Developing a Construct-Valid Measure of Workplace Aggression

Abstract

Conceptualizations of workplace aggression predominantly converge to suggest that intent to harm others is a necessary feature of aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Jex & Bayne, 2017; Neuman & Baron, 2005). However, inspection of workplace aggression scales suggests that many items do not contain face-validity with respect to inclusion of intent to harm. In a series of four studies, this dissertation examines the effect of inclusion of intent to harm on workplace aggression’s psychometric properties, with the ultimate goal to develop a construct-valid measure of aggression. In addition to the focus on intent to harm, this research evaluates the feature of response perspective (i.e., experienced versus enacted aggression) within aggression’s measurement, as well as aggression’s nomological network and factor structure. First, a general sample of working adults is surveyed to judge the degree to which existing workplace aggression scales contain the feature of intent to harm. It is found that existing workplace aggression scales primarily do not contain sufficient levels of intent to harm, indicating a disconnect between conceptual definition and operational measurement of aggression. Second, results from another working sample suggest that inclusion of intent to harm in aggression scales has substantial implications for aggression’s occurrence rate as well as its factor structure. Specifically, prior research that does not assess intent to harm overestimates the frequency of aggression. Third, it is found that workplace aggression’s external correlations are also overestimated when failing to include intent to harm in measures of aggression. It was also found that aggression without intent is highly correlated with a related construct, counterproductive work behavior (CWB), whereas aggression measured with intent is empirically distinguished from CWB. Using data from the second and third studies, a construct-valid workplace aggression scale is devised, coined the Intentional Workplace Aggression Scale (IWAS). The IWAS displayed stronger relationships with affective constructs such as trait anger and emotional stability than the situational variables of job satisfaction and organizational justice perceptions. Additionally, workplace aggression consistently displayed three lower-order facets: verbal aggression, physical aggression, and social undermining. The fourth study represented a cross-validation effort for IWAS findings and was undertaken in a sample of Korean firefighters. Though to a smaller magnitude than in the previous study, findings surrounding the influence of intent to harm on aggression’s occurrence rate and nomological network were replicated. This study also showed moderate support for the factor structure of the IWAS. Finally, findings across multiple studies indicate that among the same individuals, workplace aggression from the victim perspective and the aggressor perspective are moderately to strongly related.