The inuence of workplace exclusion and personality on

counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist

perspective

Robert T. Hitlan and Jennifer NoelUniversity of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

The current research examined some of the person and situation factors thatcontribute to counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). More specically,this research examined the unique and interactive eects of perceivedworkplace exclusion and personality, as measured via the NEO-FFI, on twotypes of CWB: interpersonal and organizational. Participants included 105employees from a mid-sized Midwestern utility company in the US. Allemployees completed a Workplace Experiences Survey. As predicted,exclusion via co-workers was related to interpersonal forms of CWB,whereas, exclusion by supervisors was related to organizational CWB.Support was also obtained for several of the predicted interactions betweenworkplace exclusion and personality on CWB such that the relation betweenexclusion and CWB was strongest for employees whose personality exhibitedless behavioural constraint. Results are discussed in terms of theirimplications, limitations, and directions for future research.

Keywords: Counterproductive work behaviour; Ostracism; Personality;Workplace exclusion.

Arguably, an organizations human capital represents the most importantresource for ensuring an organizations competitiveness in a local, regional,national, or even global marketplace. Thus, it stands to reason thatorganizations would want their employees to feel a sense of inclusivenesswithin the organization, especially given the positive relation betweenperceived inclusiveness and social support, employee psychological health,organizational satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Mor Barak,Cherin, & Berkman, 1998; Mor Barak & Levin, 2002). Yet, to our

Correspondence should be addressed to Robert T. Hitlan, Department of Psychology,

University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614, USA. E-mail: rob.hitlan@uni.edu

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2009, 18 (4), 477502

2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa businesshttp://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320903025028

knowledge, little research has specically examined workplace exclusion as afocal construct. Drawing on previous research investigating social ostracism(Williams, 2001, 2007) and organizational behaviour (Duy, Ganster, &Pagon, 2002), we dene workplace exclusion broadly as, the extent to whichan individual (or group) perceives that they are being rejected, ignored, orostracized by another individual (or group) within their place of work. Onebasic assumption underlying this denition is that many (if not most) timessuch behaviour hinders ones ability to complete those tasks required forsuccessful job performance.

The current research has two primary goals. The rst is to examine thelink between workplace exclusion and negative work behaviours. Asdescribed more fully later, one important consideration in trying to predicthow exclusion relates to workplace behaviour concerns the source of theexclusion (e.g., co-workers, supervisors). A second goal is to betterunderstand how individual dierences moderate the relation betweenworkplace exclusion and work behaviour. Simply stated, the aim of thecurrent research is to better understand the unique and interactive eects ofworkplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work beha-viours. More specically, the current research examines how an employeesperception of being excluded by other co-workers or supervisors is related tointerpersonal and organizational counterproductive work behaviours(CWB).

Generally speaking, CWB is dened as a set of volitional acts [asopposed to accidental or mandated] that harm or intend to harmorganizations and their stakeholders (e.g., clients, co-workers, customers,and supervisors) (Spector & Fox, 2005, pp. 151152). Thus, CWB includesa wide range of behaviours from taking extended breaks to stealing tophysical violence. Although there are a number of clearly distinct acts thatare subsumed under the broader denition of CWB (Robinson & Bennett,1995, 1997; Sackett, 2002; Spector et al., 2006b), the current researchfocused on those behaviours associated with interpersonal (e.g., arguingwith co-others) and organizational (e.g., stealing from ones organization)dimensions of CWB. To our knowledge, research has not specicallyexamined how broad dimensions of ones personality function to moderatethe relation between exclusion and outcomes. In addition, the currentresearch expands on what is currently known about exclusion and CWB byexamining how the sources of exclusion (co-worker or supervisor) relate tospecic types of CWB.

We begin by briey reviewing why exclusion represents an importantconstruct for organizational researchers. Next, we review some of the mostrelevant social-psychological research examining how social exclusioninuences attitudes and behaviours. Given our focus on workplacerelationships, we rely on Social Exchange and Social Identity theories to

478 HITLAN AND NOEL

aid in developing specic predictions about the link between sources andoutcomes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we outline how onespersonality may function to moderate the impact of perceived exclusion onCWB.

SOCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH ONEXCLUSION, REJECTION, AND OSTRACISM

According to Belongingness Theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), peoplepossess an innate need to feel connected to and belong to somethinggreater than oneself. Research indicates that being excluded is psycho-logically aversive to victims. When ones need for belonging is thwarted,people seek to rearm their sense of self-worth and meaningfulness(Williams, 2007).

Exclusion (either real or perceived) is related to a host of negativeemotional states including sadness, loneliness, jealousy, guilt/shame,embarrassment, and social anxiety (Leary, Koch, & Hechenbleikner,2001). Research indicates a direct relation between exclusion and increaseddesire to avoid future contact with perpetrators (Cheuk & Rosen, 1994;Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960), decreased prosocial behaviours, decreasedability to self-regulate ones behaviour, and impaired cognitive functioning(Baumeister & DeWall, 2005). To the extent that exclusion decreases self-regulation it may serve to direct employees towards short-term behavioursmotivated by self-interest and away from more long-term behavioursfocused on the future success of the organization (Parks & Kidder, 1994).Such a shift in ones thought processes is also consistent with the literatureon exchange relations within organizations. Thus, when an employee feelsexcluded they may engage in behaviours, such as increased aggression andrisk-taking that are not in keeping with their long-term best interests asorganizational employees (Bierman & Wargo, 1995; Twenge, Baumeister,Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Yet, exclusion within the work realm has only beeninvestigated as secondary to other constructs such as workplace incivility,bullying, retaliation, and harassment. Given this, and the potentialimportance of exclusion for ones well-being, there remains a gap in theliterature as to exactly how exclusion (as a focal construct) contributes towork outcomes.

EXCHANGE RELATIONS AND WORKPLACEEXCLUSION

Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958) posits that socialbehaviour involves the exchange of both material (e.g., information andequipment) and nonmaterial goods (e.g., status and approval). When one

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 479

person is negligent in the exchange, the other will be more likely to leave therelationship. Based on the tenants of Social Exchange Theory, severalworkplace relevant exchange theories have emerged including LeaderMember Exchange Theory (LMX) and Co-worker Exchange Theory(CWX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sherony & Green, 2002). The crux ofthese theories is that the quantity and quality of leadersubordinate and co-workerco-worker relations are determined, at least in part, by howothers are viewed. For example when leaders view subordinates asingroup members, these individuals are interacted with dierentlythan when a subordinate is perceived as an outgroup member. Low-quality or problematic interactions often occur when a supervisor perceiveshis or her subordinate as an outgroup member. Such situations are alsocharacterized by a lack of trust and support. A similar situation is thoughtto develop when both entities are at the same organizational level (i.e.,co-workers).

Of particular import for the current research, when such groupdistinctions are made salient via exclusion, subsequent attitudes andbehaviours may reect such an ingroup/outgroup mentality. Such acognitive and behavioural shift is also consistent with a host of researchsupporting Social Identity Theory (SIT; Branscombe & Wann, 1994;Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner,1986), which is based on the assumption that ones self-esteem and self-worth are based, in part, on group membership. Consistent with a SocialExchange perspective, Thau, Aquino, and Poortvliet (2007) found thatthwarted belonging, dened as the discrepancy between desired and actuallevel of belonging, was predictive of self-defeating deviant behaviour withinorganizations (cf. Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Sheppard,Lewicki, & Minton, 1992).

Furthermore, evidence exists that supervisor support and organiza-tional support are positively related and, therefore, a lack of supervisorsupport, via exclusion, may be expected to relate more closely tobehaviours traditionally associated with a lack of organizational support,namely organizational CWB (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe,Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). In contrast,given that co-workers often spend much more of their time with other co-workers, as compared to supervisors, we believe that suering exclusionat the hands of other co-workers would relate to an employee questioningtheir sense of belonging to that group (i.e., co-workers), and serve toexacerbate ingroup/outgroup distinctions between oneself and other co-workers. As a result, we would expect co-worker exclusion to relate tointerpersonal forms of CWB (e.g., speaking badly of another co-worker,gossiping; Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006; Frone, 2000; Spector et al., 2006b).

480 HITLAN AND NOEL

Based on the theory and research outlined earlier, we predict thefollowing:

Hypothesis 1: Exclusion by ones supervisor(s) will be positively related toorganizational CWB.Hypothesis 2: Exclusion by ones co-worker(s) will be positively related tointerpersonal CWB.

A PERSON6SITUATION APPROACH

There is a large body of research supporting the relation betweenindividual dierence factors (e.g., personality dimensions) and counter-productive attitudes and behaviours (McCrae & Costa, 1986; OBrien &DeLongis, 1996; Ones, Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Reiss, 1994; Salgado,2002). One commonly used measure of personality is the NEO-FFI,which measures individual dierences along ve conceptually andempirically distinct dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness toexperience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992).Higher levels of neuroticism are characterized by more anxiety,impulsivity, anger, and hostility. Higher levels of extraversion arecharacterized by warmth, gregariousness, and positive emotions. Open-ness to experience is characterized by unconventional values anddivergent thinking, being more emotionally expressive (both positiveand negative), being more intellectual, and being more open to reexamineones value system. Individuals who score higher in agreeableness tendto befriend others more easily and are more altruistic and lessantagonistic than those scoring lower on this dimension. Finally,conscientiousness is associated with self-discipline, dutifulness, and ahigh level of aspiration.

Higher levels of neuroticism (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003), aswell as lower levels of conscientiousness (Ashton, 1998; Sackett & DeVore,2001), agreeableness (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Salgado, 2002),extraversion (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Collins & Schmidt, 1993), andopenness to experience (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006) are linked to higherlevels of anger, aggression, and/or CWB. To wit, the main eects of variousperson factors on organizational outcomes are generally well supported byresearch. However, less research has been conducted examining the jointcontributions of situation and person factors in predicting workplacebehaviours.

Consistent with the views espoused by other researchers, we view theoutcomes associated with exclusionary behaviour as a complex interaction

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 481

between an employees personality and their immediate social situation (cf.Geen, 2001; Martinko & Zellars, 1998; OLeary-Kelly, Grin, & Glew,1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Twenge, 2006; Williams, 2001). Forexample, Robinson and Bennett (1997) developed a model of workplacedeviance in which the expression of deviant behaviours is thought to be theproduct of a complex interaction between situational antecedents (e.g.,inequities, unfair treatment, and social pressures) and constraints (e.g.,internalization of norms). Consistent with this, Spector, Fox, andDomagalski (2006a) state, . . . the literature demonstrates that violent,aggressive, and counterproductive work behaviours are best explained whenboth individual dierences and situational factors are examined (p. 37). Infact, a number of researchers have provided evidence in support of aPerson6 Situation model (Colbert et al., 2004; Keashly & Harvey, 2004;Neuman & Baron, 1997, 1998; Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2006; Vardi &Weitz, 2004).

COMPARING ADDITIVE AND INTERACTIVEEFFECTS MODELS

As previously noted, we expect that the perception that an employee isbeing excluded within their place of work will relate to CWB. We alsoexpect that, individual dierences in personality will relate to CWB. Assuch, it is important to distinguish theoretically why we expect interactiveover additive eects to emerge. Generally speaking, with an additiveeects model we would expect to see that employees reporting higherlevels of exclusion would report higher levels of CWB, compared toemployees reporting lower levels of exclusion. Similarly, highly neuroticemployees would be expected to exhibit higher levels of CWB thanemployees reporting lower neuroticism. The net eect of these two uniquemain eects might be for highly neurotic employees reporting high levelsof exclusion to report the most CWB. Such an eect is consistent with anadditive model.

In contrast, we might expect that personality functions to constrainbehaviour (cf. Colbert et al., 2004) such that at low levels of neuroticism(e.g., low anxiety, hostility, impulsiveness, and vulnerability) CWB wouldbe similar across all levels of exclusion. In this instance, ones personalitywould function as a behavioural constraint. However, at high levels ofneuroticism we would expect more variability in CWB depending on thefrequency with which an employee reports experiencing exclusion. In thiscase, the employees behaviour would not be constrained by theirpersonality and we might expect that the highest levels of CWB wouldemerge for highly neurotic individuals experiencing high levels ofexclusion. Thus, although the net result may be the same under both

482 HITLAN AND NOEL

additive and interactive conditions, there is a dierence in the underlyingtheoretical rationale for why we ought to see these eects.

In sum, consistent with previous ndings suggesting that individuals whopossess specic personality characteristics are more or less likely to engagein aggressive, antisocial, and deviant forms of organizational behaviour, weexpected that those employees whose personality exerts a stronger constrainton behaviour would report engaging in similar levels CWB irrespective ofhow much workplace exclusion they report experiencing. As reviewedpreviously, we expected that personality would exert stronger constraints onbehaviour for employees reporting low levels of neuroticism, extraversion,and openness to experience, as well as those reporting higher conscientious-ness and agreeableness. In contrast, we expected much more variability inCWB as a function of workplace exclusion among individuals whosepersonality imposes fewer constraints on behaviour. As such, we expect that,people whose behaviour is less constrained via their personality will be morereactive to various situational inuences, including workplace exclusion.

Hypothesis 3: Perceived co-worker exclusion and personality will interactto inuence interpersonal CWB such that the relation between co-workerexclusion and interpersonal CWB will be stronger for individuals whosepersonality exhibits less constraint on their behaviour (i.e., highneuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and low agree-ableness and conscientiousness).Hypothesis 4: Perceived supervisor exclusion and personality will interactto inuence organizational CWB such that the relation between super-visor exclusion and organizational CWB will stronger for individualswhose personality exhibits less constraint on their behaviour (i.e., highneuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and low agree-ableness, and conscientiousness).

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 105 employees from a medium-sized utility companylocated in the Midwestern United States. Men comprised 63.8% of thesample (n 67). Participant ages ranged from 23 to 63 years (M 43.17,SD 8.66, Mdn 44). The entire sample identied as Caucasian (100%).The majority of participants reported being married (83.8%) and workingfull time (97%). A total of 145 surveys were distributed with 105 surveysreturned. According to Hamilton (2003), this represents an excellentresponse rate of 72%.

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 483

Procedure and measures

All participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire assessingvarious aspects of their workplace environment. Questionnaires wereadministered at departmental meetings ranging from three to twentyemployees per meeting. Small group sessions were used to adequatelycommunicate the purpose of the questionnaire and answer any questions orconcerns from employees. Upon arrival, participants were informed of theirrights as research participants and asked to read over and sign an informedconsent sheet prior to participation. Informed consent sheets were keptseparate from survey responses to ensure condentiality. Average comple-tion time of the questionnaire was approximately 25 minutes. Participantshad the option to either complete the questionnaire at the departmentalmeetings or on their own time and return the survey to the researcher in asealed envelope upon completion.

Workplace exclusion. The Revised Workplace Exclusion Scale (WES-R;see Appendix) is a 17-item self-report scale, which asks participants to indicatehow often they perceived of themselves as experiencing dierent types ofexclusionary behaviours during the past 12 months at their organization. Thescale is comprised of three subscales, a seven-item subscale assessing onesperception of being excluded by co-workers (e.g., Co-workers shutting youout of their conversation), a ve-item subscale assessing ones perception ofbeing excluded by supervisors (e.g., Supervisors keeping important work-related information from youe.g., meeting times), and a three-itemlanguage-based exclusion subscale (e.g., Co-workers speaking to each otherin a language you did not understand). The nal two items represent criterionquestions. All responses were obtained on a 5-point response scale rangingfrom 1 (never) to 5 (most of the time), with higher scores indicating higherlevels of perceived exclusion. Due to the demographic make-up of the currentsample, and a low base rate associated with the language-based exclusionfactor (i.e., four respondents indicating experiencing language-basedexclusion), the language-based exclusion subscale was not used insubsequent analyses. Previous research indicates the WES to be reliable withalpha coecients ranging from .79 to .85 across studies (Hitlan, Cliton, &DeSoto, 2006; Hitlan, Kelly, & Zarate, 2006). Initial research also supports thevalidity of the WES (Walsh & Hitlan, 2008). For the current research, thereliability coecients for the co-worker (a .76) and supervisor (a .75)subscales indicated acceptable reliability estimates.

Individual dierences. Personality was assessed using the NEO-FFI(Costa & McCrae, 1992), which contains 60-items measuring the Big Fivedimensions of personality including neuroticism (e.g., I am not a worrier),

484 HITLAN AND NOEL

extraversion (e.g., I like to have a lot of people around me), openness toexperience (e.g., I nd philosophical arguments boring), agreeableness(e.g., I try to be courteous to everyone I meet), and conscientiousness(e.g., I keep my belongings neat and clean). Each subscale is comprised of12 items. Respondents indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with aseries of statements using a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Composite scores were created byaveraging across scale items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of thatparticular personality characteristic. The NEO-FFI scales show correlationsof .77.92 with the NEO-PI, and internal consistency reliability values rangefrom .68 to .86 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). For the current research, thereliability coecients for the NEO-FFI were: neuroticism (a .85),agreeableness (a .77), extraversion (a .79), conscientiousness (a .75),and openness to experience (a .70).

Counterproductive work behaviours (CWB). CWB was measured byusing the Workplace Deviance Scale (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradeld, 1999).1

This scale is comprised of two subscales: organizational deviance andinterpersonal deviance. The organizational deviance subscale includes eightitems assessing deviant behaviours directed towards the organization (e.g.,Intentionally arrived late for work); the interpersonal deviance subscaleconsists of six items assessing interpersonal deviance (e.g., Swore at a co-worker). Participants responded on an 8-point scale ranging from 1(never) to 8 (more than once a week), with high scores indicating higherfrequency of deviant behaviours. Past research has supported the reliabilityand validity of the instrument, with reliability coecients for interpersonaldeviance (a .73) and organizational deviance (a .76; Aquino et al., 1999).For the current research, the reliability coecients were .74 fororganizational deviance and .76 for interpersonal deviance.

RESULTS

Frequency of workplace exclusion

The most frequent forms of supervisor exclusion included supervisors notreplying to requests/questions within a reasonable period of time and

1Based on comments made by an anonymous reviewer, we choose to use the term

counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) instead of workplace deviance because of the

conceptual distinctions between these two constructs (see introduction) and because we were not

able to condently determine if the interpersonal and organizations behaviours actually

constituted organizational norm violations. As pointed out by the reviewer, although arriving

late for work may be counterproductive, it may not represent a norm violation if most or all

employees engage in such behaviour.

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 485

respondents not being invited by supervisors to participate in work-relatedactivities. More specically, 71.2% and 74.3% of respondents indicatedthat, at least once or twice, over the course of the previous 12 month period,a supervisor had not replied to their request within a reasonable period oftime and/or that they were not invited to participate in work-relatedactivities. Moreover, 63.8% of respondents indicated receiving the silenttreatment by co-workers during this same time period. Of those, 6.7%indicated that such behaviour occurred often or most of the time. Also, 59%of respondents indicated having been shut out of conversations by co-workers, with 7.7% indicating that such behaviour occurred either often ormost of the time.

Frequency of organizational and interpersonal CWB

The most frequent forms of organizational CWB included employeesworking on a personal matter instead of working for their employer(60.6%), gossiping about ones supervisor (55.8%), making unauthorizeduse of organizational property (31.7%), and calling in sick when notactually ill (21.2%). The least frequent forms of organizational CWBincluded intentionally arriving late to work (7.7%), and lying about thenumber of hours worked (2.9%). The most frequent forms ofinterpersonal CWB included regularly teasing a co-worker in front ofother employees (52.9%), refusing to talk to a co-worker (34.6%), andswearing at a co-worker (32.7%). The least frequent forms ofinterpersonal CWB included making ethnic, racial, or religious slursagainst a co-worker (9.6%) and making an obscene comment or gestureat a co-worker (29.8%).

Correlational analyses

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, zero-order correlationcoecients, and reliability coecients for each of the study variables.Hypothesis 1 predicted a signicant positive relation between perceptions ofsupervisor exclusion and organizational CWB. Consistent with thisprediction, supervisor exclusion was signicantly correlated with organiza-tional CWB, r(102) .37, p5 .001. In contrast, the relation betweensupervisor exclusion and interpersonal CWB was not signicant,r(102) .16, p4 .05, ns. Thus, employees who reported higher levels ofsupervisor exclusion were also more likely to report engaging in higher levelsof organizational CWB but not interpersonal CWB. Results also indicatedthat the relation between supervisor exclusion and organizational CWB wassignicantly stronger than the relation between supervisor exclusion andinterpersonal CWB, t(101) 1.81, p .03, one tailed.

486 HITLAN AND NOEL

TABLE1

Means,standard

deviations,zero-ordercorrelations,andreliabilityestim

atesforstudyvariables

Variable

Mean

SD

12

34

56

78

9

1.Supervisorexclusion

2.21

0.76

(.75)

2.Co-worker

exclusion

1.99

0.61

.31**

(.76)

3.InterpersonalCWB

1.87

1.21

.16

.19*

(.76)

4.OrganizationalCWB

1.53

0.68

.37**

.28**

.22*

(.74)

5.Neuroticism

2.64

0.65

.22*

.39**

7.03

.31**

(.85)

6.Extraversion

3.38

0.54

7.27**

7.22*

.14

7.25**

7.39**

(.79)

7.Opennessto

experience

2.99

0.48

7.04

.02

7.19*

7.02

.12

.01

(.70)

8.Agreeableness

3.71

0.46

7.29**

7.37**

7.28**

7.33**

7.33**

.40**

.15

(.77)

9.Conscientiousness

3.89

0.42

7.22*

7.20*

7.01

7.41**

7.40**

.23*

.04

.31**

(.75)

N104.*p5

.05,**p5

.01.Reliabilityestimatesare

displayed

inparentheses

alongthediagonal.

487

Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive correlation between co-workerexclusion and interpersonal CWB. As predicted, perceptions of exclusionvia co-workers was related to interpersonal CWB, r(102) .19, p .05.Results also indicated a signicant relation between co-worker exclusionand organizational CWB, r(102) .28, p .004. Employees reporting higherlevels of exclusion also reported higher levels of both interpersonal andorganizational CWB. Follow-up analyses indicated that the dierencebetween these two correlation coecients was not statistically signicant,t(101) 0.76, p .23, one tailed.

Moderated hierarchical regression analysis

To assess the interactive eects of perceived exclusion and personality onCWB, a series of moderated hierarchical regression analyses were computed.The rst series of regressions used interpersonal CWB as the criterion; thesecond series used organizational CWB as the criterion. In the rst step, theexclusion and moderator conditional eects were entered. In the secondstep, the two-way interaction term between perceived exclusion andpersonality was entered.2 Based on recommendations by Aiken and West(1991), the exclusion and personality variables were centred prior to enteringthe conditional eects and interaction term into the regression model.

Co-worker exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 3 predicted thatco-worker exclusion would interact with personality in predictinginterpersonal CWB. More specically, the relation between co-workerexclusion and interpersonal CWB was predicted to be stronger forindividuals whose behaviour was less constrained by their personality(higher neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and loweragreeableness and conscientiousness). Separate regression equations werecomputed for each test of moderation. Results provided some support forthe predicted interactions (see Table 2). At Step 2, after controlling for theeects associated with co-worker exclusion and personality, the interaction

2Previous research indicates that, overall, men are more likely than women to engage in

(Geen, 2001; Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006) and experience deviant workplace behaviours

(Duhart, 2001). Men and women have also been found to respond dierently to experiences of

workplace exclusion (Hitlan et al., 2006). Thus, we examined gender dierences across CWB

and personality. Results indicated that, even after entering the main eects and the interaction

terms, gender contributed a signicant proportion of unique variance to the prediction of

interpersonal CWB (for both co-worker and supervisor analyses). Follow-up mean comparisons

between males and females indicated that, overall, men engaged in signicantly higher levels of

interpersonal CWB (M 2.16, SD 1.40) than did women (M 1.39, SD 0.51), t 4.02,p5 .001, equal variances not assumed (Levenes test of equality of variances: F 17.99,p5 .001). In contrast, gender did not contribute signicantly to the prediction of organizationalCWB.

488 HITLAN AND NOEL

between co-worker exclusion and extraversion accounted for a signicantproportion of unique variance in the prediction of interpersonal CWB,DF(1, 100) 5.16, p .025, R .34, DR2 .05. To better understand thenature of the interaction two methods were used: a simple slope analysis(Aiken & West, 1991) and the Johnson-Neyman Technique, which providesa point estimate for the range of values of the moderator where the focalindependent variable (exclusion) is signicantly related to CWB (Hayes &Matthes, 2009; Johnson & Neyman, 1950).

As illustrated in Figure 1, at low levels of extraversion (1SD), therelation between co-worker exclusion and interpersonal CWB was notsignicant, b .08, SE .25, t .31, p .76; with a 95% condence intervalof .4272 to .5829. However, the simple slope was signicantly dierentfrom zero at both the mean, b .49, SE .19, t(100) 2.54, p .01, with a95% condence interval of .1067 to .8663, and high ( 1SD) levels ofextraversion, b .90, SE .27, t(100) 3.31, p .001, with a 95%condence interval of .3584 to 1.4318. Moreover, the points estimateindicated that when extraversion is 3.245 or above the coecient for

TABLE 2Moderated multiple regression analysis for co-worker exclusion and personality on

interpersonal CWB

Interpersonal CWB

Step Regression models R DR2 B SE b t p

1 Co-worker exclusion .50 .22 .25* 2.33 .02

Neuroticism .22 .05 7.22 .20 7.12 71.11 .272 Co-worker exclusion

6Neuroticism.23 5.01 7.19 .29 7.07 7.65 .52

1 Co-worker Exclusion .49 .19 .25* 2.54 .01

Extraversion .27 .07* .37 .22 .17 1.69 .09

2 Co-worker exclusion

6Extraversion.34 .05* .76 .33 .21* 2.272 .02

1 Co-worker exclusion .40 .19 .20* 2.05 .04

Openness to experience .27 .07* 7.50 .24 7.20* 72.05 .042 Co-worker exclusion

6Openness.27 5.01 7.16 .43 7.04 7.37 .71

1 Co-worker exclusion .23 .21 .12 1.11 .26

Agreeableness .30 .09** 7.68 .27 7.26* 72.49 .022 Co-worker exclusion

6Agreeableness.31 5.01 .36 .39 .09 .93 .36

1 Co-worker exclusion .39 .20 .19 1.94 .06

Conscientiousness .19 .04 .09 .29 .03 .32 .75

2 Co-worker exclusion

6Conscientiousness.20 5.01 .23 .53 .04 .44 .66

*p5 .01, **p5 .01, ***p5 .001. Coecients represent the values obtained after all variables,including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 489

exclusion is signicantly positive (using alpha .05). Thus, participantsreporting low levels of extraversion reported little dierence in the frequencyof interpersonal CWB across levels of co-worker exclusion. However, athigher levels of extraversion this dierence became much more pronouncedwith the highest levels of interpersonal CWB being observed underconditions of high extraversion and high co-worker exclusion. The otherpredicted interactions between co-worker exclusion and interpersonal CWBfailed to emerge.

Supervisor exclusion, personality, and CWB. Hypothesis 4 predicted thatsupervisor exclusion would interact with personality in predictingorganizational CWB. More specically, the relation between supervisorexclusion and organizational CWB was predicted to be stronger forindividuals whose behaviour was less constrained by their personality(higher neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, and loweragreeableness and conscientiousness).

The procedure was identical to that outlined above (see Table 3).Consistent with predictions, at Step 2, after controlling for the main eectsof supervisor exclusion and personality, each of the interaction terms(excluding extraversion) contributed unique variance to the prediction oforganizational CWB including neuroticism, DF(1, 100) 8.00, p5 .01,R .50, DR2 .06, agreeableness, DF(1, 100) 5.36, p .02, R .48,DR2 .04, conscientiousness, DF(1, 100) 13.42, p5 .01, R .58,DR2 .09, and openness to experience, DF(1, 100) 4.08, p .04,R .41, DR2 .03. The direction for each of these interaction terms isconsistent with predictions (see Figures 25). Employees whose personality

Figure 1. Interaction between perceived co-worker exclusion and extraversion on inter-

personal CWB.

490 HITLAN AND NOEL

Figure 2. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and neuroticism on organiza-

tional CWB.

TABLE 3Moderated multiple regression analysis for supervisor exclusion and personality on

organizational CWB

Organizational CWB

Step Regression models R DR2 B SE b t p

1 Supervisor exclusion .29 .08 .33** 3.71 5.01Neuroticism .44 .19*** .21 .09 .20* 2.25 .03

2 Supervisor exclusion

6Neuroticism.50 .06** .32 .11 .25** 2.29 .01

1 Supervisor exclusion .26 .09 .29* 2.99 5.01Extraversion .40 .16* 7.21 .12 7.17 71.79 .08

2 Supervisor exclusion

6Extraversion.42 .02 7.18 .14 7.13 71.34 .18

1 Supervisor exclusion .32 .08 .36** 4.00 5.01Openness to experience .37 .14*** 7.04 .13 7.03 7.27 .79

2 Supervisor exclusion

6Openness.41 .03* .27 .13 .19* 2.02 .04

1 Supervisor exclusion .23 .08 .26** 2.84 5.01Agreeableness .44 .19*** 7.39 .14 7.27** 72.89 5.01

2 Supervisor exclusion

6Agreeableness.48 .04* 7.44 .19 7.21* 72.32 .02

1 Supervisor exclusion .25 .07 .28** 3.38 .01

Conscientiousness .50 .25*** 7.47 .14 7.29** 73.41 .012 Supervisor exclusion

6Conscientiousness.58 .09*** 7.56 .15 7.30** 73.66 .01

*p5 .01, **p5 .01, ***p5 .001. Coecients represent the values obtained after all variables,including the interaction term, were entered into the regression equation.

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 491

Figure 4. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and agreeableness on organiza-

tional CWB.

Figure 5. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and openness to experience on

organizational CWB.

Figure 3. Interaction between perceived supervisor exclusion and conscientiousness on

organizational CWB.

492 HITLAN AND NOEL

exerted a stronger constraint over their behaviour were less variable inreporting to have engaged in organizational CWB. The most CWBwas evidenced under conditions of high supervisor exclusion andlow behavioural constraint. Table 4 displays the simple slope coecients,signicance values, 95% condence intervals, and point estimatesalong low (1SD), mean, and high levels ( 1SD) of these personalitydimensions.

DISCUSSION

The current research examined how an employees perception of beingexcluded within their work environment relates to counterproductive workbehaviours. Although there is a large body of literature examining howsituational factors inuence outcomes, little research has specicallyaddressed the phenomena of workplace exclusion, and its associatedoutcomes (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006). One ofthe goals of the current research was to begin to ll this gap by examininghow both sources of exclusion and ones personality contribute to theexpression of CWB. We relied on research evidence suggesting that the

TABLE 4Test of the simple slope effects for the effect of supervisor exclusion on organizational

CWB as a function of differing levels of personality dimensions

Slope coecients 95% CI

Moderator B SE b t p LL UL Point estimate

Neuroticism 2.272

Low (1SD) .08 .10 .09 0.78 .43 7.1258 .2901Mean .29** .08 .33 3.72 5.01 .1361 .4475High ( 1SD) .50** .11 .57 4.52 5.01 .2812 .7217

Openness 2.544

Low .19 .10 .22 1.85 .07 7.0144 .3997Mean .32** .08 .36 3.99 5.01 .1621 .4821High .45** .10 .51 4.44 5.01 .2500 .6532

Agreeableness 3.841

Low .43** .11 .49 3.98 5.01 .2166 .6471Mean .23** .08 .26 2.84 5.01 .0705 .3958High .03 .13 .04 0.27 .79 7.2197 .2885

Conscientiousness 4.054

Low .48** .10 .54 5.04 5.01 .2908 .6688Mean .25** .07 .28 3.38 5.01 .1029 .3953High .02 .10 .02 0.19 .85 7.1772 .2140

*p5 .05, **p5 .01. Alpha level used for the Johnson-Neyman point estimate is .05.

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 493

source of exclusion (e.g., co-workers, supervisors) may be important to morefully understanding the behavioural outcomes associated with suchbehaviour.

Higher levels of supervisor exclusion were related to higher levels oforganizational CWB but not interpersonal forms of CWB. In addition, co-worker exclusion was positively related to interpersonal CWB. Somewhatinterestingly, a signicant relation also emerged between co-workerexclusion and organizational CBW. Although this latter nding was notspecically predicted in the current research, it is consistent with Frone(2000), who found that both interpersonal conict with supervisors andinterpersonal conict with co-workers related to interpersonal (depression,self-esteem, somatic symptoms) and organizational outcomes (job satisfac-tion, organizational commitment, turnover). Although Frone did notattempt to explain this crossover eect for outcomes, we suspect thatinteractions with co-workers are shaped by many dierent variables (e.g.,seniority, personality, job position) that may lead to less discrimination inthe display of CWB. As such, an employee who feels they are being excludedby co-workers may consider multiple factors when deciding to respond. Wecontrast this with perceived exclusion at the hands of ones supervisor whereit is generally recognized that supervisors are more closely associated withtheir role as agents of an organization.

To test this proposition, we conducted a secondary analysis using thedata provided by Frone (2000), which included the sample size and tabledcorrelations. We examined whether the eect sizes between interpersonalconict with co-workers and interpersonal outcomes (e.g., depression, self-esteem, somatic symptoms) diered from those between interpersonalconict with co-workers and organizational outcomes (satisfaction,commitment, turnover). None of the comparisons indicated signicantdierences in eect size estimates across interpersonal and organizationaloutcomes. So, the relations between co-worker conict and outcomes weresimilar across both interpersonal and organizational outcomes. Simplystated, all cross-outcome coecients were of equal strength. However, forinterpersonal conict with supervisors, all of the eect sizes associated withorganizational outcomes were signicantly stronger than the relationsbetween supervisor conict and interpersonal outcomes. A similar analysisbased on information provided by Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006) examinedthe relations among supervisor conict, co-worker conict, organizationalCWB, and interpersonal CWB, and found a signicantly stronger relationbetween interpersonal conict and interpersonal CWB (as compared toorganizational CWB) and no dierence in the strength of the relationsassociated with supervisor conict. Thus, additional research is needed tobetter understand the nature of this discrepancy. For example, Fronefocused on younger employees and attitudinal outcomes, Bruk-Lee and

494 HITLAN AND NOEL

Spector examined university employees and behavioural outcomes, and thecurrent research specically examined workplace exclusion using employeesfrom a utility company and behavioural outcome measures. Might there besomething inherent in a specic sample, organization, or outcome under-lying these eects?

Personality and CWB

Consistent with previous research, we found that each of the measuredpersonality dimensions was related to some form of CWB. More specically,negative relations emerged between openness to experience (and agreeable-ness) and interpersonal CWB. Employees reporting less of these character-istics were more likely to report engaging in interpersonal CWB. Similarnegative relations emerged between organizational CWB and extraversion,agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Employees scoring lower on thesedimensions reported more organizational CWB compared to those scoringhigher on each of these dimensions. Finally, neuroticism was positivelyrelated to organizational CWB.

Although these relations are consistent with those obtained in previousresearch, as one reviewer of the current manuscript pointed out, theserelations may simply reect a tendency of some individuals to report actingin more counterproductive ways as opposed to actually engaging incounterproductive behaviours. For example, one could argue that con-scientious people attempt to be highly accurate in reporting everything, andthose who are less conscientious might not feel as compelled to reportdeviant behaviour. Although our method and data do not allow us toentirely rule out this possibility, the negative correlations betweenconscientiousness and organizational CWB indicates that less conscientiouspeople actually do report engaging in more CWB. Nevertheless, this is animportant empirical question but one that cannot be fully disentangled withthe current research design.

Personality as a moderator

For interpersonal CWB, the only signicant interaction term to emerge wasbetween co-worker exclusion and extraversion. The eect of co-workerexclusion on interpersonal CWB was dependent on ones personality. Foremployees reporting low levels of extraversion, there was little change in theself-reported display of interpersonal CWB across exclusion levels.However, at higher levels of extraversion (where we would expect lessbehavioural constraint), the dierence between low and high levels of co-worker exclusion on interpersonal CWB was much more pronounced.Based on this nding, it seems that the specic characteristics associated

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 495

with extraversion (e.g., warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity) aremore important for understanding reactions to interactions involving otherco-workers (as opposed to supervisors). One explanation for this nding isreected in the amount of time that employees spend interacting with oneanother. Generally, employees spend a signicant percentage of their timeinteracting with other co-workers. Those scoring lower in extraversionwould presumeably not feel as strong a need to interact with their co-workers and, as such, exclusion would not be as impactful as when it isperceived by highly extraverted individuals. In contrast, the amount of timeemployees spend directly interacting with supervisors is generally muchmore limited. Thus, extraversion seems of particular importance for co-worker interactions, especially when combined with relevant situationsfactors, such as exclusion.

For organizational CWB, each of the predicted interactions betweensupervisor exclusion and personality emerged, except for the interactioninvolving extraversion. When employee behaviour was constrained by theirpersonality, little dierence emerged on organizational CWB across levels ofsupervisor exclusion. In contrast, much more pronounced changes in CWBemerged for those employees whose personality exerted less control overtheir behaviour (high neuroticism, high openness to experience, lowconscientiousness, and low agreeableness).

Overall, these ndings suggest that the likelihood of employees engagingin CWB depends on both person and situation factorsespecially whentrying to predict organizational forms of CWB. Additionally, consistentwith previous research, source characteristics appear to be important todetermining specic types of outcomes. By virtue of the number andstrength of the interaction terms in the current research, it seems thatpersonality dimensions are more closely associated with CWB directed atthe organization. It could be that when exclusionary behaviour is thought toemanate from an organization, as is the case with supervisor exclusion, anemployee not only feels that such behaviour has implications fortheir immediate social milieu but also to their immediate and futureexistence and advancement opportunities within their organization (andthus calling into question those very personality characteristics that make uswho we are).

Limitations of the current research

It is also important to note a few potential limitations to the currentresearch. First, due to the self-report methodology and the sensitive natureof the information being obtained, responses may have been inuenced bysocially desirability or common method variance (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). However, others believe that the magnitude

496 HITLAN AND NOEL

of any such eects is often overstated (Spector, 1994). So, although researchhas indicated such eects may inate relations among variables, there doesnot appear to be a consensus on the absolute magnitude of such eects.Also, the common method variance explanation cannot account forinteraction eects that are less likely to be spurious. Second, consistentwith previous survey research, participants completed the survey at a singlepoint in time whereby prohibiting any rm conclusions regarding cause andeect. Nevertheless, when combined with previous experimental research,we believe that the current research makes an important contribution to ourunderstanding of when we might expect workplace exclusion to predictwhether or not an employee will choose to engage in counterproductivework behaviours.

That said, both workplace exclusion and CWB represent broadconstructs encompassing a number of subtypes (Spector, et al., 2006b),many of which were not examined in the current research. Even withinthe current sample, it seems that some forms of exclusion are experiencedmore frequently than others as are specic forms of both interpersonalCWB and organizational CWB. For example, does it matter if employeeswere being excluded socially (by others ignoring them) or physically(by others physically leaving their presence)? Might the mode ofexclusion (e.g., face-to-face, chatroom), and length of time one was excludedinuence outcomes? Additionally, the entire sample reported beingCaucasian (100%) and the majority reported working full time (97%). Asa result, one needs to be careful when making statements about theapplicability of the current ndings to other ethnicities, and employees whoare employed on a temporary basis or part time. Future research in this areawould also benet from examining samples of dierent ethnicities, ages, andlocations.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we believe this research adds to what is currentlyknown about workplace behaviours in a few dierent ways. First, wewere able to show that the mere perception of exclusion is sucient toincrease the likelihood of employees engaging in CWB. Second, thisresearch provides additional support for the argument that the sources ofconict (or exclusion in this case) are important to better understandinghow employees may choose to respond to their experiences. Third, itprovides additional insight regarding the moderating eects of personalityin the prediction of CWB including an initial assessment of whichpersonality dimensions seem most important under certain conditions.Finally, while the current research answers some questions concerningthe relations and interactions between workplace exclusion, personality,

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 497

and counterproductive work behaviours, it also brings up someadditional questions and avenues for subsequent research in this area.Ultimately, we believe the current research will help in the developmentof specic models outlining the antecedents, moderators, and conse-quences of CWB.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradeld, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative aectivity, and

employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 20, 10731091.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289303.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big ve personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126.

Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. N. (2005). The inner dimension of social exclusion: Intelligent

thought and self-regulation among rejected persons. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W.

von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying

(pp. 5373). New York: Psychology Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

Attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497529.

Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal course associated with

aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) status. Develop-

ment and Psychopathology, 7, 669682.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup

derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology,

24, 641657.

Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviours

link: Are conicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 11, 145156.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-

multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56, 81105.

Cheuk, W. H., & Rosen, S. (1994). Validating a spurning scale for teachers. Current

Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, and Social, 13, 241247.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive

eects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89, 599609.

Collins, J. M., & Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A

construct validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295311.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Duy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331351.

Duhart, D. T. (2001). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Violence in the workplace, 1993

1999 (Rep. No. NCJ 190076). Washington, DC: US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

498 HITLAN AND NOEL

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and

employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565573.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conict at work and psychological outcomes:

Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,

246255.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of

Management, 17, 235271.

Geen, R. G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Pacic Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a

multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219247.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R.

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795842).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hamilton, M. B. (2003). Online survey response rates and times: Background and guidance for

industry. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.supersurvey.com

Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS

and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41,

924936.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,

53, 575604.

Hitlan, R. T., Cliton, R. J., & DeSoto, M. C. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The

moderating eects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological health. North

American Journal of Psychology, 8, 217236.

Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zarate, M. A. (2006). Language

exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 5670.

Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., & Zarate, M. A. (2006). The nature and correlates of workplace

exclusion. Unpublished manuscript.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in

organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121140.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597

606.

Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman technique: Its theory and

application. Psychometrica, 15, 349363.

Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2004). Emotional abuse at work. In P. Spector, & S. Fox (Eds.),

Counterproductive workplace behavior: An integration of both actor and recipient perspectives

on causes and consequences (pp. 201236). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to

interpersonal rejection. In M. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145166). New York:

Oxford Press.

Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and

aggression: A cognitive appraisal perspective. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Dysfunctional

behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 142). Stanford, CT: JAI

Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping eectiveness in an adult

sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385405.

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal

dimensions in diversity climate. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82104.

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 499

Mor Barak, M. E., & Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from

the work community: A study of diversity job satisfaction, and well-being. Community,

Work, and Family, 5, 133157.

Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counter-

productive work behaviors: The mediating eects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,

59, 591622.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone &

J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 3767). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence

concerning specic forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management,

24, 391411.

OBrien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problems-, emotion-, and

relationship-focused coping: The role of the big ve personality factors. Journal of

Personality, 64, 775813.

OLeary-Kelly, A. M., Grin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression:

A research framework. Academy of Management, 21, 225253.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: A meta-

analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17, 3966.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Reiss, A. D. (1994, August). The validity of

honesty and violence scales of integrity tests in predicting violence at work. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

Parks, J. M., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). Changing work relationships in the 1990s, In D. M.

Rousseau & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 111136). Oxford,

UK: Wiley.

Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of experimental rejection. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 359364.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555572.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its denition, its manifestations,

and its consequences. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J., Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on

negotiation in organizations (pp. 327). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of aective

and behavioral responses to interpersonal stress. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von

Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying

(pp. 131154). New York: Psychology Press.

Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and

relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 10, 511.

Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson,

D. Ones, C. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of work psychology

(pp. 145164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salgado, J. F. (2002). The big ve personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117125.

Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace

aggression in the US workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J.

Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 4789). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with

subordinates perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689695.

500 HITLAN AND NOEL

Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for

fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books/Macmillan, Inc.

Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers,

leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542548.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report measures in OB research: A comment on the use of a

controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385392.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work

behavior. In P. E. Spector & S. Fox (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations

of actors and targets (pp. 151174). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S. & Domagalski, T. (2006a). Emotions, violence, and counterproductive

work behavior. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace

violence (pp. 2946). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006b). The

dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446460.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 724).

Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The

relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 840847.

Twenge, J. M. (2006). When does social rejection lead to aggression? The inuence of situations,

narcissism, emotion, and replenishing connections. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W.

von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying.

New York: Psychology Press.

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you cant join them,

beat them: The eects of social exclusion on antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81, 10581069.

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004).Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Walsh, B. M., & Hitlan, R. T. (2008, April). Convergent and discriminant validity of the

workplace exclusion scale. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), San Francisco, CA.

Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: the power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425452.

Original manuscript received August 2006

Revised manuscript received April 2009

EXCLUSION, PERSONALITY, AND CWB 501

APPENDIX: WORKPLACE EXCLUSION SCALE(WES-R) ITEMS

1. Your boss or supervisor complimenting you on a job well done.(SupervisorR)

2. Co-workers giving you the silent treatment. (Co-worker)3. Co-workers shutting you out of their conversations. (Co-worker)4. Co-workers giving you the impression that they enjoy your

company. (Co-workerR)5. Co-workers interacting with you only when they are required to do

so. (Co-worker)6. Feeling accepted by other employees at your organization. (Co-

workerR)7. Employees updating you about important work-related activities.

(Co-workerR)8. Supervisors not replying to your requests/questions within a

reasonable period of time. (Supervisor)9. Co-workers making you feel like you were not a part of the

organization. (Co-worker)10. Supervisors inviting you to participate in work-related activities

(SupervisorR)11. Co-workers speaking to one another in a language you do not

understand. (Language)12. Co-workers not speaking English on the job. (Language)13. Being unable to interact with others at work due to language

communication diculties. (Language)14. Supervisors keeping important work-related information from you

(e.g., deadlines) (Supervisor)15. Supervisors interacting with you at work. (SupervisorR)16. Felt as if you were being ostracized by co-workers. (Criterion)17. Felt as if you were being ostracized by supervisors. (Criterion)

502 HITLAN AND NOEL