Developing a Construct-Valid Measure of Workplace Aggression
2019-09
Loading...
View/Download File
Persistent link to this item
Statistics
View StatisticsJournal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Title
Developing a Construct-Valid Measure of Workplace Aggression
Authors
Published Date
2019-09
Publisher
Type
Thesis or Dissertation
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.
Description
University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. September 2019. Major: Psychology. Advisor: Paul Sackett. 1 computer file (PDF); viii, 215 pages.
Related to
Replaces
License
Collections
Series/Report Number
Funding information
Isbn identifier
Doi identifier
Previously Published Citation
Other identifiers
Suggested citation
Shewach, Oren. (2019). Developing a Construct-Valid Measure of Workplace Aggression. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/209199.
Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.