PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS EXPLAINING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTEGRITY TESTS AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR: BIG FIVE, OR ONE IN ADDITION?

By Bernd Marcus, Kibeom Lee, M. Ashton. 2007

277 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Although the criterion-related validity of integrity tests is well established, there has not been enough research examining which personality constructs contribute to their criterion-related validity. Moreover, evidence of how well findings on integrity tests in North America generalize to non-English speaking countries is virtually absent. This research addressed these issues with data obtained from employees and students in Canada and Germany (total N= 853). Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (a) Honesty–Humility, as specified in the HEXACO model of personality, is relatively more important than the Big 5 dimensions of personality in accounting for the criterion-related validity of overt integrity tests, whereas (b) the Big 5 are relatively more important in explaining the validity of personality-based integrity tests. These predictions were tested using 2 criteria (counterproductive work behavior and counterproductive academic behavior) as well as 2 overt and 2 personality-based integrity tests. We found evidence of the expected differences between types of integrity tests largely regardless of culture of the sample, specific test, criterion, or population under research, pointing to some degree of generalizability of findings in integrity testing research. Implications include theoretical refinements in research on integrity testing and encouragement of practical applications beyond North America.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0d2f205d26f9017fe1c1662d34aa844f23a3d151

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Information Systems and Management

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Implicit self-concept and moral action (2009, background): “Marcus et al. (2007) demonstrated that Honesty–Humility accounted for more incremental variance in immoral behaviors in the workplace than integrity tests; further, some evidence suggests that such a morality factor might do better than the Big Five in predicting (im)moral behaviors in the…”
A REVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTEGRITY TEST RESEARCH (2007, methodology): “Lee, Ashton, and de Vries (2005) and Marcus, Lee, and Ashton (2007) suggest that integrity tests may reflect a sixth personality dimension they have entitled “Honesty-Humility (H-H)” that is not adequately captured by the Big Five.”
Predicting Counterproductive Work Behavior from Guilt Proneness (2012, background): “There are, of course, other known correlates of CWB, such as honesty–humility (Marcus et al. 2007; Zettler and Hilbig 2010), trait anger and anxiety (Spector and Fox 2005), organizational constraints (Fox et al. 2011; Spector and Fox 2005; Spector et al. 2010) and organizational politics (Zettler…”
Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self- and observer reports (2008, methodology): “The current findings, together with those of Lee, Ashton et al. (2005) and Marcus et al. (2007) suggest that the nature of overt integrity tests may not be fully understood from the perspective of the B5/FFM, which lacks an Honesty–Humility factor.”
Honesty–Humility and a Person–Situation Interaction at Work (2010, background): “In doing so, we investigated the following hypotheses: First, and least boldly, we expected to replicate the negative relationship between honesty–humility and CWB (Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005; Lee, Ashton, & Shin, 2005; Marcus et al., 2007).”
Short Horizons and Tempting Situations: Lack of Continuity to Our Future Selves Leads to Unethical Decision Making and Behavior (2012, background): “trait predicts ethical decision making (Ashton & Lee, 2008; Lee et al., 2008; Marcus et al., 2007).”
Personality, Punishment and Public Goods: Strategic Shifts towards Cooperation as a Matter of Dispositional Honesty–Humility (2012, result): “This echoes several recent findings (e.g. Ashton & Lee, 2008; Lee et al., 2005; Marcus et al., 2007), which cast doubts on whether the classical five‐ factor approach to personality (e.g. John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992) is sufficiently broad—although it has explained criteria in other…”
Agreement and Similarity in Self-Other Perceptions of Moral Character (2013, background): “…in predicting unethical business decisions, cheating, delinquency, and sexual harassment, as well as Psychopathy, Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and other variables related to integrity (Ashton & Lee, 2008b; Lee & Ashton, 2005; Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005; Lee et al., 2008; Marcus et al., 2007).”