Developing a Construct-Valid Measure of Workplace Aggression A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Oren Reed Shewach IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Paul R. Sackett, Adviser September 2019 © Oren R. Shewach 2019 i Acknowledgments I am thankful to have received such a great opportunity at the University of Minnesota. First and foremost, I’d like to think my advisor, Paul Sackett, for being such a wonderful mentor throughout graduate school. Paul, I learn something new every time I meet with you. Your guidance, wisdom, support, and workstyle have been so critical to my development as a researcher. I am truly grateful to have had the opportunity to learn from you in many different facets of work (research, coursework, applied projects), and I look forward to continued collaboration with you. I would also like to thank my committee: Nathan Kuncel, Aaron Schmidt, and Theresa Glomb. Nathan, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to do research with you throughout graduate school on College Board, which has proved so useful in developing analytic skills. Aaron, I really enjoyed your classes and getting to work with you, and, of course, you were an awesome volleyball teammate. Theresa, I really appreciate all the insightful feedback you have provided on my dissertation and your willingness to serve on the committee. I would also like to thank Heejun Yoon for using his contacts to obtain access to the Study 4 sample. I am grateful to have went through the program with such a good group of people. Martin Yu and Tetsu Yamada, you two made our graduate school years fun; I am so happy to have developed close friendships with you during it all. You both have great careers ahead. I am also grateful to each and every member of my cohort (Martin, Tetsu, Brenda Ellis, Win Matsuda, Mariah Moore). You were all so collaborative and warm; we truly cared about and helped one another along the way. To other good friends from the program (Allen Goebl, Melissa Sharpe, Sander Quint, Chris Huber, Jeff Dahlke, Laura ii Johnson, Jeff Jones), all of you have made weekends in Minneapolis really enjoyable. Sander, thanks for being such a good research assistant in years past and a great friend now. Melissa and Earl, thanks for being such good hosts and keeping your place so warm amidst the storm over welcome weekend. Geoff Lamb, thanks for being such a great friend, but more importantly, for making the best sushi in the Twin Cities. My family and friends back home have provided wonderful support during grad school as well. Thank you to friends, Peter Curry, Ned Messmore, Aaron Gates, Sam Jabara, Kyle Kay, Don Strite, and Ali Snyder for always being there and providing no shortage of entertainment when the last thing I wanted to think about was work. Drew Christopher, I’ll always be grateful to you for getting me so prepared for graduate school and being such a great support. To my cat and dog, Laila and Holly, you were the best research assistants. To my parents and sister, Dawn, Gordon, and Alona Shewach, you are the best family I could ever ask for. I can’t begin to quantify all you’ve done during this time in my life; please know how grateful I am. And finally, I will be always indebted to my wife, Katie Tallen-Shewach; without you this would not have been possible. Thank you for your tolerance of the long hours all these years, but most of all your unrelenting support and love. iii Abstract Conceptualizations of workplace aggression predominantly converge to suggest that intent to harm others is a necessary feature of aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Jex & Bayne, 2017; Neuman & Baron, 2005). However, inspection of workplace aggression scales suggests that many items do not contain face-validity with respect to inclusion of intent to harm. In a series of four studies, this dissertation examines the effect of inclusion of intent to harm on workplace aggression’s psychometric properties, with the ultimate goal to develop a construct-valid measure of aggression. In addition to the focus on intent to harm, this research evaluates the feature of response perspective (i.e., experienced versus enacted aggression) within aggression’s measurement, as well as aggression’s nomological network and factor structure. First, a general sample of working adults is surveyed to judge the degree to which existing workplace aggression scales contain the feature of intent to harm. It is found that existing workplace aggression scales primarily do not contain sufficient levels of intent to harm, indicating a disconnect between conceptual definition and operational measurement of aggression. Second, results from another working sample suggest that inclusion of intent to harm in aggression scales has substantial implications for aggression’s occurrence rate as well as its factor structure. Specifically, prior research that does not assess intent to harm overestimates the frequency of aggression. Third, it is found that workplace aggression’s external correlations are also overestimated when failing to include intent to harm in measures of aggression. It was also found that aggression without intent is highly correlated with a related construct, counterproductive iv work behavior (CWB), whereas aggression measured with intent is empirically distinguished from CWB. Using data from the second and third studies, a construct-valid workplace aggression scale is devised, coined the Intentional Workplace Aggression Scale (IWAS). The IWAS displayed stronger relationships with affective constructs such as trait anger and emotional stability than the situational variables of job satisfaction and organizational justice perceptions. Additionally, workplace aggression consistently displayed three lower-order facets: verbal aggression, physical aggression, and social undermining. The fourth study represented a cross-validation effort for IWAS findings and was undertaken in a sample of Korean firefighters. Though to a smaller magnitude than in the previous study, findings surrounding the influence of intent to harm on aggression’s occurrence rate and nomological network were replicated. This study also showed moderate support for the factor structure of the IWAS. Finally, findings across multiple studies indicate that among the same individuals, workplace aggression from the victim perspective and the aggressor perspective are moderately to strongly related. v Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii Overview ..............................................................................................................................1 Defining Workplace Aggression ................................................................................................. 4 Operational Measurement Concerns............................................................................................ 8 A Brief Review of Existing Workplace Aggression Scales ...................................................... 18 Facets of Workplace Aggression ............................................................................................... 23 Nomological Network of Workplace Aggression ..................................................................... 32 Studies 1 - 4 Overview .............................................................................................................. 44 Study 1 ...............................................................................................................................46 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 55 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 58 Study 2 ...............................................................................................................................62 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 65 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 74 Study 3 ...............................................................................................................................78 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 86 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 95 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 102 Study 4 .............................................................................................................................108 Method ....................................................................................................................................