CWB questions with complete solutions 2023/2024 updated to pass

CWB Bennett & Robinson (2003) - correct answer -Definition: intentional, by org members, harming org or someone in it. -Most measured costs in dollars. -Started with specific behaviors and then aggregated (low base rates, reliability) -Multiple constructs should coexists (No!!!) -Antecedents: reactions (frustration, injustice); Big 5 (conscientiousness, agreeableness, E.S.) -F.R.: context factors outside org, reciprocal cycles, function effects (correcting aggressor's behavior, restoring justice, setting positive trends). Sackett & Devore (2001) - correct answer -Hierarchical model with overall on top. -A lot of research for integrity tests. -Conscientiousness strong predictor. -Need strong code of ethics, external constraints. -Steady positive correlations among CWBs. -Antecedents: Big 5, group norms, org culture, control systems, and specific triggering events linked to perceptions of injustice. Berry, Ones, & Sackett (2007) - correct answer -ID/OD highly correlated but separate; overall composite. -Con/OCB --> OD & Agree --> OD -ID/OD had strongest relationships with Big 5/OCB, then org justice, then demos. -Similar correlations with B&R (2000) and other scales. Bowling et al. (2011) - correct answer -Conscientiousness/Agreeableness moderated NA-CWB relationships. -Prudence moderated maladjustment-CWB relationship. -Used 3 different samples. -Most support for con interaction (facet-level agreeableness needed - humility) Marcus & Schuler (2004) - correct answer -Self-control incremental validity above all other variables. -Little support for personality beyond self-control. -Self-control only significant beta in MR model. -Low self-control & limited external constraints bad combo. -Overlap of self-control and CWB scale. Mount, Illes, & Johnson (2006) - correct answer -CWBs discretionary - linked to personality. -*Social exchange theory*: unfavorable treatment perceptions = anger, dissatisfaction. -*Reciprocation*: more dissatisfaction = reciprocate with CWBs. -Agreeableness stronger with CWB-Is; Con with CWB-Os. -Job sat partially mediates agreeableness and CWB-Os (self & boss) & CWB-Is (self) Sackett et al. (2006) - correct answer -CFA supports separating CWBs & OCBs. -CWBs have stronger relationships (con, agree, NA, justice). -Extraversion and openness stronger for OCBS -Some CWB antecedents irrelevant for OCBs (control systems). -Do other/self ratings differ on OCBs vs CWBs? Spector & Fox (2010) - correct answer -CWBs & OCBs can occur by same person close together. -Understimulation at work, OCBs not recognized, slow coworkers, org constraints, unjustified CWBs (guilt). -Mediated by negative emotions. -Need to look at episodic relationships over time (interviews?). Lee & Allen (2002) - correct answer -Job cognitions > affect. -Cognitions had incremental variance in CWBs beyond emotions (PA & NA) -Hostility had incremental variance above NA & PA -Need to consider discrete emotions.