Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big five, or one in addition?

被引:158
作者
Marcus, Bernd [1 ]
Lee, Kibeom
Ashton, Michael C.
机构
[1] Univ Western Ontario, Dept Psychol & Management, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada
[2] Univ Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
[3] Brock Univ, St Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00063.x
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Although the criterion-related validity of integrity tests is well established, there has not been enough research examining which personality constructs contribute to their criterion-related validity. Moreover, evidence of how well findings on integrity tests in North America generalize to non-English speaking countries is virtually absent. This research addressed these issues with data obtained from employees and students in Canada and Germany (total N = 853). Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (a) Honesty-Humility, as specified in the HEXACO model of personality, is relatively more important than the Big 5 dimensions of personality in accounting for the criterion-related validity of overt integrity tests, whereas (b) the Big 5 are relatively more important in explaining the validity of personality-based integrity tests. These predictions were tested using 2 criteria (counterproductive work behavior and counterproductive academic behavior) as well as 2 overt and 2 personality-based integrity tests. We found evidence of the expected differences between types of integrity tests largely regardless of culture of the sample, specific test, criterion, or population under research, pointing to some degree of generalizability of findings in integrity testing research. Implications include theoretical refinements in research on integrity testing and encouragement of practical applications beyond North America.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 34
页数:34
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests to faking and coaching [J].
Alliger, GM ;
Dwight, SA .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2000, 60 (01) :59-72
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1994, INT J SELECT ASSESS, DOI [10.1111/j.1468-2389.1994.tb00144.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1468-2389.1994.TB00144.X]
[3]  
[Anonymous], J BUS PSYCHOL
[4]  
[Anonymous], J BUSINESS PSYCHOL
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2006, INVENTAR BERUFSBEZOG
[6]   A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives [J].
Ashton, MC ;
Lee, K ;
Goldberg, LR .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 87 (05) :707-721
[7]   A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages [J].
Ashton, MC ;
Lee, K ;
Perugini, M ;
Szarota, P ;
de Vries, RE ;
Di Blas, L ;
Boies, K ;
De Raad, B .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 86 (02) :356-366
[8]  
Ashton MC, 1998, J ORGAN BEHAV, V19, P289, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<289::AID-JOB841>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-C
[10]  
ASHTON MC, IN PRESS PERSONALITY