Why Employee Psychopathy Leads to Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours : an Analysis of the Underlying Mechanisms

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Why employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an analysis of the underlying mechanisms

Miriam Schilbach , Anja Baethge & Thomas Rigotti

To cite this article: Miriam Schilbach , Anja Baethge & Thomas Rigotti (2020) Why employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an analysis of the underlying mechanisms, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29:5, 693-706, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650

View supplementary material

Published online: 20 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 249

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2020, VOL. 29, NO. 5, 693–706 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650

Why employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an analysis of the underlying mechanisms Miriam Schilbach a, Anja Baethgeb and Thomas Rigotti a,c aLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany; bDepartment of Psychology, Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; cDepartment of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The purpose of this study is to examine possible explanatory mechanisms linking employee secondary Received 16 September 2019 psychopathy to counterproductive workplace behaviour (CWB). Based on the emotion-centred model of Accepted 4 March 2020 voluntary work behaviour we argue that secondary psychopathy is characterized by unfavourable KEYWORDS ff cognitive appraisal tendencies, which in turn positively relate to negative a ectivity. We further assume corporate psychopathy; that this cognitive-affective process enhances CWB. We also include primary psychopathy into our appraisal; negative affect; research model to test if the presumed mechanism applies to both psychopathy dimensions. We Counterproductive Work collected daily-survey data from 470 employees (1670 days) and analysed these data using multilevel Behaviour (CWB); serial structured equation modelling. We found strong support for the hypothesized serial mediation model, mediation indicating that secondary psychopathy triggers dysfunctional cognitive-affective tendencies and consequently increases the likelihood of CWB. The proposed model did not hold up for primary psychopathy. Our study outlines the presence of distorted cognition-affective patterns in employee secondary psychopathy only. These patterns seem to play a key role in explaining the link between employee secondary psychopathy and deviant workplace behaviour. Based on this procedural knowledge relevant implications for theory and practice are provided.

Introduction commonly operationalized psychopathy as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Baloch et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2017). A Depending on the utilized diagnostic criteria, prevalence recently conducted study however highlighted the pivotal rates for corporate psychopathy range from roughly 1% up role of disinhibition, a hallmark feature of secondary psycho- to 9.5% (Coid et al., 2012;Hare,2003). On a subclinical level, pathy in positively predicting CWB (Neo et al., 2018). Fittingly, thenumbersareassumedtobemuchhigher(cf.,Forster& Blickle and Schütte (2017) as well as Schütte et al. (2018) show Lund, 2018). Thus, individuals exhibiting psychopathic ten- that secondary psychopathy positively relates to CWB while dencies represent a substantial part of our workforce, striv- primary psychopathy only relates to CWB if education or poli- ing for power and control, potentially willing to engage in tical skills were low. Consequently, the present study attempts unethical behaviour to attain their goals (Jonason & Ferrell, to derive an explanatory mechanism linking secondary psycho- 2016; Semenyna & Honey, 2015). Empirical research high- pathy, the seemingly more predictive psychopathy dimension lights the detrimental effects psychopathic tendencies may for deviant workplace behaviour, to CWB. We will further ana- have via extreme work behaviours, such as manipulation, lyse if the presumed process explaining the link between sec- intimidation or coercion causing conflicts, impaired well- ondary psychopathy and CWB also applies to primary being among co-workers, and decreased organizational pro- psychopathy. By doing so we intent to test whether the ductivity (Blickle & Schütte, 2017;Boddyetal.,2015;Walker hypothesized relationships are indeed specific to secondary &Jackson,2017). The financial damages in the United States psychopathy. associated with such behaviours are estimated at several Based on the emotion-centred model of voluntary work hundred billion dollars every year (McGee & Fillon, 1995; behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002) we argue that cognitive Murphy, 1993) not taking into account the vast negative appraisal of the workday and the resulting emotions represent impact on psychological well-being of individuals who have an explanatory process as to why secondary psychopathy posi- fallen victim to psychopathic schemes. Thus, the present tively relates to CWB. Presumably, due to high levels of disin- study aims to better comprehend underlying mechanisms hibition and reflection impulsivity we hypothesize that causing employees with psychopathic features to engage in secondary psychopathy contributes to viewing the workday counterproductive work behaviours (CWB). as less challenging and simultaneously more hindering as well Despite the widely acknowledged two-dimensionality of as threatening. We further argue that this pattern of cognitive psychopathy (i.e., primary and secondary psychopathy; appraisal relates to negative emotions, which in turn enhance Cleckley, 1976; Falkenbach et al., 2008; Levenson et al., 1995), CWB (Dalal et al., 2009; Spector & Fox, 2002). earlier research on the link between psychopathy and CWB

The present study contributes to the growing body of 2010). Furthermore they often appear to be charming persua- research suggesting secondary psychopathy to be of high rele- sive individuals with high intelligence and abilities on first vance in predicting CWB (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Neo et al., impression (Lilienfeld et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 2009). 2018; Schütte et al., 2018). Taking appraisal and emotional Secondary psychopathy on the other hand, develops from processes into account, our study provides an explanatory environmental causes and thus represents an acquired affec- mechanism as to why secondary psychopathy traits may trans- tive disturbance (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008; Skeem et al., late into deviant workplace behaviour. Understanding mechan- 2007). It is associated with poor behavioural control often isms behind the behavioural manifestation of psychopathic linked to high levels of impulsivity, a lacking ability to set traits represents a first step towards preventing the negative long-term, realistic goals, and a proneness to boredom impact secondary psychopathy potentially disperses within the (Hare, 2003; Levenson et al., 1995). Unlike the low levels of work environment. Additionally, by including primary psycho- anxiety and inability to feel remorse in primary psychopathy pathy into our analyses we outline that the two psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976; Harpur et al., 1989), secondary psychopathy is dimensions may be characterized by diverging cognitive-affec- associated with high levels of neuroticism and a propensity tive processes within the work context which may partly for feelings of guilt (Benning et al., 2003; Gudjonsson & explain the differential results reported in earlier studies (see Roberts, 1983). Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Schütte et al., 2018). Further, this In their triarchic model of psychopathy, Patrick et al. (2009) research contributes to the emotion-centred model of volun- state that both primary and secondary psychopathy are com- tary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002) as we (a) apply it to a posed of a combination of three different phenotypic features: specific personality trait and test if the presumed mechanisms disinhibition, boldness, and meanness (see also differential- hold up and (b) integrate the cognitive appraisal forms of configuration-model; Lilienfeld et al., 2015). The authors view challenge, hindrance and threat which to our knowledge has these constructs to be pivotal to understand psychopathy in its not been done previously. various manifestations, namely primary and secondary, criminal On the upcoming pages, we introduce our key constructs, and noncriminal. The feature disinhibition refers to a propen- beginning with psychopathy and CWB. Following this, we sity towards impulse control problems, such as deficient beha- implement our presumed mediator variables and outline the vioural restraint. Boldness describes the capacity to remain hypothesized process linking secondary psychopathy with calm and focused in high-pressure situations, the ability to deviant workplace behaviour. recover quickly from stressful events (resilience) as well as high levels of social efficacy. Meanness refers to a constellation of various attributes including deficient empathy, the tendency Corporate primary and secondary psychopathy to exploit others, or empowerment through cruelty (Patrick et Psychopathy is a personality construct constituted of a combi- al., 2009). Whereas primary psychopaths score high on bold- nation of various affective, interpersonal, and behavioural def- ness and meanness, secondary psychopaths tend to show high icits, including impulsivity, manipulativeness, pathological levels of disinhibition and meanness. Boldness does not seem lying, lack of empathy, and high levels of emotional detach- to feature in secondary psychopathy while disinhibition does ment (Hare, 1996; Patrick et al., 1993; Walker & Jackson, 2017). not seem to hallmark primary psychopathy (Drislane, Patrick, These features are present on a continuum ranging from very Sourander et al., 2014). Among other personality traits, such as low to very high and thus may reflect various levels of psycho- narcissism or machiavelism, previous studies report a positive pathic tendencies (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Marcus et al., 2012). link between psychopathy and CWB (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Corporate psychopathy refers to individuals within an organi- O’Boyle et al., 2012; Schütte et al., 2018). Following, we intro- zational setting who exhibit psychopathic traits and may cause duce the concept of CWB and outline why psychopathy and harm in ways other than overt criminal conduct (Babiak & Hare, especially secondary psychopathy may predict deviant work 2006; Boddy, 2014; Neo et al., 2018). Through social learning behaviour. (Bandura, 1979) the exhibited toxic behaviours may be carried out by others and potentially multiply within an organization, Linking corporate psychopathy to CWB causing even greater damage to the organizational climate as well as the well-being and satisfaction of the employees CWB is defined as voluntary behaviour that significantly vio- (Boddy, 2014; Mathieu et al., 2014). lates organizational norms leading to a decrease in the well- The dual process model (Fowles & Dindo, 2009; Levenson being of the organization, its members, or both (Robinson & et al., 1995) distinguishes between two forms of psychopathy: Bennett, 1995). CWB consists of two factors: There are CWB primary and secondary psychopathy. These dimensions exist harming individuals within the organization (CWBI) and CWB in criminal as well as non-criminal populations (Drislane, harmful directly to the organization (CWBO; Fox et al., 2001; Patrick, Sourander et al., 2014; Miller & Lynam, 2012)anddiffer Robinson & Bennett, 1995). An example for CWBI is the exclu- in the presence of various characteristics. There is widespread sion of a colleague from group activities. An individual enga- agreement that primary psychopathy is an inherited affective ging in CWBO on the other hand might talk disrespectfully deficit leading to callous and manipulative behaviours (Del about the company or reduce his work pace. The negative Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008; Karpman, 1941; Skeem et al., 2007). psychological impact of working in a CWB-enhanced climate Individuals with increased levels of primary psychopathy tend or being the target of CWBI can be substantial and often to experience shallow affect, little or no remorse, guilt, or becomes apparent in the form of depressive (Kivimäki et al., empathy, and a grandiose sense of self-worth (Miller et al., 2003) or psychosomatic symptoms (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 695

2002), job dissatisfaction, and turnover intentions (Boddy & psychopathy which may lower the threshold even further. Taplin, 2016; Lim et al., 2008). Hence while both dimensions of psychopathy seem to have a The emotion-centred model of voluntary work behaviour tendency to engage in CWB, primary psychopathy features provides a procedural framework aiming to clarify the antece- protective factors which allow individuals to engage in a dents and determining factors of organizational citizenship broader range of non-deviant behaviours. Contrary, secondary behaviour and CWB (Spector & Fox, 2002). Besides other com- psychopathy characteristics seem to strengthen the tendency ponents which will be discussed later on, Spector and Fox to engage in CWB. (2002) acknowledge the importance of personality characteris- Previous research already reported a positive link between tics as precursors to behavioural tendencies and propose a secondary psychopathy and CWBI (Schütte et al., 2018) as well direct effect of personality on CWB. Concerning general corpo- as secondary psychopathy and CWBO (Blickle & Schütte, 2017). rate psychopathy, O’Boyle et al. (2012) conducted a meta-ana- The present study attempts to replicate these results. lysis and report a weak but positive link between psychopathy Respectively, we derive the following hypothesis: and CWB. However, and as in other employee related studies (Palmer et al., 2017; Scherer et al., 2013) authors did not H1: Secondary psychopathy is positively linked to (a) CWBI and account for the multi-dimensionality of the psychopathic per- (b) CWBO. sonality which may distort results (Blickle & Schütte, 2017). In fact, recently conducted studies indicate that individuals with secondary psychopathic tendencies may be particularly prone Mechanisms linking secondary psychopathy to engage in CWB. For example, Neo et al. (2018) assessed the with CWB link between the triarchic psychopathy features and CWB. Results show that only disinhibition, the hallmark feature of To further expand the knowledge as to why secondary psycho- secondary psychopathy positively predicts CWB. Other findings pathy seems to be pivotal in predicting CWB, we drew upon the are similar in that secondary psychopathy positively relates to afore mentioned emotion-centred model of voluntary work CWB while primary psychopathy only relates to CWB if educa- behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002). The model proposes that tion or political skills are low (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Schütte et personality influences cognitive appraisal which may result in al., 2018). To begin to comprehend why secondary psychopa- negative emotions, eliciting avoidance- and retaliation-type thy seems to be more pivotal in predicting CWB we started by actions, such as CWB. Based on the model we argue that two analysing what the two dimensions have in common and how procedural components explain behavioural tendencies in sec- they differ. ondary psychopathy: (a) secondary psychopathy is character- In general individuals with psychopathic characteristics ized by unfavourable cognitive appraisal patterns; and (b) the experience affective deficits and a lack of empathy as well as appraisal patterns lead to negative emotional states, which in insensitivity (Cleckley, 1976; Patrick et al., 1993). Hence, under- turn promote the use of CWB. Hence, according to our hypoth- standing how others feel if treated disrespectfully and further eses, behavioural tendencies in secondary psychopathy to to care about other individuals’ well-being is something corpo- engage in CWB originate in a catenation of appraisal patterns rate psychopaths struggle with. As a result, the overall inhibi- and negative affect. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed process tion threshold to engage in CWB should be lower in individuals model. with psychopathic tendencies. However, primary psychopathy is characterized by various features which may detain indivi- 1st Procedural component: appraisal patterns in duals from engaging in CWB. First, primary psychopathy is secondary psychopathy associated with the ability to set agendas, plan and follow long term goals (Lilienfeld et al., 2012b; Snowden & Gray, According to the transactional stress model, individuals per- 2011). As a result, individuals are more likely to engage in ceive situations as challenging, hindering or threatening CWB only if this action brings them closer to attaining their (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Searle & goals. Additionally, individuals with primary psychopathic ten- Auton, 2015; Webster et al., 2011). Whereas challenges produce dencies are persuasive, skilled at impression management and positive feelings and a sense of achievement, hindrances inter- can influence others without acting in a destructive or impul- fere with an individual’s ability to achieve valued goals and are sive manner (Titze et al., 2017). Thus, there may be means to commonly viewed as irritating (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). achieve goals other than engaging in CWB for individuals with Perceived threats refer to job demands or circumstances that primary psychopathic tendencies. In secondary psychopathy tend to be associated with personal harm or loss (Lazarus & on the other hand the ability to pursue goals and plan beha- Folkman, 1984). Threats impact felt levels of anxiety and may viour is limited (Snowden & Gray, 2011). Further, there is defi- negatively affect self-worth (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Tuckey cient anticipation of negative consequences of inappropriate et al., 2015). Hence, we operationalize cognitive appraisal via behaviour as well as rebelliousness (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). the perception of a workday as challenging, hindering, or Individuals with secondary psychopathic tendencies therefore threatening. Following, we outline the proposed relationships tend to evaluate which behaviour brings immediate benefit between secondary psychopathy and each of the cognitive and in their evaluation, do not account for potentially negative appraisal forms. future outcomes (Bjørnebekk & Gjesme, 2009; Snowden & Gray, A feeling of challenge occurs if employees get closer to 2011). Last, the already low inhibition threshold to engage in attaining a valued goal (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). In accordance, CWB is met by high levels of general disinhibition in secondary transactional stress theory states that an environmental 696 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.

Challenge Appraisal CWBI

Secondary Hindrance Negative Psychopathy Appraisal Affect CWBO

Threat Appraisal

Figure 1. Presumed Process Linking Secondary Psychopathy with CWB. Direct paths from secondary psychopathy to negative aﬀect, CWBI and CWBO as well as direct paths from challenge appraisal, hindrance appraisal and threat appraisal to CWBI and CWBO are omitted for clarity of presentation. Further primary psychopathy will be included in the statistical analyses to test if the proposed mechanisms applies to both dimensions.

condition is a source of benefit only if it confronts a person’s Next to disinhibition, neuroticism is another key feature of motivational and cognitive characteristics (Folkman & Lazarus, secondary psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976;Karpman,1941; Lilienfeld 1987; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, the environmental con- et al., 2012a). Previously conducted research highlights the effect dition (e.g., goals set by the organization) must fit an indivi- of neuroticism on appraisal tendencies, showing that individuals dual’s motives so that a perception of challenge and potential high in neuroticism commonly viewavailableresourcesasinade- benefits can occur. quate and consequently perceive situations as rather threatening Secondary psychopathy is characterized by a lacking ability to to the self (Gallagher, 1990; Schneider, 2004). Reflection impulsivity plan behaviour and to anticipate positive or negative conse- will further prevent individuals to carefully assess possible out- quences of one’s actions (Bjørnebekk & Gjesme, 2009;Snowden comes and (re)evaluate the actual threat posed in a work-related &Gray,2011). Thus, comprehension of how work-related actions situation. As a result, individuals scoring higher on secondary may be beneficial in the future for either the development of psychopathy, should be more likely to perceive threats within personal competences or the attainment of task specificgoals the work setting. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: should be limited. As a result, individuals with secondary psychopathic tendencies should experience less motivation for goal H2: Secondary psychopathy is positively related to the appraisal attainment and consequently reduced levels of challenge apprai- of a workday as (a) unchallenging, (b) hindering, and (c) sal in the work context. This assumption is supported by the threatening. results of Hall et al. (2004) where secondary psychopathy negatively related to achievement motivation. 2nd procedural component: emotional response to As outlined earlier, a hallmark characteristic of secondary appraisal and its impact on CWB psychopathy is the high level of disinhibition resulting in impulsive tendencies (Patrick et al., 2009). Researchers consider Cognitive interpretation of environmental events affects our impulsivity to be a multifactorial construct (Aron et al., 2004; emotional state (Lazarus, 1982; Schachter & Singer, 1962). Clark et al., 2006). One particular form of impulsivity is the Early research highlighted the natural fusion of cognition and reflection impulsivity which was introduced by Kagan (1966). emotion and showed how emotions are the immediate It refers to the tendency to gather and evaluate information response to situational perception (Folkman et al., 1979; before reaching a decision (Clark et al., 2006). Based on the Lazarus, 1991; Payne, 1999). The model of emotion-centred increased disinhibitory levels in secondary psychopathy we voluntary work behaviour also acknowledges this relation argue that reflection impulsivity is high, i.e., individuals do not between appraisal and emotions (Spector & Fox, 2002). reflect upon situations by gathering and evaluating informa- Situations that are perceived as challenging have the poten- tion carefully, but rather reach a decision impulsively. Thus, tial to promote personal gain and consequently tend to trigger disinhibition and impulsivity are not only reflected on a beha- positive emotions (Searle & Auton, 2015; Skinner & Brewer, vioural level, but may also be a key determinant of cognitive 2002). Regarding an absence of perceived challenges, there is processes in secondary psychopathy: only limited knowledge about the emotional responses. First, impulsive individuals struggle with delayed gratifica- However, evidence suggests that personal thriving is inhibited tion making immediate need satisfaction within or outside the in the absence of challenge perception (Prem et al., 2017). work setting a central goal (Bjørnebekk & Gjesme, 2009; Block Further, the perception of reduced personal thriving positively et al., 2002). Job requirements may hinder immediate need relates to negative emotions (Porath et al., 2012). Hence, since satisfaction and thus are perceived as obstacles to achieving a the absence of challenge appraisal prevents individuals from goal, i.e., hindrances (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Reflection impul- anticipating future gains as well as experiencing thriving, we sivity will further prevent individuals to take into account con- assume increased levels of negative emotions if challenge text and other relevant information, which would allow for appraisal is low. prompt or slightly delayed need satisfaction. Based on this Regarding hindrance appraisals, Daniels et al. (2004)usetheir argumentation we assume secondary psychopathy to posi- model of work events and unpleasant affect to argue that if goal tively relate to the appraisal of a workday as hindering. progress is perceived to be impeded and slower than desired, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 697 unpleasant affect occurs. This assumption is based on previous in the form of CWB (H4a,b; Dalal et al., 2009). Combining these findings where the velocity towards goal attainment predicted main effects, we hypothesize the following mechanisms to link positive and negative emotions (Lawrence et al., 2002). Other secondary psychopathy with CWBI and CWBO: researchers also concluded that job conditions, which interfered with an individual’s goals would induce negative emotions H5a: There is a positive indirect effect between (I) secondary (Carver & Scheier, 1990;Spector,1978). Per definition, hindrances psychopathy and CWBI and (II) secondary psychopathy and represent obstacles to achieving valued goals (Cavanaugh et al., CWBO, via the cognitive appraisal of the workday as unchallen- 2000) and are therefore assumed to increase the likelihood for ging and negative emotions. negative affectivity. Threat appraisal at work refers to circumstances that are H5b: There is a positive indirect effect between (I) secondary perceived to cause personal harm or loss (Lazarus & Folkman, psychopathy and CWBI and (II) secondary psychopathy and 1984; Tuckey et al., 2015). Facing personal harm and conse- CWBO, via the cognitive appraisal of the workday as hindering quently a threat to self-worth and self-efficacy is a highly aver- and negative emotions. sive situation. Multiple studies show that this aversive cognitive state of threat perception positively relates to negative emo- H5 c: There is a positive indirect effect between (I) secondary tions such as anger, anxiety or nervousness (Lazarus & Folkman, psychopathy and CWBI and (II) secondary psychopathy and 1984; Lepine et al., 2005; Tuckey et al., 2015). Hence, we argue CWBO, via the cognitive appraisal of the workday as threaten- that the presumed cognitive appraisal tendencies in secondary ing and negative emotions. psychopathy as described above enhance negative emotions. We do not assume these mechanisms to apply to primary H3: The appraisal of the workday as (a) unchallenging (b) hinder- psychopathy. As outlined earlier, boldness and related to that ing and (c) threatening positively relate to negative affect. the immunity to stress are key features of primary psychopathy (Lykken, 1995; Patrick et al., 2009). Further, primary psychopathy is neither characterized by the inability to pursue goals nor high levels of disinhibition and reflection impulsivity. As a 3rd procedural component: the impact of emotional result, we do not derive any hypotheses linking primary psy- responses on CWB chopathy to the appraisal forms and hence we do not assume Emotions further energize and motivate subsequent behaviour the presumed cognitive-affective mechanism to apply to pri- (Cartwritght & Cooper, 1997;Spector,1998). The emotion-centred mary psychopathy. Nevertheless, to empirically analyse if the model of voluntary work behaviour views CWB as a consequence mechanism would be similar in primary psychopathy, we will of negative emotions (Spector & Fox, 2002). In this context, several include primary psychopathy into our statistical model. studies have highlighted the predictive power of negative emotions regarding deviant workplace behaviour towards individuals and the organization (Fox et al., 2001; Samnani et al., 2014). Method Various explanations as to why this link exists have been sug- Procedure and sample gested. One possible view is that CWB represents a behavioural manifestation of negative emotions (Dalal et al., 2009). In this To recruit participants, we contacted German organizations. In context, emotions hold information about behavioural judge- return for participation, we offered to conduct part of a psycho- ment. Negative information is easily accessible during states of logical risk assessment, which in Germany is legally mandatory. negative emotionality and tends to result in negative behaviour- Employees within organizations were recruited via informative related judgement. Thus, negative emotions are linked to negative meetings, email, intranet, or video-messages. To be eligible for views of the work environment (co-workers, managers, company) participation, employees had to work at least 20 hours per week. and less favourable evaluations of others – CWB is a behavioural To assure data protection and to match the questionnaires, we manifestation of these judgements (Dalal et al., 2009). used pseudonymization. Participants were extensively informed about data processing procedures. Before conducting our study, H4: Negative affect positively relates to (a) CWBI and (b) CWBO. we received ethical approval from the ethics board of our research institute. Participants could register for the study via email. Once regis- tered, participants received an online link to the initial survey. Linking secondary psychopathy with CWB: a serial Complying with the European Data Protection Guidelines partici- mediation model pants had to explicitly give their consent that they want to take As outlined above we assume that a lacking ability to follow part in the study before access to the initial survey was granted. goals and plan behaviour as well as disinhibitory tendencies in Besides demographic variables, the initial questionnaire included secondary psychopathy promote unfavourable cognitive apprai- various trait-constructs (e.g., primary and secondary psychopathy). sal patterns (H2a-c). Based on the emotion-centred model of Following, participants were asked to choose one out of six weeks voluntary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002), we further state where they would complete a daily-diary study consisting of two that the dysfunctional appraisal tendencies in secondary psy- questionnaires per day, over five days in a workweek. Specifically, chopathy are a precursor of negative emotionality (H3a-c). participants answered the first daily questionnaire at the end of a Negative emotions potentially manifest on a behavioural level workday and the second daily questionnaire before going to sleep. 698 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.

To increase commitment, we offered participants to choose if they Unterrainer et al. (2016) who previously used the LSRP in a wanted to complete the survey online using the survey tool German speaking sample. The authors kindly provided us Unipark(QuestbackGmbH,2017)orinananaloguepaperpencil with their items. We translated these items back into English. version. A total of 36 participants preferred to answer at least one There was high congruence between the original and the back of the questionnaires in the analogue version. Regarding the translated English version. Minor differences were discussed analogue questionnaires, participants were asked to provide the with a native English speaker and adjustments to the German date as well as exact daytime of filling out the survey. version were made accordingly. We further looked at the inter- A total of 572 employees participated in the initial survey. relationships between the psychopathy dimensions and the Big Regarding the daily-diary study, 522 employees answered the 5 personality traits. Correlations were as expected and congru- questionnaire at the end of their regular working hours for ent with previously reported studies of the LSRP indicating 2,206 days. The second daily questionnaire was answered by external validity (e.g., Lynam et al., 1999; Ross et al., 2004). 512 employees for 2,046 days before going to sleep. Days A sample item of the primary psychopathy subscale was where participants filled out only one of the questionnaires “Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned and/or answered the questionnaires at the wrong time (e.g., about the losers”, a secondary psychopathy item was, “When I answering the second questionnaire the next morning) were get frustrated, I often ‘let off steam’ by blowing my top”. excluded, resulting in a final data set of 470 employees who Answers were provided on a 5-point scale (1 = I do not agree; answered both questionnaires at the right time on a total of 5=I agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the primary psychopathy 1,670 days. On average, employees answered the daily ques- subscale was .77, for secondary psychopathy alpha was .66. tionnaires on 3.6 days. Of the final sample, 66.1% were female, mean age was 41.1 years (SD = 11.61), and most of the partici- Cognitive appraisal pants were married or in a relationship (77.5%). Overall, parti- We assessed cognitive appraisal at the end of a workday, cipants were highly educated, with 53.9% holding a university following the works of Moise (2014) and Feldman et al. degree. Among all participants, 27.5% occupied leadership (2004). The appraisal of the workday as challenging (“To what positions. Participants worked in a wide range of industries, extent did you view your workday as a positive challenge?”), fi including nancial spheres, public services, health care, law hindering (“To what extent did today’s work hinder the attain- fi rms, engineering, or private service providers. On average, ment of personal goals?”), and threatening (“To what extent did participants worked 40.13 hours per week (SD = 7.85). you feel that today’s work had a negative impact on you?”) was evaluated. Additionally, we provided a definition for each of the appraisal forms: ”Challenges refer to situations/demands that Measures may be stressful, but at the same time may help you to achieve All variables were assessed in German. Table 1 shows descrip- valued goals or learn new things”; ”Hindrances refer to situa- tive information and correlation for the constructs included in tions/demands that represent obstacles to success and may our study. hinder you to work efficiently“; “Threats refer to situations/ demands where you had the feeling that they may negatively Primary and secondary psychopathy affect you or that represented a negative experience to you”.By fi Primary and secondary psychopathy were assessed in the initial providing de nitions we aimed to assure that participants survey, using the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale understood what each of the appraisal forms meant and (LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995). The LSRP is a widely accepted further, to outline the distinction between hindrance and and economical instrument for measuring psychopathy in non- threat. Participants provided their answers on a 5-point scale institutionalized populations (Akhtar et al., 2013; Falkenbach et (1 = not at all;5=very much). al., 2007). In accordance with the dual process model (Fowles & Dindo, 2009; Levenson et al., 1995) the LSRP assesses primary Negative affect (16 items) and secondary psychopathy (10 items). Since the Daily negative affect was assessed at the end of a workday LSRP was originally developed in English we contacted using negative affect items of the Positive and Negative

Table 1. Correlation, Means, Standard Deviations, and Intraclass Coeﬃcients.

1 23456789MB SDB MW SDW ICC(1) 1.Primary Psychopathy ------1.87 0.42 - - - 2.Secondary Psychopathy .21 ------2.06 0.48 - - - 3.Challenge Appraisal .09 .38 .20 .19 .20 .10 .23 - 2.67 0.81 2.67 1.02 .47 4.Hindrance Appraisal .05 .27 .28 .38 .25 .14 .07 - 1.94 0.78 1.94 1.00 .47 5.Threat Appraisal .03 .28 .41 .64 .30 .15 .16 - 1.53 0.72 1.54 0.88 .53 6.Negative Affect .02 .27 .36 .43 .67 .15 .15 - 1.24 0.34 1.24 0.42 .49 7.CWBI .19 .25 .32 .40 .50 .55 .22 - 1.30 0.37 1.30 0.47 .46 8.CWBO .17 .30 .35 .26 .33 .32 .56 - 1.77 0.59 1.80 0.74 .62 9.Neuroticism −.06 .38 .30 .23 .30 .41 .12 .13 2.94 0.87 - - - Means and standard deviations at the between-person level are displayed in columns 10 and 11; means and standard deviations at the within-person level are displayed in columns 12 and 13. The item assessing challenge appraisal was inverted. Correlation printed in bold numbers did not reach a significant level (p >.05). All other correlations reached significance at p <.05. Correlations below the diagonal are between-person correlations, correlations above the diagonal are within-person correlations. MB,SDB: Means and Standard Deviations on the between-person-level, MW,SDW: Means and Standard Deviations on the within-person-level, ICC (1) = variance between persons/(variance between persons + variance within persons). EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 699

Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). To keep the daily same time, neuroticism is a key feature of secondary psycho- questionnaire reasonably short, we used a validated short ver- pathy (Benning et al., 2003; Gudjonsson & Roberts, 1983). To sion of the PANAS (Thompson, 2007), consisting of five adjec- ensure that effects of secondary psychopathy on appraisal, tives measuring negative affect (scared, nervous, distressed, negative emotions as well as CWBI and CWBO are not merely ashamed, hostile). We based our translation on the German due to neurotic tendencies, we used the validated German version of PANAS (Krohne et al., 1996). Participants were short version of the Big Five Inventory (Rammstedt & John, asked about their momentary feelings and provided answers 2007) and included neuroticism as a control variable into our on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all;5=very much). research model. Neuroticism was assessed in the initial survey, using two items. An example item was “I see myself as someone ” CWB who gets nervous easily . Answers were provided on a 5-point Outcome variables CWBI and CWBO were measured before scale (1 = disagree strongly;5=agree strongly). participants went to sleep, using a 12-item scale, (Dalal et al., 2009) explicitly developed to measure within-person work Statistical analyses behaviours. To obtain a German version of the scale we used the translation back translation method (e.g., Brislin, 1970; Due to hierarchically structured data present in daily-diary Chapman et al., 1979). Each construct was measured using six studies (i.e., days nested within individuals), we tested our 2- fi items. Sample items are, “Today, I criticized my supervisor’s/a 1-1-1 models using a multilevel approach. Speci cally, follow- coworker‘s opinion or suggestion” (CWBI) and “Today, I spent ing the recommendation of Preacher et al. (2010), we used the time on tasks unrelated to work” (CWBO). Answers were pro- multilevel structural equation modelling (MSEM) framework. vided on a 5-point scale (1 = I do not agree;5=I agree). Our large sample size exceeds common recommendations for To examine construct validity, we performed a multilevel multilevel-designs (Preacher et al., 2010), providing enough confirmatory factor analysis (see Table 2). A five-factor model power even for the complex serial mediation model. To attain with negative affect, CWBI, and CWBO modelled at the between- unbiased results, we modelled our paths at the within-person as well as within-person level and primary and secondary psy- (level 1) and the between-person (level 2) levels, whenever – chopathy modelled at the between-person level only provided there was a 1 1 combination (i.e., two variables on level 1; the best fit, χ2 = 1515.10, df = 564, comparative fitindex Preacher et al., 2010). We centred our independent variable, (CFI) = .81, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .79, root mean square secondary psychopathy (level 2), at the grand-mean. The error of approximation (RMSEA) = .03. Since CWB measures remaining level 1 variables remained uncentered since they distinct behaviours which are unlikely to co-occur within a contain within-person as well as between-person variance given workday we did not expect high factor loadings for this components (Preacher et al., 2010). We tested our hypotheses construct (e.g., Wang et al., 2011). To account for this, we used using Mplus, Version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015). item parcelling for CWBI and CWBO, building two parcels per subscale (e.g., Plummer, 2000). Arguably our fit indexes do not Results reach the commonly used cut-off criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999). However, Marsh et al. (2004)arguethatthegood- Variance composition fi ness of t criteria are too restrictive. Further, other authors high- We examined intraclass correlations (ICCs (1)) to analyse var- fi fl light that t indexes do not re ect the plausibility of a model (e. iance composition at the within- and between-person levels. g., Byrne, 2001). Other aspects such as validity, adequacy and ICCs (1) ranged between .47 and .62 (see Table 1). This indicates interpretability should also be considered (Hu & Bentler, 1998). that between 38% and 53% of the total variance of our level 1 fi fi fi Thus, since our ve-factor model ts the data signi cantly better variables (i.e., challenge appraisal, hindrance appraisal, threat than alternative models, has a good RMSEA value and conforms appraisal, negative affect, CWBI, and CWBO) was within-person with the presumed factor structure based on theoretical consid- variance. Thus, the ICCs (1) outline the adequacy of multilevel fi erations, we would classify our model as acceptable misspeci ed, approaches for hypothesis testing. a term used by Marsh et al. (2004).

Hypotheses testing Control variable In accordance with hypotheses 1a and 1b, secondary psycho- Neuroticism is a powerful predictor of cognitive appraisal as pathy positively predicted CWBI and CWBO. This was also the well as negative emotionality (e.g., Gunthert et al., 1999). At the case for primary psychopathy (see Table 4). Further, Table 3

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. χ2 df CFI TLI AIC RMSEA SCF S-B χ2 df Model 1: Five factors 1,515.10 564 0.81 0.79 5,0580.44 0.03 1.08 Model 2: Three factors 3,525.65 958 0.64 0.61 8,2866.09 0.04 1.14 1,942.23 394 Model 3: One factor 5,436.24 982 0.37 0.33 8,5050.34 0.05 1.15 3,732.72 418 Model 1: negative affect, CWBI, and CWBO modelled at between- and within-person levels, primary and secondary psychopathy modelled at between-person level only. Model 2: same as Model 1 except CWBI/CWBO and primary/secondary psychopathy modelled on one factor each. Model 3: all constructs modelled on one factor at between-person level. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; AIC = Akaike information criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SCF = scaling correction factor; S-B χ2 = Satorra-Bentler χ2, referring to comparison with the five-factor model. 700 M. SCHILBACH ET AL. displays unstandardized path coefficients for the prediction of we found a positive link between primary psychopathy and cognitive appraisal, one of our mediator variables. As hypothe- CWBI as well as CWBO. Difference tests showed that estimators sized (H2a-c) and after controlling for neuroticism, secondary of primary and secondary psychopathy regarding CWBI (differ- psychopathy was associated with a tendency to perceive ence score = −.017, p = .780) and CWBO (difference score = −.155, reduced levels of challenge as well as increased levels of hin- p = .202) did not deviate significantly from one another. drance and threat within the work context. Primary psychopa- To examine serial indirect effects of secondary psychopathy thy was unrelated to any of the appraisal forms. to CWBI and CWBO via appraisal and negative affect (hypoth- Additionally, lacking challenge appraisal as well as the pre- eses 5a-c) we computed Monte Carlo confidence intervals (CIs). sence of hindrance and threat appraisal positively predicted For all serial mediation models, we included neuroticism as a negative affectivity (hypotheses 3a-c; see Table 4). Negative control variable on both mediators as well as both forms of affectivity in turn positively predicted CWBI and CWBO (hypoth- CWB and tested if the presumed mechanism would hold up for esis 4a and 4b; see Table 4). All main effects became significant primary psychopathy. Serial mediations from secondary psy- at within- as well as between-person level (except for hypoth- chopathy via appraisal and negative affect to CWBI were sig- eses 1a and 1b since they were only tested at between-person nificant for the appraisal of work as unchallenging (indirect level). Hence, our data supports hypotheses 1 to 4. Additionally, effect = 0.027, 95% CI = [0.013, 0.047]), as hindering (indirect

Table 3. Secondary Psychopathy Predicting Appraisal Tendencies. Challenge Appraisal (r) Hindrance Appraisal Threat Appraisal Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p Intercept 2.68 0.04 76.26 <.001 1.95 0.04 54.40 <.001 1.54 0.03 47.91 <.001 Primary Psychopathy 0.07 0.09 0.77 0.441 0.02 0.08 0.22 0.823 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.940 Secondary Psychopathy 0.43 0.08 5.15 <.001 0.30 0.08 3.72 <.001 0.25 0.08 3.25 0.001 Neuroticism 0.15 0.05 3.30 0.001 0.12 0.05 2.46 0.014 0.17 0.04 4.23 <.001 Residual Variance 0.40 0.04 11.01 <.001 0.42 0.02 10.73 <.001 0.36 0.04 8.69 <.001 Estimates of the tested model (2–1) are unstandardized and at between-person level. The item assessing challenge appraisal was inverted.

Table 4. Predicting Negative Affectivity and CWB. Negative Affect CWBI CWBO Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p Estimate SE z p PP/SP → NA/CWBI & CWBO Intercept 1.26 0.02 81.75 <.001 1.31 0.02 77.63 <.001 1.82 0.03 62.65 <.001 Primary Psychopathy 0.01 0.03 0.29 0.776 0.11 0.04 2.80 0.005 0.16 0.07 2.17 0.030 Secondary Psychopathy 0.09 0.04 2.43 0.015 0.13 0.04 3.76 <.001 0.33 0.07 4.273 <.001 Neuroticism 0.13 0.02 5.90 <.001 0.02 0.02 0.92 0.358 0.03 0.04 0.81 0.419 Residual Variances 0.08 0.02 4.95 <.001 0.09 0.01 7.45 <.001 0.43 0.05 9.13 <.001 CH → NA/CWBI & CWBO Intercept 0.96 0.09 10.58 <.001 0.93 0.09 10.70 <.001 1.04 0.15 7.09 <.001 Challenge Appraisal (between) 0.11 0.04 3.16 0.002 0.14 0.03 4.19 <.001 0.29 0.06 5.34 <.001 Neuroticism (between) 0.12 0.02 6.66 <.001 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.687 0.02 0.04 0.58 0.562 Residual Variances (between) 0.07 0.01 5.43 <.001 0.09 0.01 7.32 <.001 0.31 0.03 9.47 <.001 Challenge Appraisal (within) 0.08 0.02 5.36 <.001 0.05 0.02 2.91 0.004 0.14 0.02 6.62 <.001 Residual Variances (within) 0.09 0.01 10.06 <.001 0.12 0.01 12.47 <.001 0.21 0.01 16.37 <.001 HI → NA/CWBI & CWBO Intercept 0.94 0.06 15.18 <.001 0.96 0.06 15.66 <.001 1.43 0.11 13.50 <.001 Hindrance Appraisal (between) 0.16 0.04 4.58 <.001 0.18 0.03 5.27 <.001 0.20 0.05 3.74 <.001 Neuroticism (between) 0.11 0.02 6.58 <.001 0.01 0.02 0.41 0.680 0.05 0.03 1.63 0.104 Residual Variances (between) 0.07 0.01 5.31 <.001 0.08 0.01 7.45 <.001 0.33 0.03 10.17 <.001 Hindrance Appraisal (within) 0.10 0.01 7.49 <.001 0.06 0.02 3.85 <.001 0.04 0.02 2.17 0.030 Residual Variances (within) 0.09 0.01 9.76 <.001 0.12 0.01 12.49 <.001 0.22 0.01 15.94 <.001 TH → NA/CWBI & CWBO Intercept 0.82 0.06 14.33 <.001 0.93 0.06 16.09 <.001 1.38 0.09 15.76 <.001 Threat Appraisal (between) 0.28 0.04 7.02 <.001 0.25 0.04 6.17 <.001 0.29 0.06 5.07 <.001 Neuroticism (between) 0.08 0.02 4.75 <.001 −0.02 0.02 −0.82 0.413 0.03 0.03 0.82 0.41 Residual Variances (between) 0.05 0.01 5.21 <.001 0.08 0.01 8.11 <.001 0.31 0.03 10.22 <.001 Threat Appraisal (within) 0.15 0.02 7.15 <.001 0.08 0.02 4.00 <.001 0.12 0.02 5.00 <.001 Residual Variances (within) 0.08 0.01 9.80 <.001 0.12 0.01 12.48 <.001 0.21 0.01 15.80 <.001 NA → CWBI & CWBO Intercept - - - - 0.50 0.12 4.24 <.001 1.02 0.18 5.60 <.001 Negative Affect (between) - - - - 0.64 0.10 6.57 <.001 0.64 0.15 4.29 <.001 Neuroticism (between) ---- −0.05 0.02 −2.40 0.017 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.997 Residual Variances (between) - - - - 0.07 0.01 7.37 <.001 0.32 0.03 10.27 <.001 Negative Affect (within) - - - - 0.17 0.04 4.33 <.001 0.23 0.05 4.77 <.001 Residual Variances (within) - - - - 0.12 0.01 12.50 <.001 0.21 0.01 16.18 <.001 Estimates are unstandardized resulting from separate models. Main effects on CWBI and CWBO were tested in one model; main effects on negative affect were tested separately. The item assessing challenge appraisal was inverted. PP = primary psychopathy, SP = secondary psychopathy, NA = negative affect, CH = challenge appraisal, HI = hindrance appraisal, TH = threat appraisal. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 701 effect = 0.026, 95% CI = [0.012, 0.048]) and as threatening our results support the idea of a general tendency in primary and (indirect effect = 0.032, 95% CI = [0.010, 0.054]). Regarding secondary psychopathy to engage in deviant workplace beha- CWBO we also found significant serial mediation via unchal- viours. This may be traced back to the key role of meanness in lenged (indirect effect = 0.020, 95% CI = [0.013, 0.047]), hin- both psychopathy dimensions (Drislane, Patrick, Arsal et al., 2014). drance (indirect effect = 0.022, 95% CI = [0.008, 0.044]), and Infact,whenusingtheLSRP,Drislane,Patrick,Arsaletal.(2014)do threat appraisal (indirect effect = 0.025; 95% CI = [0.002, 0.059]). not report a positive relationship of primary psychopathy with For primary psychopathy, serial mediation to CWBI or CWBO boldness but only with meanness. This detracts a potentially did not become significant for unchallenged, hindrance and protective factor from the primary psychopathy dimension. The threat appraisal. This is due to the absent main effects of operationalization of the construct via the LSRP may thus pose a primary psychopathy on any of the appraisal forms. The pre- possible explanation for the relationships found between primary sumed serial mediation models explained between 39% and and secondary psychopathy and CWB. In any case, engaging in 40% of the variance in CWBI and 18% and 21% of the variance CWB may be due to different motives in primary and secondary in CWBO. psychopathy. While individuals with primary psychopathic ten- To test for the robustness of our results, we conducted dencies may engage in CWB strategically, secondary psychopathy further analyses separately for the primary and secondary psy- may positively relate to spontaneous and impulsive acts of CWBs chopathy dimensions, as well as without the control variable. (Wu & LeBreton, 2011). The pattern of results remained the same with and without the To our knowledge, our study is the first to provide an inclusion of the other psychopathy dimension, as well as con- explanatory mechanism as to why the relations between sec- trol variable. In any case, secondary psychopathy related to the ondary psychopathy and CWBs appear to be highly prevalent. unfavourable appraisal pattern. Results of the serial mediations Based on the definition of psychopathic personality (i.e., dis- also persisted. Primary psychopathy still did not systematically torted perception of the environment as well as negative affect relate to the appraisal forms. Detailed results are available as an in secondary psychopathy; Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 1996; Patrick et online supplementary. al., 1993; Walker & Jackson, 2017), we developed a procedural understanding of the link between the personality trait and behaviour. Our results indicate that secondary psychopathy Discussion enhances dysfunctional appraisal tendencies. In line with our The present study examined possible explanatory mechanisms hypotheses, individuals scoring higher on secondary psycho- linking secondary psychopathy with CWBI and CWBO. pathy appraised their workday as significantly less challenging Specifically, we hypothesized that secondary psychopathy is and simultaneously more hindering and threatening. This cog- associated with unfavourable cognitive appraisal tendencies nitive appraisal pattern was in turn associated with increased (i.e., reduced challenge and increased hindrance and threat negative affect throughout the workday. Results at the within- appraisal of the workday). Based on the emotion-centred person level (Table 4) show on days where individuals appraise model of voluntary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002)we their workday as less challenging, more hindering and threa- argued that these appraisal patterns positively relate to nega- tening, they report higher levels of negative affectivity. tive affectivity, which in turn may be a precursor for CWBI and Furthermore, days where employees experienced increased CWBO. We further tested if the presumed mechanism would levels of negative affect were associated with elevated usage also apply to primary psychopathy. Results strongly support the of CWBI and CWBO. Serial mediation analysis based on the hypothesized process for secondary but not for primary MSEM framework integrates the hypothesized main effects, psychopathy. highlighting an unfavourable cognitive-affective process, whereby individuals scoring higher on secondary psychopathy are more likely to engage in CWBI and CWBO. This did not apply Theoretical contributions to primary psychopathy. Primary psychopathy was unrelated to Empirical evidence outlines the potentially harmful effect of cor- any of the cognitive appraisal forms and hence, was not char- porate psychopathy onto the work environment in the form of acterized by unfavourable appraisal tendencies. Based on key CWB (Blickle & Schütte, 2017;Boddyetal.,2015, 2015; Walker & characteristics of primary psychopathy i.e., boldness, resilience Jackson, 2017). In this context, only a few studies distinguished and reduced stress vulnerability (Hall et al., 2004; Patrick et al., between primary and secondary psychopathy. If a distinction was 2009), one could assume that individuals exhibiting primary made, results indicate that primary psychopathy positively pre- psychopathic traits would tend to experience reduced levels dicts CWBs only when political skills and educational levels are low of threats within the work environment. Since this was not the (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Schütte et al., 2018). Secondary psycho- case, it leaves us with the question of how primary psychopathy pathy however positively relates to both forms of CWB regardless may affect work related perceptions and behaviours. Possibly, of other interpersonal characteristics (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; due to factors related to primary psychopathy such as a com- Schütte et al., 2018). Within our sample, we replicated this main monly high level of intelligence (Cleckley, 1976; Salekin et al., effect, showing that individuals possessing secondary psychopa- 2004), balanced levels of inhibition and thus lower reflection thy characteristics are more likely to engage in CWBI and CWBO. impulsivity (Neo et al., 2018) individuals exhibiting primary Additionally, and without controlling for other variables, we found psychopathy might be able to better analyse their environment a positive link between primary psychopathy and both forms of and extract available resources. If so, there is no general apprai- CWB. The strengths of the relationships between psychopathy sal tendency but rather an ability to evaluate each situation and CWB did not differ for the psychopathy dimensions. Hence, depending on situational characteristics. In any case, our results 702 M. SCHILBACH ET AL. highlight that the different dimensions of corporate psychopa- changing environments combined with new data regarding thy are characterized by differing cognitive-affective processes, one’s reaction may initiate reappraisal processes. If reappraisal providing an explanation as to why secondary psychopathy occurs, the original appraisal changes (E. Garland et al., 2009). may be a pivotal precursor of CWB. Various studies have shown positive reappraisal can be increased Besides contributing to procedural knowledge about harm- via training of specific techniques, such as mindfulness (E. L. ful behaviours in secondary psychopathy, our study adds to the Garland et al., 2015). If individuals exhibiting secondary psycho- emotion-centred model of voluntary work behaviour (Tett & pathy tendencies succeed in reappraising their workday as more Guterman, 2000). Regarding secondary psychopathy, we found challenging, levels of positive affect may increase which in turn that the presumed process persisted, strengthening the ratio- may decrease CWBs. Thus, we suggest the implementation of nale of the theoretical model for this specific personality trait. cognitive reappraisal trainings when it comes to minimizing the Further, we specified the general term of appraisal used by negative impact of secondary psychopathy within the work Spector and Fox (2002). Based on Lazarus and Folkman context. In this context we would like to note that cognitive (1984), we defined appraisal as the appraisal of a workday as reappraisal may be particularly challenging for individuals with unchallenging, hindering or threatening. Results showed that secondary psychopathic tendencies due to high levels of disin- all appraisal forms positively related to negative affect on the hibition and reflection impulsivity. Hence eff ectiveness of such within- as well as between-person level. These results highlight training programmes would have to be carefully evaluated. the importance of individuals’ work perception regarding daily In addition, organizations could undertake measures that and general personal well-being as well as work related facilitate challenge appraisal of the workday. For individuals to behaviour. perceive their workday as challenging, the availability of ade- quate resources to cope with daily job demands must be secured (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Hence, organizations could analyse Practical implications resource availability and adequacy. If job resources do not match In terms of practical implications, our study allows the deriva- job demands, organizations can implement resource-enhancing tion of suggestions for personnel selection, staff training, and schemes and/or reduce job demands. workplace organization. To begin with, our results highlight the potentially negative effects of secondary psychopathy. High Limitations and direction for future research levels of secondary psychopathy in employees therefore seem undesirable. However, with respect to personnel selection, con- Despite the study’s contributions, it is not without limitations. sideration of the position in question is not to be neglected. First, we assessed all variables with self-report measures. This Depending on the job, secondary psychopathy may have may raise concerns about common method bias. To minimize greater or smaller impacts on the work environment. For exam- potential distortion of the results, we tested all our within- ple, the work of a nurse requires a great amount of patience, person effects simultaneously at within- and between-person compassion, commitment, humility, and conscience (Mayeroff, levels. As Sonnentag et al. (2019) point out, this approach 1971; Roach, 1992). Secondary psychopathy is characterized by eliminates the possibility of interindividual differences (e.g., rather contraindicative features (i.e., impulsivity, lacking ability social desirability) influencing intraindividual findings. Further to commit, and reduced levels of empathy (Hare, 2003; and to reduce common method bias our dependent variable Levenson et al., 1995). Thus, individuals scoring high on sec- was measured before participants went to bed while the other ondary psychopathy do not seem suitable for a job in the variables were measured right at the end of a workday or as is nursing sector. In our opinion, the same applies to leadership the case for primary and secondary psychopathy as part of the positions. Leaders are in the position to influence their fol- initial survey. However, these differing assessment points do lowers’ behaviour (Ilies et al., 2007; Schyns & Schilling, 2013, not allow for a causal interpretation. The order of variables in 2013). Via social learning (Bandura, 1979) a leaders’ CWB may our serial mediation model is theory driven, but the design of be carried out by followers’ and potentially multiplies within an the study does not provide a conclusive proof for a certain organization. Further, studies suggest that experienced incivi- chain of mechanisms. Therefore, future research should aim lity may lead to perpetrated incivility which in turn negatively to further clarify chains of causality for example, by assessing affects work-related outcomes and employee well-being appraisals as well as negative affect at noon and CWB at the (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Gallus et al., 2014; Schyns & Schilling, end of a workday. Additionally, to minimize common method 2013). We therefore suggest using nonclinical measures, such bias future research should include other-person ratings in their as the Levenson Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al., 1995)or survey. For example, one could ask co-workers to answer ques- the Psychopathy Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews, tions regarding the level of conducted CWB by their colleagues. 1996) to determine levels of secondary psychopathy in jobs Second, our study design does not allow us to draw causal where this trait is expected to have particularly strong negative statements. We measured both mediators, cognitive appraisal effects on others. and negative affect, at the same point in time (i.e., at the end of The reported unfavourable pattern of cognitive appraisal in a workday). Hence, with respect to the proposed serial media- secondary psychopathy leads to another practical implication. tion, there can be no definite statement regarding its causality. Although personality traits are relatively stable (McCrae & Costa, On the other hand, we believe a temporal separation of cogni- 1994), cognitive appraisal is dynamic and mutable (E. Garland et tive appraisal and the resulting affect is not appropriate since al., 2009; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Novel information from cognitions and emotions closely relate to one another on a EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 703 time dimension (Lazarus, 1982; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). hindrance and threat appraisal) and hence translate the result- Third, we believe self-selection bias may be present in our ing positive affect into positive behaviours. sample and affect levels of primary and secondary psychopathy. Daily-diary studies require high levels of compliance as well Conclusion as commitment (Ohly et al., 2010). Since previous studies report a lack of planning behaviour and commitment especially in In summary, this study brought to light an explanatory secondary psychopathy (Levenson et al., 1995), one can assume mechanism as to why secondary psychopathy positively relates that individuals scoring high on secondary psychopathy would to CWB. Secondary psychopathy was characterized by dysfunc- refrain from taking part in such a study. Our relatively low tional cognitive-affective patterns within the work context, sample means of primary and secondary psychopathy support which in turn behaviourally translated into CWB. The gained this assumption. Since we were interested in analysing psycho- procedural understanding delivers a starting point for organi- pathy on a continuum and our analyses are based on correla- zations that aim to minimize the negative effects of employee tive interrelations, we do not consider this to be a major secondary psychopathy. Additionally, results highlight that cor- weakness. However, future studies could use more sensitive porate primary psychopathy was unrelated to unfavourable instruments where answers can be provided on a scale ranging appraisal tendencies. Our findings gave rise to a number of between 1 and 7. This would allow for greater variation with questions including, the role of trait-activation within the emo- respect to socially undesirable behaviours (e.g., CWB) in a tion-centred model of voluntary work behaviour, which we will socially adapted sample. Future research should further test if attempt to answer in future research. We further hope that our the proposed research model applies to individuals scoring in study initiates future research intended to identify organiza- the top 5% to 10% of employee secondary psychopathy. tional and personal features, which could help individuals with Additionally, future research should examine boundary con- tendencies in secondary psychopathy to behave in socially ditions facilitating positive cognitive (re)appraisal of the work- compatible ways. day. For instance, various job resources, such as control (Karasek, 1979), feedback (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), or Disclosure Statement health-oriented leadership style (Franke et al., 2014) may affect the way individuals with secondary psychopathy tendencies No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. perceive their workday. This could also be of particular interest regarding corporate primary psychopathy. We suggest a careful ORCID evaluation of demands and resources as well as analysing the perception of these job conditions when attempting to better Miriam Schilbach http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5035-0664 comprehend behavioural aspects of corporate primary psycho- Thomas Rigotti http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-0018 pathy. Kaiser et al. (2015) already followed a similar approach when analysing conditions under which the dark side of per- References sonality is likely to have counterproductive effects. On a theoretical level, the concept of trait activation (Tett & Guterman, Akhtar, R., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Greed is good? 2000) could be integrated within the emotion-centred model of Assessing the relationship between entrepreneurship and subclinical psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 420–425. voluntary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002). Trait activation https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.013 focuses on the interplay between individuals’ traits and situa- Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004). Inhibition and the right tional characteristics stating that trait-relevant situations pro- inferior frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 170–177. https:// voke the behavioural expression of that trait. Possibly, for doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.010 individuals with primary psychopathic tendencies, trait relevant Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. fi HarperCollins. situations trigger a speci c form of cognitive appraisal which in Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: turn may affect emotions and behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002). State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https:// Further, we suggest future research to analyse our proposed doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 model considering the other two dark triad traits narcissism Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking and machiavelism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Both positively stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22 – ’ (3), 273 285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 relate to CWB (O Boyle et al., 2012). Regarding narcissism it Baloch, M. A., Meng, F., Xu, Z., Cepeda-Carrion, I., Danish,, & Bari, M. W. would be important to consider it’s multidimensionality by (2017). Dark triad, perceptions of organizational politics and counter- distinguishing between grandiose and hypersensitive narcis- productive work behaviors: The moderating effect of political skills. sism (Russ et al., 2008). Similarly to primary and secondary Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017. psychopathy, this would allow a comparison of cognitive-affec- 01972 Bandura, A. (1979). Sozial-kognitive Lerntheorie [Social-cognitive learning tive processes at work. One could also transfer our model theory] (1st. Ed.). Konzepte der Humanwissenschaften. Klett-Cotta. towards positive psychology and positive work behaviours by Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of analysing the role of personality-influenced cognitive appraisal human behavior (pp. 71–81). Academic Press. patterns with respect to organizational citizenship behaviour or Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. work engagement (Smith et al., 1983). Possibly, features asso- (2003). Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory: ffi Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological ciated with higher levels of resources, such as self-e cacy Assessment, 15(3), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340 (Bandura, 1994) or resilience (Britt et al., 2016), are character- Bjørnebekk, G., & Gjesme, T. (2009). Future time orientation and tempera- ized by favourable appraisal patterns (i.e., more challenge, less ment: Exploration of their relationship to primary and secondary 704 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.

psychopathy. Psychological Reports, 105(1), 275–292. https://doi.org/10. Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., Sourander, A., Sillanmäki, L., Aggen, S. H., 2466/PR0.105.1.275-292 Elonheimo, H., Parkkola, K., Multimäki, P., & Kendler, K. S. (2014). Blickle, G., & Schütte, N. (2017). Trait psychopathy, task performance, and Distinct variants of extreme psychopathic individuals in society at counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization. large: Evidence from a population-based sample. Personality Disorders, Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 225–231. https://doi.org/10. 5(2), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000060 1016/j.paid.2017.01.006 Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration of sub- Block, J. A., Santa Ana, E., Rodriguez, M. L., & Colsman, M. L. (2002). Delay of clinical psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of gratification: Impulsive choices and problem behaviors in early and late aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 821–832. adolescence. Journal of Personality, 70(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.012 1111/1467-6494.05013 Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., Falki, M., & Manchak, S. (2007). Reliability and Boddy, C., Miles, D., Sanyal, C., & Hartog, M. (2015). Extreme managers, validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy. Assessment, 14(4), extreme workplaces: Capitalism, organizations and corporate psycho- 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107305612 paths. Organization, 22(4), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Feldman, P. J., Cohen, S., Hamrick, N., & Lepore, S. J. (2004). Psychological 1350508415572508 stress, appraisal, emotion and Cardiovascular response in a public speak- Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective ing task. Psychology & Health, 19(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/ well-being and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business 0887044042000193497 Ethics, 121(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0 Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on Boddy, C. R., & Taplin, R. (2016). The influence of corporate psychopaths on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169. job satisfaction and its determinants. International Journal of Manpower, https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410010304 37(6), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2015-0199 Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Cognitive processes as Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s mediators of stress and coping. In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Human stress and cognition (pp. 265–298). Wiley. Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998 Forster, N., & Lund, D. W. (2018). Identifying and dealing with functional Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of psychopathic behavior in higher education. Global Business and Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Organizational Excellence, 38(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.v38.1 135910457000100301 Fowles, D. C., & Dindo, L. (2009). Temperament and Psychopathy: A dual- Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). pathway model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 179– How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and 183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01632.x Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 378–404. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop. Fox,S.,Spector,P.E.,&Miles,D.(2001). Counterproductive Work Behavior 2015.107 (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some med- Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, iator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Behavior, 59(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803 Cartwritght, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Managing workplace stress. SAGE Franke, F., Felfe, J., & Pundt, A. (2014). The impact of health-oriented leader- Publications. ship on follower health development and test of a new instrument Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and measuring health-promoting leadership. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, negative affect: A control-process view. Personnel Review, 97(1), 19–35. 28(1–2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221402800108 Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Gallagher, D. J. (1990). Extraversion, neuroticism and appraisal of stressful An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. man- academic events. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(10), 1053– agers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10. 1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90133-C 1037/0021-9010.85.1.65 Gallus, J. A., Bunk, J. A., Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Magley, V. J. Chapman, David, W., & Carter (1979). Translation procedures for the (2014). An eye for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace cross cultural use of measurement instruments. Educational incivility experiences and perpetration. Journal of Occupational Health Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(3), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/ Psychology, 19(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035931 01623737001003071 Garland, E., Gaylord, S., & Park, J. (2009). The role of mindfulness in positive Clark, L., Robbins, T. W., Ersche, K. D., & Sahakian, B. J. (2006). Reflection reappraisal. Explore (New York, N.Y.), 5(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/ impulsivity in current and former substance users. Biological Psychiatry, j.explore.2008.10.001 60(5), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.11.007 Garland, E. L., Hanley, A., Farb, N. A., & Froeliger, B. E. (2015). State mind- Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed. ed.). Mosby. fulness during meditation predicts enhanced cognitive reappraisal. Coid, J., Freestone, M., & Ullrich, S. (2012). Subtypes of psychopathy in the Mindfulness, 6(2), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0250-6 British household population: Findings from the national household Gudjonsson, G. H., & Roberts, J. C. (1983). Guilt and self-concept in ‘second- survey of psychiatric morbidity. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric ary psychopaths’. Personality and Individual Differences, 4(1), 65–70. Epidemiology, 47(6), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0395-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(83)90053-3 Dalal, R., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within- Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic rela- (5), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087 tionships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Hall, J. R., Benning, S. D., & Patrick, C. J. (2004). Criterion-related validity of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj. the three-factor model of psychopathy: Personality, behavior, and adap- 2009.44636148 tive functioning. Assessment, 11(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. B. (2004). Linking work conditions to 1073191103261466 unpleasant affect: Cognition, categorization and goals. Journal of Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 343–363. https:// Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/ doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752628 0093854896023001004 Del Gaizo, A. L., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2008). Primary and secondary psycho- Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the hare psychopathy checklist-revised (2nd pathic-traits and their relationship to perception and experience of ed.). Multi-Health Systems. emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 206–212. https:// Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualiza- doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.019 tion of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., & Arsal, G. (2014). Clarifying the content cover- Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical age of differing psychopathy inventories through reference to the Psychology, 1(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6 Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 350– Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure model- 362. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035152 ing: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 705

Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup 989X.3.4.424 incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Psychology, 93(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95 structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Erlbaum. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110–132. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730108 and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Marcus, D. K., Fulton, J. J., & Edens, J. F. (2012). “The two-factor model of Psychology, 92(1), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269 psychopathic personality: Evidence from the psychopathic personality Jonason, P. K., & Ferrell, J. D. (2016). Looking under the hood: The psycho- inventory”: correction to Marcus, Fulton, and Edens (2011). Personality genic motivational foundations of the Dark Triad. Personality and Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(2), 195. https://doi.org/10. Individual Differences, 94, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016. 1037/a0027132 01.039 Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection–impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71(1), 17–24. for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022886 findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 and extreme leader behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of Review, 64(1), 55–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.2015.64.issue-1 leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well- Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: being and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 59,83– Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285. 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010 https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498 Mayeroff,M.(1971). On caring. Harper & Row. Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations distinct clinical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 173– Criminology and Psychopathology, 3, 112–137. 175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770693 Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas- McGee, M. K., & Fillon, M. (1995). Honesty is still the best policy. Information Järvinen, L. (2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular Week, 519, 156. disease and depression. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60 Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between exposure to (10), 779–783. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.10.779 bullying at work and psychological and psychosomatic health com- Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). plaints: The role of state negative affectivity and generalized self-effi- Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der “Positive and cacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 397–405. https://doi.org/ Negative Affect Schedule” (PANAS). Diagnostica, 42(2), 139–156. doi: 10.1111/sjop.2002.43.issue-5 10.1037/t49650-000 Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. Lawrence, J. W., Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Velocity toward goal (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psycho- attainment inimmediate experience as a determinant of affect. Journal pathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. of Applied Psychology, 32(4), 788–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1529–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy. 1816.2002.tb00242.x 2010.78.issue-5 Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the psychopathic cognition. American Psychologist, 37(9), 1019–1024. https://doi.org/10. personality inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. 1037/0003-066X.37.9.1019 Personality Disorders, 3(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024567 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford Univ. Press. Moise, G. (2014). Good stress or bad stress? Relationships between stress Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer. appraisals and strains in health care practitioners [ProQuest Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of Dissertations & Theses Global]. (UMI No. 1563382680). the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for Murphy, K. R. (1993). The cypress series in work and science. Honesty in the inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy workplace. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). 2005.18803921 Muthén & Muthén. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Asessing psycho- Neo, B., Sellbom, M., Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). Of boldness and pathy attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of badness: Insights into workplace malfeasance from a triarchic psycho- Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10. pathy model perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 187–205. 1037/0022-3514.68.1.151 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3108-8 Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary O’Boyle,E.H.,Forsyth,D.R.,Banks,G.C.,&McDaniel,M.A.(2012). A meta- validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488– Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 524. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3 a0025679 Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in F. (2012a). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2), 79–93. controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000009 and Treatment, 3(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026987 Palmer, J. C., Komarraju, M., Carter, M. Z., & Karau, S. J. (2017). Angel on one Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & shoulder: Can perceived organizational support moderate the relation- Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012b). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presi- ship between the Dark Triad traits and counterproductive work beha- dency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful vior? Personality and Individual Differences, 110,31–37. https://doi.org/ and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.018 Psychology, 103(3), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029392 Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy. psychopath: Startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Current Direction in Psychological Science, 24(4), 298–303. https://doi.org/ 102(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.102.1.82 10.1177/0963721415580297 Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualiza- Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). PPI-R: Psychopathic personality tion of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, inventory revised: Proffessional manual. Psychological Assessment and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. Resources, Incorporated. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492 706 M. SCHILBACH ET AL.

Paulhus,D.L.,&Williams,K.M.(2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Semenyna, S. W., & Honey, P. L. (2015). Dominance styles mediate sex machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), differences in Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 83,37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.046 Payne, R. (1999). Stress at work: A conceptual framework. In J. Firth-Cozens Skeem, J., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Louden, J. E. (2007). Two & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress in health professionals: Psychological and organi- subtypes of psychopathic violent offenders that parallel primary and sational causes and interventions (pp. 3–16). Wiley. secondary variants. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(2), 395–409. Plummer, B. A. (2000). To parcel or not to parcel: The effects of item parceling https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.395 in confirmatory factor analysis (Open Access Dissertations, paper 917). Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge University of Rhode Island. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss/917 appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: and Social Psychology, 83(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refine- 3514.83.3.678 ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275. https://doi.org/ Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship 10.1002/job.756 behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM (4), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653 framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15 Snowden, R. J., & Gray, N. S. (2011). Impulsivity and psychopathy: (3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141 Associations between the barrett impulsivity scale and the psychopathy Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge checklist revised. Psychiatry Research, 187(3), 414–417. https://doi.org/ stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.003 of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 108–123. Sonnentag, S., Eck, K., Fritz, C., & Kühnel, J. (2019). Morning reattachment to https://doi.org/10.1002/job.v38.1 work and work engagement during the day: A look at day-level media- Questback GmbH. (2017). EFS survey, version summer 2017. tors. Journal of Management, 014920631982982. Epub ahead of print. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319829823 less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi. literature. Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/ org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001 peps.1978.31.issue-4 Roach, M. S. (1992). The human act of caring: A blueprint for the health Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper professions. Canadian Hospitals Association. (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153–169). Oxford Univ. Press. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269–292. Journal, 38(2), 555–572. doi:10.2307/256693 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9 Ross, S. R., Lutz, C. J., & Bailley, S. E. (2004). Psychopathy and the five factor Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expres- model in a noninstitutionalized sample: A domain and facet fevel ana- sion, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activa- lysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(4), 213– tion. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10. 223. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000045337.48535.a5 1006/jrpe.2000.2292 Russ, E., Shedler, J., Bradley, R., & Westen, D. (2008). Refining the construct of Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally narcissistic personality disorder: Diagnostic criteria and subtypes. The reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(11), 1473–1481. https://doi.org/10. (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. https:// 1176/appi.ajp.2008.07030376 doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301 Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A.-M. R., & Zalot, A. A. (2004). Titze, J., Blickle, G., & Wihler, A. (2017). Fearless dominance and performance Psychopathy in youth and intelligence: An investigation of Cleckley’s in field sales: A predictive study. International Journal of Selection and hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), Assessment, 25(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.2017.25.issue-3 731–742. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_8 Tuckey, M. R., Searle, B. J., Boyd, C. M., Winefield, A. H., & Winefield, H. R. Samnani, A.-K., Salamon, S. D., & Singh, P. (2014). Negative affect and (2015). Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimensionality of counterproductive workplace behavior: The moderating role of moral work stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 131–147. disengagement and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038280 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1635-0 Unterrainer, H.-F., Ruttinger, J., Lewis, A. J., Anglim, J., Fink, A., & Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological Kapfhammer, H.-P. (2016). Vulnerable Dark Triad personality facets are determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379–399. associated with religious fundamentalist tendencies. Psychopathology, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046234 49(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1159/000443901 Scherer, K. T., Baysinger, M., Zolynsky, D., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Predicting Walker, B. R., & Jackson, C. J. (2017). Moral emotions and corporate psycho- counterproductive work behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy: pathy: A review. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 797–810. https://doi. Beyond the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual org/10.1007/s10551-016-3038-5 Differences, 55(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.007 Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment Schneider, T. R. (2004). The role of neuroticism on psychological and and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and physiological stress responses. Journal of Experimental Social resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 312– Psychology, 40(6), 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.005 334. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263093 Schütte, N., Blickle, G., Frieder, R. E., Wihler, A., Schnitzler, F., Heupel, J., & Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of Zettler, I. (2018). The role of interpersonal influence in counterbalancing brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal psychopathic personality trait facets at work. Journal of Management, 44 of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10. (4), 1338–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315607967 1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A Webster,J.R.,Beehr,T.A.,&Love,K.(2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001 Behavior, 79(2), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001 Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and Wu, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counter- hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 28(2), 121–143. https:// productive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.931378 Psychology, 64(3), 593–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.2011.64.issue-3