Individual Differences as Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) has recently gained more interest in industrial and organizational psychology, as the impact of engagement of CWB is big; influencing not just the organization but also other stakeholders. The objective of this study was to look at individual factors as antecedents of CWB, focusing on personality, locus of control, and values. Data were collected from 267 students studying psychology by means of a questionnaire measuring CWB, the Big-Five factor personality, work locus of control, and values. Only agreeableness and conscientiousness (out of the five personality factor) was found to be negatively correlated to CWB. Work locus of control showed a positive correlation with CWB. Hedonism and power was found to be positively related to CWB, whereas benevolence and conformity was found to be negatively related to CWB. The findings on personality and locus of control as antecedents of CWB are consistent with past research, meaning that employers can use this finding in their selection process. The findings on values have given a new insight to an area that can be researched further in the process of understanding why individuals engage in CWB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".