SOCIAL BURDEN AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF HOSTILITY IN PREDICTING COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR Christopher Gallagher A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2019 Committee: Clare Barratt, Advisor Eric Dubow Scott Highhouse © 2018 Christopher M Gallagher All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Clare Barratt, Advisor Although studies support the benefits of increased social interconnectedness between employees in the workplace, the effects are not necessarily entirely positive. At times, the demands our coworkers make of us, either explicitly or implicitly, may culminate in dysfunction. The construct social burden represents these demands and is predictive of dysfunction when experienced by coworkers. In the present research, I extend this finding by highlighting individual differences—hostile attribution bias and negative reciprocity beliefs—that increase the likelihood that social burden leads to counterproductive behaviors. Each of these individual differences has an intensifying effect when taken separately and when taken jointly (i.e., a three- way interaction). To conclude, I discuss the implications of these findings and directions for refining and advancing research regarding social burden. iv Dedicated to the dedicated few. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 Social Burden ............................................................................................................ 1 Social Burden and Counterproductive Work Behavior ............................................. 3 Hypothesis 1................................................................................................... 5 Hypothesis 2................................................................................................... 6 Individual Difference Moderators .............................................................................. 6 Hostile attribution bias ................................................................................... 7 Hypothesis 3....................................................................................... 8 Negative reciprocity ....................................................................................... 8 Hypothesis 4....................................................................................... 9 Hypothesis 5....................................................................................... 10 METHOD .............................................................................................................................. 11 Participants ................................................................................................................. 11 Measures .................................................................................................................... 11 Social burden ................................................................................................. 12 CWB .............................................................................................................. 12 HAB ............................................................................................................... 12 NR .................................................................................................................. 13 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 14 Tests of Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 15 Hypothesis 1................................................................................................... 15 vi Hypothesis 2................................................................................................... 15 Hypothesis 3................................................................................................... 15 Hypothesis 4................................................................................................... 16 Hypothesis 5................................................................................................... 17 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 19 Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................. 21 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX A. TABLES ....................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX B. FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX C. STRESSOR-EMOTION MODELS OF CWB ............................................ 39 APPENDIX D. MEASURES................................................................................................ 40 APPENDIX E. IRB APPROVAL......................................................................................... 44 Running head: SOCIAL BURDEN, HAB, NR INTERACTION 1 INTRODUCTION Our colleagues and coworkers, superiors and subordinates, all demand from us a certain amount of supportive action. Whether this comes from the design of the position (e.g., a highly interdependent team) or outside of the normal process of work (e.g., simple favors), it is undeniable that this interconnectedness has some effect on all of the actors involved (i.e., the helper and the helped; Bowler & Brass, 2006). Moreover, the social workplace likely affects all levels of organizations: individuals, work groups, departments, and so on. In fact, Bandiera, Barankay, and Rasul (2009) found that increased social connectedness of managers positively affected productivity at the individual worker level all the way up to the firm level. This result is not surprising. We intuit that working more closely—even asking favors or disclosing secrets— brings us closer together. On average, increasing connectedness may be beneficial, but this good may not be unalloyed. Although these studies support the notion of the benefit of increased social contact, their design is sure to obscure the complexities of the social environment. In the present study, I highlight the complexity of social interaction at work by focusing on a construct potentially grounded in ambiguity: social burden. Social Burden Social connectedness is not only related to increased productivity, but group effectiveness as well (Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004). For example, increased social interaction aids in the development of social skills via task interdependence (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1981) which likely has positive effects for future interactions within groups at work. However, some scholars are starting to demonstrate that not all social interactions are beneficial. Social burden is defined as “the perceived presence of colleagues’ behaviors that elicit the focal employees’ social support” (Yang, Liu, Nauta, Caughlin, & Spector, 2016, p. 2). In other words, the experience of SOCIAL BURDEN, HAB, NR INTERACTION 2 social burden occurs when focal employees (burdenees) are exposed to situations where help is perceived to be needed. Further, it occurs regardless of the intentions of those creating the burdensome situation (burdeners), whether burdenees provide support or not, and whether the support provided was effective. An example of a situation in which social burden could occur is illustrative. A colleague erupts in a highly emotional display (e.g., crying) after giving a presentation, but this employee does not direct his or her display at anyone remaining in the room. Typical social norms suggest that someone help the struggling coworker (Stryker & Statham, 1985), but social burden may be experienced regardless of whether these norms were followed (i.e., help provided) or contravened (i.e., no help provided). Though social burden may have similarities with other organizational or social constructs, it is conceptually distinct. Unlike other negative social exchanges (e.g., workplace aggression, incivility), social burden represents behaviors bearing no explicit negativity directed at the focal employees. For example, although burdeners may be upset, they are not lashing out at burdenees. Further, whereas other negative social exchanges can only take a negative form, social burden can take negative, neutral, or positive forms (Basch & Fisher, 2000; Yang et al., 2016). As a result, the social burden construct may also appear to be a reframing of social support. While social burden differs from negative social exchange, it also differs from social support. As illustrated by the emotional outburst example above, helping employees in response to “social burden scenarios” isn’t required for social burden to have occurred. That is, social support refers to the provision of the supporting behaviors (e.g., comforting the crying coworker), whereas social burden refers to only the elicitation of some type of support (e.g., the coworker having the outburst of emotion)—whether implicit or explicit. This is important SOCIAL BURDEN, HAB, NR INTERACTION 3 because there are potentially differential antecedents and outcomes for these two related concepts. Much like the conceptual foundation of the construct, the measurement of social burden is of