, employees had to work at least 20 hours per week.
To assure data protection and to match the questionnaires, we
used pseudonymization. Participants were extensively informed
about data processing procedures. Before conducting our study,
we received ethical approval from the ethics board of our
research institute.
Participants could register for the study via email. Once regis-
tered, participants received an online link to the initial survey.
Complying with the European Data Protection Guidelines partici-
pants had to explicitly give their consent that they want to take
part in the study before access to the initial survey was granted.
Besides demographic variables, the initial questionnaire included
various trait-constructs (e.g., primary and secondary psychopathy).
Following, participants were asked to choose one out of six weeks
where they would complete a daily-diary study consisting of two
questionnaires per day, over five days in a workweek. Specifically,
participants answered the first daily questionnaire at the end of a
workday and the second daily questionnaire before going to sleep.
6 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.

To increase commitment, we offered participants to choose if they
wanted to complete the survey online using the survey tool
Unipark (Questback GmbH, 2017) or in an analogue paper pencil
version. A total of 36 participants preferred to answer at least one
of the questionnaires in the analogue version. Regarding the
analogue questionnaires, participants were asked to provide the
date as well as exact daytime of filling out the survey.
A total of 572 employees participated in the initial survey.
Regarding the daily-diary study, 522 employees answered the
questionnaire at the end of their regular working hours for
2,206 days. The second daily questionnaire was answered by
512 employees for 2,046 days before going to sleep. Days
where participants filled out only one of the questionnaires
and/or answered the questionnaires at the wrong time (e.g.,
answering the second questionnaire the next morning) were
excluded, resulting in a final data set of 470 employees who
answered both questionnaires at the right time on a total of
1,670 days. On average, employees answered the daily ques-
tionnaires on 3.6 days. Of the final sample, 66.1% were female,
mean age was 41.1 years (SD = 11.61), and most of the partici-
pants were married or in a relationship (77.5%). Overall, parti-
cipants were highly educated, with 53.9% holding a university
degree. Among all participants, 27.5% occupied leadership
positions. Participants worked in a wide range of industries,
including financial spheres, public services, health care, law
firms, engineering, or private service providers. On average,
participants worked 40.13 hours per week (SD = 7.85).
Measures
All variables were assessed in German. Table 1 shows descrip-
tive information and correlation for the constructs included in
our study.
Primary and secondary psychopathy
Primary and secondary psychopathy were assessed in the initial
survey, using the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
(LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995). The LSRP is a widely accepted
and economical instrument for measuring psychopathy in non-
institutionalized populations (Akhtar et al., 2013; Falkenbach et
al., 2007). In accordance with the dual process model (Fowles &
Dindo, 2009; Levenson et al., 1995) the LSRP assesses primary
(16 items) and secondary psychopathy (10 items). Since the
LSRP was originally developed in English we contacted
Unterrainer et al. (2016) who previously used the LSRP in a
German speaking sample. The authors kindly provided us
with their items. We translated these items back into English.
There was high congruence between the original and the back
translated English version. Minor differences were discussed
with a native English speaker and adjustments to the German
version were made accordingly. We further looked at the inter-
relationships between the psychopathy dimensions and the Big
5 personality traits. Correlations were as expected and congru-
ent with previously reported studies of the LSRP indicating
external validity (e.g., Lynam et al., 1999; Ross et al., 2004).
A sample item of the primary psychopathy subscale was
“Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned
about the losers”, a secondary psychopathy item was, “When I
get frustrated, I often ‘let off steam’ by blowing my top”.
Answers were provided on a 5-point scale (1 = I do not agree;
5 = I agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the primary psychopathy
subscale was .77, for secondary psychopathy alpha was .66.
Cognitive appraisal
We assessed cognitive appraisal at the end of a workday,
following the works of Moise (2014) and Feldman et al.
(2004). The appraisal of the workday as challenging (“To what
extent did you view your workday as a positive challenge?”),
hindering (“To what extent did today’s work hinder the attain-
ment of personal goals?”), and threatening (“To what extent did
you feel that today’s work had a negative impact on you?”) was
evaluated. Additionally, we provided a definition for each of the
appraisal forms: ”Challenges refer to situations/demands that
may be stressful, but at the same time may help you to achieve
valued goals or learn new things”; ”Hindrances refer to situa-
tions/demands that represent obstacles to success and may
hinder you to work efficiently“; “Threats refer to situations/
demands where you had the feeling that they may negatively
affect you or that represented a negative experience to you”. By
providing definitions we aimed to assure that participants
understood what each of the appraisal forms meant and
further, to outline the distinction between hindrance and
threat. Participants provided their answers on a 5-point scale
(1 = not at all; 5 = very much).
Negative affect
Daily negative affect was assessed at the end of a workday
using negative affect items of the Positive and Negative

Table 1. Correlation, Means, Standard Deviations, and Intraclass Coefficients.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MB SDB MW SDW ICC(1)
1.Primary Psychopathy - - - - - - - - 1.87 0.42 - - -
2.Secondary Psychopathy .21 - - - - - - - 2.06 0.48 - - -
3.Challenge Appraisal .09 .38 .20 .19 .20 .10 .23 - 2.67 0.81 2.67 1.02 .47
4.Hindrance Appraisal .05 .27 .28 .38 .25 .14 .07 - 1.94 0.78 1.94 1.00 .47
5.Threat Appraisal .03 .28 .41 .64 .30 .15 .16 - 1.53 0.72 1.54 0.88 .53
6.Negative Affect .02 .27 .36 .43 .67 .15 .15 - 1.24 0.34 1.24 0.42 .49
7.CWBI .19 .25 .32 .40 .50 .55 .22 - 1.30 0.37 1.30 0.47 .46
8.CWBO .17 .30 .35 .26 .33 .32 .56 - 1.77 0.59 1.80 0.74 .62
9.Neuroticism −.06 .38 .30 .23 .30 .41 .12 .13 2.94 0.87 - - -
Means and standard deviations at the between-person level are displayed in columns 10 and 11; means and standard deviations at the within-person level are
displayed in columns 12 and 13. The item assessing challenge appraisal was inverted. Correlation printed in bold numbers did not reach a significant level (p >.05). All
other correlations reached significance at p <.05. Correlations below the diagonal are between-person correlations, correlations above the diagonal are within-person
correlations. MB, SDB: Means and Standard Deviations on the between-person-level, MW, SDW: Means and Standard Deviations on the within-person-level, ICC
(1) = variance between persons/(variance between persons + variance within persons).

Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). To keep the daily
questionnaire reasonably short, we used a validated short ver-
sion of the PANAS (Thompson, 2007), consisting of five adjec-
tives measuring negative affect (scared, nervous, distressed,
ashamed, hostile). We based our translation on the German
version of PANAS (Krohne et al., 1996). Participants were
asked about their momentary feelings and provided answers
on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much).
CWB
Outcome variables CWBI and CWBO were measured before
participants went to sleep, using a 12-item scale, (Dalal et al.,
2009) explicitly developed to measure within-person work
behaviours. To obtain a German version of the scale we used
the translation back translation method (e.g., Brislin, 1970;
Chapman et al., 1979). Each construct was measured using six
items. Sample items are, “Today, I criticized my supervisor’s/a
coworker‘s opinion or suggestion” (CWBI) and “Today, I spent
time on tasks unrelated to work” (CWBO). Answers were pro-
vided on a 5-point scale (1 = I do not agree; 5 = I agree).
To examine construct validity, we performed a multilevel
confirmatory factor analysis (see Table 2). A five-factor model
with negative affect, CWBI, and CWBO modelled at the between-
as well as within-person level and primary and secondary psy-
chopathy modelled at the between-person level only provided
the best fit, χ2 = 1515.10, df = 564, comparative fit index
(CFI) = .81, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .79, root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = .03. Since CWB measures
distinct behaviours which are unlikely to co-occur within a
given workday we did not expect high factor loadings for this
construct (e.g., Wang et al., 2011). To account for this, we used
item parcelling for CWBI and CWBO, building two parcels per
subscale (e.g., Plummer, 2000). Arguably our fit indexes do not
reach the commonly used cut-off criteria proposed by Hu and
Bentler (1999). However, Marsh et al. (2004) argue that the good-
ness of fit criteria are too restrictive. Further, other authors high-
light that fit indexes do not reflect the plausibility of a model (e.
g., Byrne, 2001). Other aspects such as validity, adequacy and
interpretability should also be considered (Hu & Bentler, 1998).
Thus, since our five-factor model fits the data significantly better
than alternative models, has a good RMSEA value and conforms
with the presumed factor structure based on theoretical consid-
erations, we would classify our model as acceptable misspecified,
a term used by Marsh et al. (2004).
Control variable
Neuroticism is a powerful predictor of cognitive appraisal as
well as negative emotionality (e.g., Gunthert et al., 1999). At the
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
χ2 df CFI
Model 1: Five factors 1,515.10 564 0.81
Model 2: Three factors 3,525.65 958 0.64
Model 3: One factor 5,436.24 982 0.37
Model 1: negative affect, CWBI, and CWBO modelled at between- and within-person levels, primary and secondary psychopathy modelled at between-person level
only. Model 2: same as Model 1 except CWBI/CWBO and primary/secondary psychopathy modelled on one factor each. Model 3: all constructs modelled on one factor
at between-person level. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; AIC = Akaike information criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
SCF = scaling correction factor; S-B χ2 = Satorra-Bentler χ2, referring to comparison with the five-factor model.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7
same time, neuroticism is a key feature of secondary psycho-
pathy (Benning et al., 2003; Gudjonsson & Roberts, 1983). To
ensure that effects of secondary psychopathy on appraisal,
negative emotions as well as CWBI and CWBO are not merely
due to neurotic tendencies, we used the validated German
short version of the Big Five Inventory (Rammstedt & John,
2007) and included neuroticism as a control variable into our
research model. Neuroticism was assessed in the initial survey,
using two items. An example item was “I see myself as someone
who gets nervous easily”. Answers were provided on a 5-point
scale (1 = disagree strongly; 5 = agree strongly).
Statistical analyses
Due to hierarchically structured data present in daily-diary
studies (i.e., days nested within individuals), we tested our 2-
1-1-1 models using a multilevel approach. Specifically, follow-
ing the recommendation of Preacher et al. (2010), we used the
multilevel structural equation modelling (MSEM) framework.
Our large sample size exceeds common recommendations for
multilevel-designs (Preacher et al., 2010), providing enough
power even for the complex serial mediation model. To attain
unbiased results, we modelled our paths at the within-person
(level 1) and the between-person (level 2) levels, whenever
there was a 1–1 combination (i.e., two variables on level 1;
Preacher et al., 2010). We centred our independent variable,
secondary psychopathy (level 2), at the grand-mean. The
remaining level 1 variables remained uncentered since they
contain within-person as well as between-person variance
components (Preacher et al., 2010). We tested our hypotheses
using Mplus, Version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015).
Results
Variance composition
We examined intraclass correlations (ICCs (1)) to analyse var-
iance composition at the within- and between-person levels.
ICCs (1) ranged between .47 and .62 (see Table 1). This indicates
that between 38% and 53% of the total variance of our level 1
variables (i.e., challenge appraisal, hindrance appraisal, threat
appraisal, negative affect, CWBI, and CWBO) was within-person
variance. Thus, the ICCs (1) outline the adequacy of multilevel
approaches for hypothesis testing.
Hypotheses testing
In accordance with hypotheses 1a and 1b, secondary psycho-
pathy positively predicted CWBI and CWBO. This was also the
case for primary psychopathy (see Table 4). Further, Table 3
TLI AIC RMSEA SCF S-B χ2 df
0.79 5,0580.44 0.03 1.08
0.61 8,2866.09 0.04 1.14 1,942.23 394
0.33 8,5050.34 0.05 1.15 3,732.72 418
8 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.

displays unstandardized path coefficients for the prediction of
cognitive appraisal, one of our mediator variables. As hypothe-
sized (H2a-c) and after controlling for neuroticism, secondary
psychopathy was associated with a tendency to perceive
reduced levels of challenge as well as increased levels of hin-
drance and threat within the work context. Primary psychopa-
thy was unrelated to any of the appraisal forms.
Additionally, lacking challenge appraisal as well as the pre-
sence of hindrance and threat appraisal positively predicted
negative affectivity (hypotheses 3a-c; see Table 4). Negative
affectivity in turn positively predicted CWBI and CWBO (hypoth-
esis 4a and 4b; see Table 4). All main effects became significant
at within- as well as between-person level (except for hypoth-
eses 1a and 1b since they were only tested at between-person
level). Hence, our data supports hypotheses 1 to 4. Additionally,
we found a positive link between primary psychopathy and
CWBI as well as CWBO. Difference tests showed that estimators
of primary and secondary psychopathy regarding CWBI (differ-
ence score = −.017, p = .780) and CWBO (difference score = −.155,
p = .202) did not deviate significantly from one another.
To examine serial indirect effects of secondary psychopathy
to CWBI and CWBO via appraisal and negative affect (hypoth-
eses 5a-c) we computed Monte Carlo confidence intervals (CIs).
For all serial mediation models, we included neuroticism as a
control variable on both mediators as well as both forms of
CWB and tested if the presumed mechanism would hold up for
primary psychopathy. Serial mediations from secondary psy-
chopathy via appraisal and negative affect to CWBI were sig-
nificant for the appraisal of work as unchallenging (indirect
effect = 0.027, 95% CI = [0.013, 0.047]), as hindering (indirect

Table 3. Secondary Psychopathy Predicting Appraisal Tendencies.

Challenge Appraisal (r) Hindrance Appraisal Threat Appraisal
Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p
Intercept 2.68 0.04 76.26 <.001 1.95 0.04 54.40 <.001 1.54 0.03 47.91 <.001
Primary Psychopathy 0.07 0.09 0.77 0.441 0.02 0.08 0.22 0.823 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.940
Secondary Psychopathy 0.43 0.08 5.15 <.001 0.30 0.08 3.72 <.001 0.25 0.08 3.25 0.001
Neuroticism 0.15 0.05 3.30 0.001 0.12 0.05 2.46 0.014 0.17 0.04 4.23 <.001
Residual Variance 0.40 0.04 11.01 <.001 0.42 0.02 10.73 <.001 0.36 0.04 8.69 <.001
Estimates of the tested model (2–1) are unstandardized and at between-person level. The item assessing challenge appraisal was inverted.

Table 4. Predicting Negative Affectivity and CWB.

Negative Affect CWBI CWBO
Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p
PP/SP → NA/CWBI & CWBO
Intercept 1.26 0.02 81.75 <.001 1.31 0.02 77.63 <.001 1.82 0.03 62.65 <.001
Primary Psychopathy 0.01 0.03 0.29 0.776 0.11 0.04 2.80 0.005 0.16 0.07 2.17 0.030
Secondary Psychopathy 0.09 0.04 2.43 0.015 0.13 0.04 3.76 <.001 0.33 0.07 4.273 <.001
Neuroticism 0.13 0.02 5.90 <.001 0.02 0.02 0.92 0.358 0.03 0.04 0.81 0.419
Residual Variances 0.08 0.02 4.95 <.001 0.09 0.01 7.45 <.001 0.43 0.05 9.13 <.001
CH → NA/CWBI & CWBO
Intercept 0.96 0.09 10.58 <.001 0.93 0.09 10.70 <.001 1.04 0.15 7.09 <.001
Challenge Appraisal (between) 0.11 0.04 3.16 0.002 0.14 0.03 4.19 <.001 0.29 0.06 5.34 <.001
Neuroticism (between) 0.12 0.02 6.66 <.001 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.687 0.02 0.04 0.58 0.562
Residual Variances (between) 0.07 0.01 5.43 <.001 0.09 0.01 7.32 <.001 0.31 0.03 9.47 <.001
Challenge Appraisal (within) 0.08 0.02 5.36 <.001 0.05 0.02 2.91 0.004 0.14 0.02 6.62 <.001
Residual Variances (within) 0.09 0.01 10.06 <.001 0.12 0.01 12.47 <.001 0.21 0.01 16.37 <.001
HI → NA/CWBI & CWBO
Intercept 0.94 0.06 15.18 <.001 0.96 0.06 15.66 <.001 1.43 0.11 13.50 <.001
Hindrance Appraisal (between) 0.16 0.04 4.58 <.001 0.18 0.03 5.27 <.001 0.20 0.05 3.74 <.001
Neuroticism (between) 0.11 0.02 6.58 <.001 0.01 0.02 0.41 0.680 0.05 0.03 1.63 0.104
Residual Variances (between) 0.07 0.01 5.31 <.001 0.08 0.01 7.45 <.001 0.33 0.03 10.17 <.001
Hindrance Appraisal (within) 0.10 0.01 7.49 <.001 0.06 0.02 3.85 <.001 0.04 0.02 2.17 0.030
Residual Variances (within) 0.09 0.01 9.76 <.001 0.12 0.01 12.49 <.001 0.22 0.01 15.94 <.001
TH → NA/CWBI & CWBO
Intercept 0.82 0.06 14.33 <.001 0.93 0.06 16.09 <.001 1.38 0.09 15.76 <.001
Threat Appraisal (between) 0.28 0.04 7.02 <.001 0.25 0.04 6.17 <.001 0.29 0.06 5.07 <.001
Neuroticism (between) 0.08 0.02 4.75 <.001 −0.02 0.02 −0.82 0.413 0.03 0.03 0.82 0.41
Residual Variances (between) 0.05 0.01 5.21 <.001 0.08 0.01 8.11 <.001 0.31 0.03 10.22 <.001
Threat Appraisal (within) 0.15 0.02 7.15 <.001 0.08 0.02 4.00 <.001 0.12 0.02 5.00 <.001
Residual Variances (within) 0.08 0.01 9.80 <.001 0.12 0.01 12.48 <.001 0.21 0.01 15.80 <.001
NA → CWBI & CWBO
Intercept - - - - 0.50 0.12 4.24 <.001 1.02 0.18 5.60 <.001
Negative Affect (between) - - - - 0.64 0.10 6.57 <.001 0.64 0.15 4.29 <.001
Neuroticism (between) - - - - −0.05 0.02 −2.40 0.017 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.997
Residual Variances (between) - - - - 0.07 0.01 7.37 <.001 0.32 0.03 10.27 <.001
Negative Affect (within) - - - - 0.17 0.04 4.33 <.001 0.23 0.05 4.77 <.001
Residual Variances (within) - - - - 0.12 0.01 12.50 <.001 0.21 0.01 16.18 <.001
Estimates are unstandardized resulting from separate models. Main effects on CWBI and CWBO were tested in one model; main effects on negative affect were tested
separately. The item assessing challenge appraisal was inverted. PP = primary psychopathy, SP = secondary psychopathy, NA = negative affect, CH = challenge
appraisal, HI = hindrance appraisal, TH = threat appraisal.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
effect = 0.026, 95% CI = [0.012, 0.048]) and as threatening
(indirect effect = 0.032, 95% CI = [0.010, 0.054]). Regarding
CWBO we also found significant serial mediation via unchal-
lenged (indirect effect = 0.020, 95% CI = [0.013, 0.047]), hin-
drance (indirect effect = 0.022, 95% CI = [0.008, 0.044]), and
threat appraisal (indirect effect = 0.025; 95% CI = [0.002, 0.059]).
For primary psychopathy, serial mediation to CWBI or CWBO
did not become significant for unchallenged, hindrance and
threat appraisal. This is due to the absent main effects of
primary psychopathy on any of the appraisal forms. The pre-
sumed serial mediation models explained between 39% and
40% of the variance in CWBI and 18% and 21% of the variance
in CWBO.
To test for the robustness of our results, we conducted
further analyses separately for the primary and secondary psy-
chopathy dimensions, as well as without the control variable.
The pattern of results remained the same with and without the
inclusion of the other psychopathy dimension, as well as con-
trol variable. In any case, secondary psychopathy related to the
unfavourable appraisal pattern. Results of the serial mediations
also persisted. Primary psychopathy still did not systematically
relate to the appraisal forms. Detailed results are available as an
online supplementary.
Discussion
The present study examined possible explanatory mechanisms
linking secondary psychopathy with CWBI and CWBO.
Specifically, we hypothesized that secondary psychopathy is
associated with unfavourable cognitive appraisal tendencies
(i.e., reduced challenge and increased hindrance and threat
appraisal of the workday). Based on the emotion-centred
model of voluntary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002) we
argued that these appraisal patterns positively relate to nega-
tive affectivity, which in turn may be a precursor for CWBI and
CWBO. We further tested if the presumed mechanism would
also apply to primary psychopathy. Results strongly support the
hypothesized process for secondary but not for primary
psychopathy.
Theoretical contributions
Empirical evidence outlines the potentially harmful effect of cor-
porate psychopathy onto the work environment in the form of
CWB (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Boddy et al., 2015, 2015; Walker &
Jackson, 2017). In this context, only a few studies distinguished
between primary and secondary psychopathy. If a distinction was
made, results indicate that primary psychopathy positively pre-
dicts CWBs only when political skills and educational levels are low
(Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Schütte et al., 2018). Secondary psycho-
pathy however positively relates to both forms of CWB regardless
of other interpersonal characteristics (Blickle & Schütte, 2017;
Schütte et al., 2018). Within our sample, we replicated this main
effect, showing that individuals possessing secondary psychopa-
thy characteristics are more likely to engage in CWBI and CWBO.
Additionally, and without controlling for other variables, we found
a positive link between primary psychopathy and both forms of
CWB. The strengths of the relationships between psychopathy
and CWB did not differ for the psychopathy dimensions. Hence,
9
our results support the idea of a general tendency in primary and
secondary psychopathy to engage in deviant workplace beha-
viours. This may be traced back to the key role of meanness in
both psychopathy dimensions (Drislane, Patrick, Arsal et al., 2014).
In fact, when using the LSRP, Drislane, Patrick, Arsal et al. (2014) do
not report a positive relationship of primary psychopathy with
boldness but only with meanness. This detracts a potentially
protective factor from the primary psychopathy dimension. The
operationalization of the construct via the LSRP may thus pose a
possible explanation for the relationships found between primary
and secondary psychopathy and CWB. In any case, engaging in
CWB may be due to different motives in primary and secondary
psychopathy. While individuals with primary psychopathic ten-
dencies may engage in CWB strategically, secondary psychopathy
may positively relate to spontaneous and impulsive acts of CWBs
(Wu & LeBreton, 2011).
To our knowledge, our study is the first to provide an
explanatory mechanism as to why the relations between sec-
ondary psychopathy and CWBs appear to be highly prevalent.
Based on the definition of psychopathic personality (i.e., dis-
torted perception of the environment as well as negative affect
in secondary psychopathy; Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 1996; Patrick et
al., 1993; Walker & Jackson, 2017), we developed a procedural
understanding of the link between the personality trait and
behaviour. Our results indicate that secondary psychopathy
enhances dysfunctional appraisal tendencies. In line with our
hypotheses, individuals scoring higher on secondary psycho-
pathy appraised their workday as significantly less challenging
and simultaneously more hindering and threatening. This cog-
nitive appraisal pattern was in turn associated with increased
negative affect throughout the workday. Results at the within-
person level (Table 4) show on days where individuals appraise
their workday as less challenging, more hindering and threa-
tening, they report higher levels of negative affectivity.
Furthermore, days where employees experienced increased
levels of negative affect were associated with elevated usage
of CWBI and CWBO. Serial mediation analysis based on the
MSEM framework integrates the hypothesized main effects,
highlighting an unfavourable cognitive-affective process,
whereby individuals scoring higher on secondary psychopathy
are more likely to engage in CWBI and CWBO. This did not apply
to primary psychopathy. Primary psychopathy was unrelated to
any of the cognitive appraisal forms and hence, was not char-
acterized by unfavourable appraisal tendencies. Based on key
characteristics of primary psychopathy i.e., boldness, resilience
and reduced stress vulnerability (Hall et al., 2004; Patrick et al.,
2009), one could assume that individuals exhibiting primary
psychopathic traits would tend to experience reduced levels
of threats within the work environment. Since this was not the
case, it leaves us with the question of how primary psychopathy
may affect work related perceptions and behaviours. Possibly,
due to factors related to primary psychopathy such as a com-
monly high level of intelligence (Cleckley, 1976; Salekin et al.,
2004), balanced levels of inhibition and thus lower reflection
impulsivity (Neo et al., 2018) individuals exhibiting primary
psychopathy might be able to better analyse their environment
and extract available resources. If so, there is no general apprai-
sal tendency but rather an ability to evaluate each situation
depending on situational characteristics. In any case, our results
10 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.
highlight that the different dimensions of corporate psychopa-
thy are characterized by differing cognitive-affective processes,
providing an explanation as to why secondary psychopathy
may be a pivotal precursor of CWB.
Besides contributing to procedural knowledge about harm-
ful behaviours in secondary psychopathy, our study adds to the
emotion-centred model of voluntary work behaviour (Tett &
Guterman, 2000). Regarding secondary psychopathy, we found
that the presumed process persisted, strengthening the ratio-
nale of the theoretical model for this specific personality trait.
Further, we specified the general term of appraisal used by
Spector and Fox (2002). Based on Lazarus and Folkman
(1984), we defined appraisal as the appraisal of a workday as
unchallenging, hindering or threatening. Results showed that
all appraisal forms positively related to negative affect on the
within- as well as between-person level. These results highlight
the importance of individuals’ work perception regarding daily
and general personal well-being as well as work related
behaviour.
Practical implications
In terms of practical implications, our study allows the deriva-
tion of suggestions for personnel selection, staff training, and
workplace organization. To begin with, our results highlight the
potentially negative effects of secondary psychopathy. High
levels of secondary psychopathy in employees therefore seem
undesirable. However, with respect to personnel selection, con-
sideration of the position in question is not to be neglected.
Depending on the job, secondary psychopathy may have
greater or smaller impacts on the work environment. For exam-
ple, the work of a nurse requires a great amount of patience,
compassion, commitment, humility, and conscience (Mayeroff,
1971; Roach, 1992). Secondary psychopathy is characterized by
rather contraindicative features (i.e., impulsivity, lacking ability
to commit, and reduced levels of empathy (Hare, 2003;
Levenson et al., 1995). Thus, individuals scoring high on sec-
ondary psychopathy do not seem suitable for a job in the
nursing sector. In our opinion, the same applies to leadership
positions. Leaders are in the position to influence their fol-
lowers’ behaviour (Ilies et al., 2007; Schyns & Schilling, 2013,
2013). Via social learning (Bandura, 1979) a leaders’ CWB may
be carried out by followers’ and potentially multiplies within an
organization. Further, studies suggest that experienced incivi-
lity may lead to perpetrated incivility which in turn negatively
affects work-related outcomes and employee well-being
(Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Gallus et al., 2014; Schyns & Schilling,
2013). We therefore suggest using nonclinical measures, such
as the Levenson Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al., 1995) or
the Psychopathy Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews,
1996) to determine levels of secondary psychopathy in jobs
where this trait is expected to have particularly strong negative
effects on others.
The reported unfavourable pattern of cognitive appraisal in
secondary psychopathy leads to another practical implication.
Although personality traits are relatively stable (McCrae & Costa,
1994), cognitive appraisal is dynamic and mutable (E. Garland et
al., 2009; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Novel information from
changing environments combined with new data regarding
one’s reaction may initiate reappraisal processes. If reappraisal
occurs, the original appraisal changes (E. Garland et al., 2009).
Various studies have shown positive reappraisal can be increased
via training of specific techniques, such as mindfulness (E. L.
Garland et al., 2015). If individuals exhibiting secondary psycho-
pathy tendencies succeed in reappraising their workday as more
challenging, levels of positive affect may increase which in turn
may decrease CWBs. Thus, we suggest the implementation of
cognitive reappraisal trainings when it comes to minimizing the
negative impact of secondary psychopathy within the work
context. In this context we would like to note that cognitive
reappraisal may be particularly challenging for individuals with
secondary psychopathic tendencies due to high levels of disin-
hibition and reflection impulsivity. Hence effectiveness of such
training programmes would have to be carefully evaluated.
In addition, organizations could undertake measures that
facilitate challenge appraisal of the workday. For individuals to
perceive their workday as challenging, the availability of ade-
quate resources to cope with daily job demands must be secured
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Hence, organizations could analyse
resource availability and adequacy. If job resources do not match
job demands, organizations can implement resource-enhancing
schemes and/or reduce job demands.
Limitations and direction for future research
Despite the study’s contributions, it is not without limitations.
First, we assessed all variables with self-report measures. This
may raise concerns about common method bias. To minimize
potential distortion of the results, we tested all our within-
person effects simultaneously at within- and between-person
levels. As Sonnentag et al. (2019) point out, this approach
eliminates the possibility of interindividual differences (e.g.,
social desirability) influencing intraindividual findings. Further
and to reduce common method bias our dependent variable
was measured before participants went to bed while the other
variables were measured right at the end of a workday or as is
the case for primary and secondary psychopathy as part of the
initial survey. However, these differing assessment points do
not allow for a causal interpretation. The order of variables in
our serial mediation model is theory driven, but the design of
the study does not provide a conclusive proof for a certain
chain of mechanisms. Therefore, future research should aim
to further clarify chains of causality for example, by assessing
appraisals as well as negative affect at noon and CWB at the
end of a workday. Additionally, to minimize common method
bias future research should include other-person ratings in their
survey. For example, one could ask co-workers to answer ques-
tions regarding the level of conducted CWB by their colleagues.
Second, our study design does not allow us to draw causal
statements. We measured both mediators, cognitive appraisal
and negative affect, at the same point in time (i.e., at the end of
a workday). Hence, with respect to the proposed serial media-
tion, there can be no definite statement regarding its causality.
On the other hand, we believe a temporal separation of cogni-
tive appraisal and the resulting affect is not appropriate since
cognitions and emotions closely relate to one another on a
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
time dimension (Lazarus, 1982; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Third, we believe self-selection bias may be present in our
sample and affect levels of primary and secondary psychopa-
thy. Daily-diary studies require high levels of compliance as well
as commitment (Ohly et al., 2010). Since previous studies report
a lack of planning behaviour and commitment especially in
secondary psychopathy (Levenson et al., 1995), one can assume
that individuals scoring high on secondary psychopathy would
refrain from taking part in such a study. Our relatively low
sample means of primary and secondary psychopathy support
this assumption. Since we were interested in analysing psycho-
pathy on a continuum and our analyses are based on correla-
tive interrelations, we do not consider this to be a major
weakness. However, future studies could use more sensitive
instruments where answers can be provided on a scale ranging
between 1 and 7. This would allow for greater variation with
respect to socially undesirable behaviours (e.g., CWB) in a
socially adapted sample. Future research should further test if
the proposed research model applies to individuals scoring in
the top 5% to 10% of employee secondary psychopathy.
Additionally, future research should examine boundary con-
ditions facilitating positive cognitive (re)appraisal of the work-
day. For instance, various job resources, such as control
(Karasek, 1979), feedback (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), or
health-oriented leadership style (Franke et al., 2014) may affect
the way individuals with secondary psychopathy tendencies
perceive their workday. This could also be of particular interest
regarding corporate primary psychopathy. We suggest a careful
evaluation of demands and resources as well as analysing the
perception of these job conditions when attempting to better
comprehend behavioural aspects of corporate primary psycho-
pathy. Kaiser et al. (2015) already followed a similar approach
when analysing conditions under which the dark side of per-
sonality is likely to have counterproductive effects. On a theo-
retical level, the concept of trait activation (Tett & Guterman,
2000) could be integrated within the emotion-centred model of
voluntary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002). Trait activation
focuses on the interplay between individuals’ traits and situa-
tional characteristics stating that trait-relevant situations pro-
voke the behavioural expression of that trait. Possibly, for
individuals with primary psychopathic tendencies, trait relevant
situations trigger a specific form of cognitive appraisal which in
turn may affect emotions and behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002).
Further, we suggest future research to analyse our proposed
model considering the other two dark triad traits narcissism
and machiavelism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Both positively
relate to CWB (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Regarding narcissism it
would be important to consider it’s multidimensionality by
distinguishing between grandiose and hypersensitive narcis-
sism (Russ et al., 2008). Similarly to primary and secondary
psychopathy, this would allow a comparison of cognitive-affec-
tive processes at work. One could also transfer our model
towards positive psychology and positive work behaviours by
analysing the role of personality-influenced cognitive appraisal
patterns with respect to organizational citizenship behaviour or
work engagement (Smith et al., 1983). Possibly, features asso-
ciated with higher levels of resources, such as self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1994) or resilience (Britt et al., 2016), are character-
ized by favourable appraisal patterns (i.e., more challenge, less
11
hindrance and threat appraisal) and hence translate the result-
ing positive affect into positive behaviours.
Conclusion
In summary, this study brought to light an explanatory
mechanism as to why secondary psychopathy positively relates
to CWB. Secondary psychopathy was characterized by dysfunc-
tional cognitive-affective patterns within the work context,
which in turn behaviourally translated into CWB. The gained
procedural understanding delivers a starting point for organi-
zations that aim to minimize the negative effects of employee
secondary psychopathy. Additionally, results highlight that cor-
porate primary psychopathy was unrelated to unfavourable
appraisal tendencies. Our findings gave rise to a number of
questions including, the role of trait-activation within the emo-
tion-centred model of voluntary work behaviour, which we will
attempt to answer in future research. We further hope that our
study initiates future research intended to identify organiza-
tional and personal features, which could help individuals with
tendencies in secondary psychopathy to behave in socially
compatible ways.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Miriam Schilbach http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5035-0664
Thomas Rigotti http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-0018
References
Akhtar, R., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Greed is good?
Assessing the relationship between entrepreneurship and subclinical
psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 420–425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.013
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004). Inhibition and the right
inferior frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 170–177. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.010
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work.
HarperCollins.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:
State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://
doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking
stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22
(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Baloch, M. A., Meng, F., Xu, Z., Cepeda-Carrion, I., Danish,, & Bari, M. W.
(2017). Dark triad, perceptions of organizational politics and counter-
productive work behaviors: The moderating effect of political skills.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.
01972
Bandura, A. (1979). Sozial-kognitive Lerntheorie [Social-cognitive learning
theory] (1st. Ed.). Konzepte der Humanwissenschaften. Klett-Cotta.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior (pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F.
(2003). Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory:
Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological
Assessment, 15(3), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340
Bjørnebekk, G., & Gjesme, T. (2009). Future time orientation and tempera-
ment: Exploration of their relationship to primary and secondary
12 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.
psychopathy. Psychological Reports, 105(1), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.
2466/PR0.105.1.275-292
Blickle, G., & Schütte, N. (2017). Trait psychopathy, task performance, and
counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization.
Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 225–231. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2017.01.006
Block, J. A., Santa Ana, E., Rodriguez, M. L., & Colsman, M. L. (2002). Delay of
gratification: Impulsive choices and problem behaviors in early and late
adolescence. Journal of Personality, 70(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-6494.05013
Boddy, C., Miles, D., Sanyal, C., & Hartog, M. (2015). Extreme managers,
extreme workplaces: Capitalism, organizations and corporate psycho-
paths. Organization, 22(4), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1350508415572508
Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective
well-being and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business
Ethics, 121(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0
Boddy, C. R., & Taplin, R. (2016). The influence of corporate psychopaths on
job satisfaction and its determinants. International Journal of Manpower,
37(6), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2015-0199
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s
perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/
135910457000100301
Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016).
How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 378–404. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.
2015.107
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cartwritght, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Managing workplace stress. SAGE
Publications.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and
negative affect: A control-process view. Personnel Review, 97(1), 19–35.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000).
An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. man-
agers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Chapman, David, W., & Carter (1979). Translation procedures for the
cross cultural use of measurement instruments. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(3), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/
01623737001003071
Clark, L., Robbins, T. W., Ersche, K. D., & Sahakian, B. J. (2006). Reflection
impulsivity in current and former substance users. Biological Psychiatry,
60(5), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.11.007
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed. ed.). Mosby.
Coid, J., Freestone, M., & Ullrich, S. (2012). Subtypes of psychopathy in the
British household population: Findings from the national household
survey of psychiatric morbidity. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 47(6), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0395-3
Dalal, R., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-
person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and
lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic rela-
tionships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(5), 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.
2009.44636148
Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. B. (2004). Linking work conditions to
unpleasant affect: Cognition, categorization and goals. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 343–363. https://
doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752628
Del Gaizo, A. L., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2008). Primary and secondary psycho-
pathic-traits and their relationship to perception and experience of
emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 206–212. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.019
Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., & Arsal, G. (2014). Clarifying the content cover-
age of differing psychopathy inventories through reference to the
Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 350–
362. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035152
Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., Sourander, A., Sillanmäki, L., Aggen, S. H.,
Elonheimo, H., Parkkola, K., Multimäki, P., & Kendler, K. S. (2014).
Distinct variants of extreme psychopathic individuals in society at
large: Evidence from a population-based sample. Personality Disorders,
5(2), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000060
Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration of sub-
clinical psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of
aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 821–832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.012
Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., Falki, M., & Manchak, S. (2007). Reliability and
validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy. Assessment, 14(4),
341–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107305612
Feldman, P. J., Cohen, S., Hamrick, N., & Lepore, S. J. (2004). Psychological
stress, appraisal, emotion and Cardiovascular response in a public speak-
ing task. Psychology & Health, 19(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0887044042000193497
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on
emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410010304
Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Cognitive processes as
mediators of stress and coping. In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds.),
Human stress and cognition (pp. 265–298). Wiley.
Forster, N., & Lund, D. W. (2018). Identifying and dealing with functional
psychopathic behavior in higher education. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 38(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.v38.1
Fowles, D. C., & Dindo, L. (2009). Temperament and Psychopathy: A dual-
pathway model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 179–
183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01632.x
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive Work Behavior
(CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some med-
iator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Franke, F., Felfe, J., & Pundt, A. (2014). The impact of health-oriented leader-
ship on follower health development and test of a new instrument
measuring health-promoting leadership. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung,
28(1–2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221402800108
Gallagher, D. J. (1990). Extraversion, neuroticism and appraisal of stressful
academic events. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(10), 1053–
1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90133-C
Gallus, J. A., Bunk, J. A., Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Magley, V. J.
(2014). An eye for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace
incivility experiences and perpetration. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 19(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035931
Garland, E., Gaylord, S., & Park, J. (2009). The role of mindfulness in positive
reappraisal. Explore (New York, N.Y.), 5(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.explore.2008.10.001
Garland, E. L., Hanley, A., Farb, N. A., & Froeliger, B. E. (2015). State mind-
fulness during meditation predicts enhanced cognitive reappraisal.
Mindfulness, 6(2), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0250-6
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Roberts, J. C. (1983). Guilt and self-concept in ‘second-
ary psychopaths’. Personality and Individual Differences, 4(1), 65–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(83)90053-3
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in
daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77
(5), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087
Hall, J. R., Benning, S. D., & Patrick, C. J. (2004). Criterion-related validity of
the three-factor model of psychopathy: Personality, behavior, and adap-
tive functioning. Assessment, 11(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1073191103261466
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093854896023001004
Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the hare psychopathy checklist-revised (2nd
ed.). Multi-Health Systems.
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualiza-
tion of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure model-
ing: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-
989X.3.4.424
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange
and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(1), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
Jonason, P. K., & Ferrell, J. D. (2016). Looking under the hood: The psycho-
genic motivational foundations of the Dark Triad. Personality and
Individual Differences, 94, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.
01.039
Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection–impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of
conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71(1), 17–24.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022886
Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality
and extreme leader behavior. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 64(1), 55–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.2015.64.issue-1
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two
distinct clinical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of
Criminology and Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.
Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas-
Järvinen, L. (2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular
disease and depression. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60
(10), 779–783. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.10.779
Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996).
Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der “Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule” (PANAS). Diagnostica, 42(2), 139–156. doi:
10.1037/t49650-000
Lawrence, J. W., Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Velocity toward goal
attainment inimmediate experience as a determinant of affect. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 32(4), 788–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2002.tb00242.x
Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and
cognition. American Psychologist, 37(9), 1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0003-066X.37.9.1019
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford Univ. Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of
the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for
inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.
2005.18803921
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Asessing psycho-
pathy attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.68.1.151
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary
validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in
noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488–
524. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J.
F. (2012a). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions,
controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,
and Treatment, 3(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026987
Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., &
Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012b). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presi-
dency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful
and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 103(3), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029392
Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy.
Current Direction in Psychological Science, 24(4), 298–303. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0963721415580297
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). PPI-R: Psychopathic personality
inventory revised: Proffessional manual. Psychological Assessment
Resources, Incorporated.
13
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup
incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Erlbaum.
Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A
validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110–132.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730108
Marcus, D. K., Fulton, J. J., & Edens, J. F. (2012). “The two-factor model of
psychopathic personality: Evidence from the psychopathic personality
inventory”: correction to Marcus, Fulton, and Edens (2011). Personality
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(2), 195. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0027132
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules:
Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values
for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999)
findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3),
320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of
leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-
being and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 83–
88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010
Mayeroff, M. (1971). On caring. Harper & Row.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations
and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 173–
175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770693
McGee, M. K., & Fillon, M. (1995). Honesty is still the best policy. Information
Week, 519, 156.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between exposure to
bullying at work and psychological and psychosomatic health com-
plaints: The role of state negative affectivity and generalized self-effi-
cacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 397–405. https://doi.org/
10.1111/sjop.2002.43.issue-5
Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K.
(2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psycho-
pathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder.
Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1529–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.
2010.78.issue-5
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the psychopathic
personality inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review.
Personality Disorders, 3(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024567
Moise, G. (2014). Good stress or bad stress? Relationships between stress
appraisals and strains in health care practitioners [ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global]. (UMI No. 1563382680).
Murphy, K. R. (1993). The cypress series in work and science. Honesty in the
workplace. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.).
Muthén & Muthén.
Neo, B., Sellbom, M., Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). Of boldness and
badness: Insights into workplace malfeasance from a triarchic psycho-
pathy model perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 187–205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3108-8
O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-
analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0025679
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in
organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2), 79–93.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000009
Palmer, J. C., Komarraju, M., Carter, M. Z., & Karau, S. J. (2017). Angel on one
shoulder: Can perceived organizational support moderate the relation-
ship between the Dark Triad traits and counterproductive work beha-
vior? Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 31–37. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.018
Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal
psychopath: Startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
102(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.102.1.82
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualiza-
tion of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness,
and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492
14 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6),
556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Payne, R. (1999). Stress at work: A conceptual framework. In J. Firth-Cozens
& R. Payne (Eds.), Stress in health professionals: Psychological and organi-
sational causes and interventions (pp. 3–16). Wiley.
Plummer, B. A. (2000). To parcel or not to parcel: The effects of item parceling
in confirmatory factor analysis (Open Access Dissertations, paper 917).
University of Rhode Island. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss/917
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work:
Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refine-
ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275. https://doi.org/
10.1002/job.756
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM
framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15
(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge
stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents
of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 108–123.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.v38.1
Questback GmbH. (2017). EFS survey, version summer 2017.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or
less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and
German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Roach, M. S. (1992). The human act of caring: A blueprint for the health
professions. Canadian Hospitals Association.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(2), 555–572. doi:10.2307/256693
Ross, S. R., Lutz, C. J., & Bailley, S. E. (2004). Psychopathy and the five factor
model in a noninstitutionalized sample: A domain and facet fevel ana-
lysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(4), 213–
223. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000045337.48535.a5
Russ, E., Shedler, J., Bradley, R., & Westen, D. (2008). Refining the construct of
narcissistic personality disorder: Diagnostic criteria and subtypes. The
American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(11), 1473–1481. https://doi.org/10.
1176/appi.ajp.2008.07030376
Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A.-M. R., & Zalot, A. A. (2004).
Psychopathy in youth and intelligence: An investigation of Cleckley’s
hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(4),
731–742. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_8
Samnani, A.-K., Salamon, S. D., & Singh, P. (2014). Negative affect and
counterproductive workplace behavior: The moderating role of moral
disengagement and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 235–244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1635-0
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological
determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379–399.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046234
Scherer, K. T., Baysinger, M., Zolynsky, D., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Predicting
counterproductive work behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy:
Beyond the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 55(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.007
Schneider, T. R. (2004). The role of neuroticism on psychological and
physiological stress responses. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40(6), 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.005
Schütte, N., Blickle, G., Frieder, R. E., Wihler, A., Schnitzler, F., Heupel, J., &
Zettler, I. (2018). The role of interpersonal influence in counterbalancing
psychopathic personality trait facets at work. Journal of Management, 44
(4), 1338–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315607967
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A
meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and
hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 28(2), 121–143. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.931378
Semenyna, S. W., & Honey, P. L. (2015). Dominance styles mediate sex
differences in Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences,
83, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.046
Skeem, J., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Louden, J. E. (2007). Two
subtypes of psychopathic violent offenders that parallel primary and
secondary variants. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(2), 395–409.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.395
Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge
appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.83.3.678
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68
(4), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
Snowden, R. J., & Gray, N. S. (2011). Impulsivity and psychopathy:
Associations between the barrett impulsivity scale and the psychopathy
checklist revised. Psychiatry Research, 187(3), 414–417. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.003
Sonnentag, S., Eck, K., Fritz, C., & Kühnel, J. (2019). Morning reattachment to
work and work engagement during the day: A look at day-level media-
tors. Journal of Management, 014920631982982. Epub ahead of print.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319829823
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the
literature. Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/
peps.1978.31.issue-4
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153–169). Oxford Univ. Press.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary
work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269–292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expres-
sion, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activa-
tion. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.
1006/jrpe.2000.2292
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally
reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301
Titze, J., Blickle, G., & Wihler, A. (2017). Fearless dominance and performance
in field sales: A predictive study. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 25(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.2017.25.issue-3
Tuckey, M. R., Searle, B. J., Boyd, C. M., Winefield, A. H., & Winefield, H. R.
(2015). Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimensionality of
work stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 131–147.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038280
Unterrainer, H.-F., Ruttinger, J., Lewis, A. J., Anglim, J., Fink, A., &
Kapfhammer, H.-P. (2016). Vulnerable Dark Triad personality facets are
associated with religious fundamentalist tendencies. Psychopathology,
49(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1159/000443901
Walker, B. R., & Jackson, C. J. (2017). Moral emotions and corporate psycho-
pathy: A review. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 797–810. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-016-3038-5
Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment
and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and
resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 312–
334. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263093
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of
brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance
model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 79(2), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001
Wu, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counter-
productive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel
Psychology, 64(3), 593–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.2011.64.issue-3