Assessing the Influence of Dark Triad Personality Traits on Counterproductive Work Behaviour with Mediating Role of Selected Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to see how dark triad personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism) influence counterproductive work behaviours (CPWBs), with the mediating role of Perception of Organizational Politics, Psychological Contract Breach, and Perceived Accountability. Previous studies have engrossed the dark triad's effect on measuring individuals' unproductive work conduct. As a result, the dark triad personality traits are examined in this study to investigate counterproductive work behaviour. This research proposes and empirically validates this link model, suggesting that three mediators of the association between dark triad personalities and CWBs are Perception of Organizational Politics, Psychological Contract Breach, and Perceived Accountability. This study applied regression analysis and the Sobel Test to test the hypotheses on a sample of 342 employees working in the Manufacturing sector of Egypt. The results of this study reveal that the dark triad has a positive and significant effect on counterproductive work behaviours, and Perception of organisational Politics, psychological contract breach, and Perceived Accountability significantly mediate the relationship between the dark triad and counterproductive work behaviour.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".