You are on page 1of 48



Over the years job satisfaction has been of high interest in Industrial and

Organizational Psychology. Job satisfaction has been defined as the level of positive

affect toward one’s job or job situation. A recent approach to explaining the development

of job satisfaction is the dispositional approach (Jex, 2002). The dispositional approach is

based on internal dispositions and the idea is that employees, regardless of job or job

situation, have a natural tendency to either be satisfied or dissatisfied (Jex, 2002).

Negative affectivity has a negative relationship with job satisfaction, and is a

dispositional trait that states people with a high negative affectivity are more susceptible

to experience negative emotionality and stress (Levin & Stokes, 1989, Watson & Clark,

1984) On the other side of that continuum is optimism and positive affectivity, which can

be looked at as experiencing more positive emotionality and lower stress. These variables

have a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Jex & Spector, 1996).



The literature review is divided into three parts. The first section will focus on

how personality affects disposition and effects on job satisfaction. The next section will

discuss how personality is used to measure the predisposition for committing antisocial

behaviors. The third section will show how disposition for aggression could adversely

affect job satisfaction, and the personality factors that could have possible relationships

with job satisfaction and disposition for aggression.

Disposition , Job Satisfaction, and Personality

Since there is a relationship between dispositional traits and job satisfaction then

one would expect that personality would have an impact on an employee’s job

satisfaction. The reasoning for this is that the big five factors relate to attitudes and

behavior in the work setting (De Jong, Van Der Velde, & Jansen 2001). Since attitudes

and behavior are included in the accepted definition of job satisfaction, we could expect

the big five personality factors to have a relationship with job satisfaction. Previous

research has found that openness to experience has a positive relationship with job

satisfaction by way of job characteristics theory (De Jong, Van Der Velde, & Jansen

2001). Other research has shown several relationships of the big five personality factors

to job satisfaction and found that emotional instability had a negative relationship to job

satisfaction where extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to

experience all had positive relationships with job satisfaction. Emotional instability,

namely neuroticism, has been lamented to as the source of negative affectivity, which has

a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount 2002). When

looking at the relationship between job satisfaction and personality; research has found

that validities for organizational behavior criteria are in the range between .4 and .5

(Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert 2005). This substantiates that the relationship between

personality and job satisfaction is indeed worth taking a look into, and offers explanation

into dispositions as a determinant of job satisfaction.

Antisocial Behavior and Personality

The reason we would want to measure job satisfaction, and the correlates thereof,

would be an attempt to reduce something that is destructive in any organization.

Antisocial behavior or counterproductive behavior has a negative relationship with job

satisfaction. Past research has found that workplace deviance is a means to adjust to a

dissatisfying job, and is a way to restore control over the job. Past research has also found

that job satisfaction levels can predict workplace deviance (Ilies, Judge, & Scott 2006).

There are several examples of antisocial behavior such as gossip, theft, frequent

absenteeism, sabotage, or poor job performance. All of these behaviors have been shown

to have negative effects on organizations. Antisocial behavior has also been correlated

with personality as well, and past research findings have shown that it should be divided

into the categories of interpersonal deviance, deviance directed towards others,

organizational deviance, and deviance directed at the organization. However, for

purposes of this study we will use a composite of the two instead of differentiating

between them. The reason we will not differentiate is that individual and organizational

deviance correlate so strongly that creating an overall deviance composite would be

justified (Berry, Ones, & Sackett 2007).

Past research on personality correlates of anti-social behavior would tend support

the personality correlates of job satisfaction. Lee Kibeom (Kibeom et al 2005) made

reference that harmful behaviors at work are anti-social behaviors. Previous research has

stated that emotional instability has a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Kibeom

et al 2005). Since workplace deviance is an exhibition of anti-social behavior one might

expect that the same personality correlates would be found for antisocial behavior as in

job satisfaction; that being that emotional instability would be positively associated with

antisocial behavior. Lee Kibeom (Kibeom et al 2005) conducted a study to examine the

associations of the big five personality factors and anti-social behavior at work. Kibeom

(Kibeom et al 2005), as most research has done in the past, separated anti-social

behaviors against individuals and anti-social behaviors against organizations.

Kibeom et al (2005) found that antisocial behavior had negative relationships with

conscientiousness and agreeableness. However, they found that extraversion and

emotional instability had positive relationships with antisocial behavior (Kibeom et al

2005). Similar to past research findings emotional stability has positive relationship with

antisocial behavior; however the positive relationship with extraversion was surprising.

The present study intends to pursue investigation into that relationship further.

Kibeom (et al., 2005) went on with their investigation and conducted multiple

regression of big five factors on antisocial behavior with some intriguing results.

According to the results extraversion does seem to have some predictability for antisocial

behavior. This association as well will be investigated further throughout this study.

Now that we have seen which personality factors are associated with job

satisfaction, and that dissatisfaction can lead to workplace deviance and aggression; is

there a way to predict for these types of behaviors? Can aggressive predisposition be a

cause of job dissatisfaction, and if so what personality factors correlate with aggression?

Disposition for Aggression

Workplace aggression can be referred to as antisocial behavior, retaliation, or

deviance. Employees who are low in job satisfaction tend to put less effort in their

performance, or may act in a destructive manner towards the organization (Hershcovis et

al 2007). Also, aggressive behaviors in the workplace can include several different types

of antisocial behavior such as malicious gossip, sabotage, theft, poor work performance,

or even extreme acts of violence against coworkers.

James (2004) proposed that some people are predisposed to commit these acts.

James (2004) states that people use their power of reasoning, shaped by cultural norms

and values, to make decisions on how to respond to everyday situations that define

socially adaptive (prosocial) behavior. James states that prosocial people reason to make

their decisions; likewise antisocial people also use reasoning to justify their behavior as

well. James (2004) states that aggressive people seek out hostile intent from their

coworkers or organization, and that it may be possible the aggression shown is

predisposed to occur in lieu of a retaliatory nature. James has identified six justification

mechanisms (JMs) aggressive people use to justify their aggressive actions. The table

below shows us these justification mechanisms.

Table 1

Justification Mechanisms Used to Develop Conditional Reasoning Measurement System

for Aggression
1. Hostile Attribution Bias: Tendency to see malevolent intent in actions of others.

Even benign or friendly acts may be seen as having hidden, hostile agendas

designed intentionally to inflict harm. An especially virulent form of this bias

occurs when benign or positive acts are attributed to selfish concerns and negative

incentives. (e.g., a helpful suggestion by a supervisor is interpreted by an

aggressive subordinate as an intentional attempt to demean his or her work).

2. Derogation of target bias: An attempt to make the target more deserving of

aggression. For example, a number of negative characteristics may be ascribed to

the target (e.g., corrupt, dishonest, evil, immoral, underhanded, unethical,

untrustworthy). Or, the positive traits of the target may be ignored, undervalued,

or depreciated.
3. Retribution Bias: Tendency to confer logical priority to reparation or retaliation

over reconciliation. Reflected in implicit beliefs that aggression is warranted to

restore respect or exact restitution for a perceived wrong. Bias is also indicated by

whether a person would rather retaliate than forgive, be vindicated as opposed to

cooperate, and obtain revenge rather than maintain a relationship. This bias

underlies classic rationalizations for aggression based on wounded pride,

challenged self-esteem, and disrespect.

4. Victimization by powerful others bias: Tendency to frame self as a victim and to

see self as being exploited and taken advantage of by the powerful (e.g.,

government agencies). Sets the stage for arguing that aggression is acting out

against injustice, correcting an inequity, redressing wrongs, or striking out against

5. Potency Bias: Tendency to frame and reason using the contrast of strength versus

weakness. For example, people with a strong potency bias tend to frame others on

a continuum ranging from (a) strong, assertive, powerful, daring, fearless, or

brave to (b) weak, impotent, submissive, timid, sheepish, compliant, conforming,

or cowardly. This bias is used to justify aggression via arguments such as (a)

aggression (e.g., confrontation with teachers, fights with coworkers), which

results in being perceived as brave or as a leader by others; and (b)

weakness/submissiveness, which invited aggression because it shows that one is

willing to submit.
6. Social discounting bias: Tendency to call on socially unorthodox and frequently

antisocial behavior to interpret and analyze social events and relationships.

Disdainful of traditional ideas and conventional beliefs. Intensive, unempathetic,

unfettered by social customs. Directly cynical, critical, with few subliminal

channels for routing antisocial framing and analyses.

Table obtained from James (2005)

Based on these JMs James has constructed a conditional reasoning test designed

to measure propensity for aggression. James’s (2005) test is similar to existing inductive

reasoning tests, where participants are to choose a general conclusion that is most

reasonable. The idea is that to the participant the questions require intellectual analysis,

but the test is actually examining whether responses to the justification mechanisms are

rooted in prosocial ideologies and rationales (James 2004). Table 2 below gives us some

examples of these types of questions.

Table 2

Illustrative Conditional Reasoning Problems

1. American cars have gotten better in the last 15 years. American car makers started to build better cars

when they began to lose business to the Japanese. Many American buyers thought that foreign cars were

better made.

Which of the following is the most logical conclusion based on the above?

a. America was the world's largest producer of airplanes 15 years ago.

b. Swedish car makers lost business in America 15 years ago.

c. The Japanese knew more than Americans about building good cars 15 years ago.

d. American car makers built cars to wear out 15 years ago, so they could make a lot of money selling parts.

2. The old saying, "an eye for an eye," means that if someone hurts you, then you should hurt that person

back. If you are hit, then you should hit back. If someone burns your house, then you should burn that

person's house.

Which of the following is the biggest problem with the "eye for an eye" plan?

a. It tells people to "turn the other cheek."

b. It offers no way to settle a conflict in a friendly manner.

c. It can only be used at certain times of the year.

d. People have to wait until they are attacked before they can strike.

Table obtained from James (2005)

Two types of solutions exist to each problem, of which one of the solutions offers

a conclusion whose logical credibility is conditional on reasoning being shaped by the

justification mechanisms. To illustrate this, consider solution d. in problem 1in table 2.

The reasonability of this alternative to a participant has a positive relationship with the

strength of the participant’s implicit disposition to assume that coworkers in authoritative

positions purposefully inflict harm on and take advantage of subordinates. Alternative d

was constructed to detect the participants’ level of hostile attribution bias, and

“victimization by powerful others” biases in the reasoning of the participant. The other

type of solution offered in the problem is made to appeal to prosocial individuals. Once

again to illustrate consider problem 1 alternative C; this responses logical credibility is

conditional on reasoning based on prosocial ideologies and rationales, and also shows the

participants increased reasoning to attribute the behavior of powerful others to non

harmful intent (James 2005). James also stated that there could be alternative reasons for

choosing response D for problem 1 such as experiencing frustration with American

vehicles; however he said it most important to look at the reasoning someone uses across

a set of these problems (James 2005).

Based on these proposals James (2000) constructed a 25 item test that is given to

the participants as a reasoning task. Only 22 out of the 25 items are scored, and the

reliability of the task using a Kuder-Richardson formula coefficient to be .76. James then

validated this test in 11 validity studies, and found uncorrected validities ranged from .32,

sample size was 135, to .55 on a sample of 225 undergraduates with the criterion being

student conduct violations. The uncorrected mean validity from all the studies was .44.

Since disposition is a component of job satisfaction, aggressive disposition should

have a negative association and relationship with job satisfaction. The current study will

examine if predisposition for aggression has a relationship with low job satisfaction. The

study will also investigate aggressive disposition and personality traits based on the big

five personality factors, and whether predisposition for aggression will have relationships

with the levels of personality factors. The hypotheses for this experiment are that

1)Disposition for aggression will negatively correlate with job satisfaction, 2) will

positively correlate with emotional instability and extraversion, and that 3) propensity for

aggression will show negative relationships with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and





Participants consisted of 100 undergraduate students at local colleges located in

southeastern Kentucky. The participants received extra credit for their respective classes

for participating in this study.


The materials utilized in data collection were a conditional reasoning test for

aggression (James 2005). The conditional reasoning test for aggression (CRT-A) consists

of 25 conditional reasoning situations, and after reading the situation the participant is

offered four choices to draw possible conclusions from the situations. The options are

either illogical, non-aggressive, or aggressive based on one of the JMs. The CRT-A is a

copyrighted scale and will not be included in the Appendix. If a committee member

wishes to view this scale a copy will be provided for them. A scale measuring the

participants’ level of job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe 1951) (see appendix C), and a

measure of the big five personality factors see (Goldberg 1999) (Appendix E).


The participants were seated in a psychology lab room or class room, and were

told that we are going to measure their reasoning ability, how they feel, and attitude

towards work. They were told they have 25 minutes to complete the CRT-A, then 10

minutes to complete the job satisfaction measure, and 15 minutes to complete the big five

personality measure. An informed consent form can be found in appendix A. After

completing all the tasks all items were collected. The instructions can be found in

appendix F. After the participants completed all survey materials they were given

debriefing information explaining the study and researcher contact information if they

had any further questions. The debriefing information can be found in appendix B.

Statistical Analysis

The CRT-A was scored as shown in appendix E with each respondent given a +1

for every AG alternative they choose, a 0 for every logically incorrect alternative they

choose, and a -1 for every NA alternative they select. The scores were summed to

produce a composite score. A high score indicates that JMs are instrumental in guiding

and shaping a respondent’s reasoning (James 2004). The job satisfaction scale was scored

by summing the number for all responses to give a composite overall score for job

satisfaction. The personality measure was scored by summing all scores for the items

associated with the appropriate factor of the big five factors being measured by the items

giving us composite scores for each of the five factors. First, descriptive statistics were

investigated to determine the reliability of the CRT-A, job satisfaction measure, and the

big five personality measure. Next, correlations between conducted to examine the

relationships between the CRT-A, job satisfaction, and the five factors of the personality




The sample in this study consisted of 100 undergraduate students (Female=75;

Male=22; and 3 non reported) from southeastern colleges in Kentucky. The average age

was 24 (SD=6.87).


The first analysis conducted was a reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha of the CRT-

A. According to James (2004) a KR-20 was used, however KR-20 is used for

dichotomous data. After further review of the article it was noted that the answers for the

CRT-A were coded as a 1 for aggressive answers, and 0 for all others. Since this analysis

was not dichotomous Cronbach’s Alpha was used. In addition to calculating the

reliability using the three item response method (-1, 0, 1) reliability was also calculated

using the dichotomous method (1 aggressive responses, and 0 for all others). One final

way reliability was calculated was by scoring the non aggressive responses as 1 and all

other 0 giving us a way to measure non aggressive disposition.

The result of calculating reliability using the three responses method was low

(Cronbach’s Alpha=.309). Interestingly, the reliability of calculating using dichotomous

data, scoring 1 for aggressive responses and 0 for all others, resulted in the exact same

result (KR-20=.309). However, when reliability was calculated for non aggression,

scoring 1 for non aggressive responses and 0 for all others, the reliability seemed to raise

a bit (KR-20=.44). One possible reason for these low reliabilities could be due to range

restriction. For six of the items nine or less of participants chose aggressive responses to

the items. Table 3 shows items in which 9 or less chose aggressive answers.

Table 3:

Survey Items in which 9 or less responded aggressively when

scored using dichotomous responses for non aggression (1 for non

aggressive response & 0 for all others).

Frequency of Non- Frequency of

Item Number Aggressive or Aggressive

Illogical Responses Responses

Item 5 95 4
Item 7 94 6
Item 8 92 8
Item 10 94 6
Item 18 93 7
Item 22 91 9

As stated earlier, the reliability for the three response method (-1, 0, 1) was also

very low. Table 4 allows us to see how many participants chose aggressive responses to

the items in the CRT-A.

Table 4: Survey items in which 9 or less responded aggressively when using three

responses method (-1, 0, 1).

Frequency of
Frequency of Frequency of non
Item number Aggressive
illogical response aggressive response
Item 5 4 0 95

Item 7 6 2 92
Item 8 8 3 89
Item 10 6 0 94
Item 18 7 7 86
Item 22 9 8 83

Table 5 shows us how many people chose non aggressive answers versus illogical

and aggressive. The coding using was non aggressive dichotomous (1 for non aggressive

responses and 0 for all others).

Table 5:

Survey items in which 83 or more participants chose non

aggressive responses.
Frequency of
Frequency of non
Item number aggressive or
aggressive response
illogical response
Item 5 95 4
Item 7 92 8
Item 8 89 11
Item 10 94 6
Item 18 96 14
Item 22 93 17

Another explanation for the low reliability of the CRT-A in this study could be

attributed to the small sample size when compared to the samples in James et al. (2005).

This sample consisted of 100 participants whereas James (2005) sample size consisted of

1,603 participants. Due to the difference in sample size if could be that the sample in this

study simply did not contain enough aggressive people overcome range restriction.

The second measure that reliability was measured was the job satisfaction

measured created by Brayfield and Rothe (1951). This measure is a Likert scale giving

responses from strongly agree 1 to strong disagree 5. Again Cronbach’s Alpha was used

to determine reliability. The reliability of this measure of job satisfaction was extremely

high (Cronbach’s Alpha=.949).

The third measure of reliability conducted was on Goldberg’s (1999) measure of

the big five personality factors. Reliability was calculated for each factor of the big five

personality factors. Overall, all reliabilities of this measure were high. Table 6 displays

the reliability findings of each factor.

Table 6:

Reliabilities of Goldberg’s (1999) Big 5 Personality Measure.

Factor Cronbach’s Alpha
Extraversion/Introversion .86
Agreeableness .80
Conscientiousness .83
Stability .90
Openness To Experience .82


Correlations between aggression and all other variables were conducted to

examine any relationships that may exist. Job Satisfaction was also correlated with the

personality factors to investigate what relationships personality has with job satisfaction.

The first set of correlations conducted used the three response method of scoring

(-1, 0, 1). Table 7 shows us the results of that analysis.

Table 7:

Correlations between Aggression, Job Satisfaction,

and Big Five Personality Factors

extra agree consc stable open jobsat


.17 .210 .020 .114 .158 -.132
Sig. (1-
.048 .020 .423 .131 .063 .095
97 97 96 99 95 100

As shown in Table 7 Aggression positively correlated with extraversion and

agreeableness. These results partially supports that aggression would positively correlate

with extraversion; however does not support that aggression has a positive relationship

emotional instability. Another result to the contrary of the hypothesis is that

agreeableness also has a positive relationship with aggression.

The hypothesis that disposition for aggression has a negative relationship with job

satisfaction did show some direction towards that investigation, however was not a

significant finding. Although weak, one could argue that it was marginally supported, and

may become more significant with a larger sample size. Aggression also did not show a

relationship with conscientiousness, or openness to experience.

The second set of correlations conducted examined the relationship between job

satisfaction and the big five personality factors. Table 8 displays the results from that


Table 8:

Correlations between Job Satisfaction & The Big Five Personality Factors
extra agree consc stable open
jobsat Pearson
.120 .229 .317 .156 .080
Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .024 .002 .124 .439
N 97 97 96 99 95


To summarize the results:

Hypothesis 1: The hypothesis that the CRT-A will negatively correlate with job

satisfaction was marginally supported, however not significant.

Hypothesis 2: The hypothesis that the CRT-A will positively correlate with

emotional instability and extraversion was partially supported by

the finding that the CRT-A did have a significant positive

relationship with extraversion.

Hypothesis 3: The hypothesis that the CRT-A would have negative relationships

with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness were not

supported. One finding to the contrary was that agreeableness has a

positive relationship with the CRT-A.



The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between

disposition for aggression, job satisfaction, and the big five personality factors. The main

relationship investigated was whether disposition for aggression would be predictive of

job satisfaction. The following sections will discuss the findings in the results of the



This study hypothesized that the CRT-A would be predictive of level of job

satisfaction, have positive relationships with emotional instability and extraversion, and

have negative relationships with the rest of the big five factors. The only hypothesis

supported was that aggression does have a positive relationship with extraversion. An

example of how this finding may apply in organizations is that organizations that utilize

sales people may find this is true with their employees. It could be necessary for a sales

person to be aggressive and extraverted in order to quickly build rapport with customers.

An unexpected finding in the results was the positive relationship of disposition

for aggression and agreeableness. This finding is intriguing in that according to most

justification mechanisms stated in James (2004) offers a distorted reasoning on why

aggressive individuals view social contact the way they do. Ironically, aggression having

this positive relationship with agreeableness tends to bring up the idea that it is possible

the group sampled in this study could be passive aggressive, or simply are so agreeable

that they accept what ever criticisms they encounter. Another possible explanation of this

finding could be that there is a justification mechanism yet to be identified. The

justification mechanism in this instance may involve employees who outwardly agree

with their criticizers to get along with coworkers, but inwardly discount the information

they received.

Although the main hypothesis that disposition for aggression was not a significant

finding it was marginally supported p=.10. This shows that even though the data were

not significant they data is going in the right direction. This lack of a significant finding

could be due to some outliers in the sample taken. With outliers removed, and a larger

sample size one may find this finding to be more significant.


Of the several limitations in this study the major one that seemed to deny the

relationship between aggression and job satisfaction was the range restriction experienced

with scoring the CRT-A. The range restriction when scoring the items of the CRT-A

allowed for no significantly high aggressive scores. One remedy for this range restriction

would be to structure the item responses in a way where there is one non aggressive

response, and three aggressive responses varying in level of aggressiveness. This would

allow the researcher to come up with different levels of aggression in which to conduct

further analysis with.

A second limitation of this study is that the majority of the sample consisted of

female participants. A sample involving more males, or in an organization where

aggression tends to be high such police or military organizations the aggressive responses

may have been higher. A third limitation to this study was sample size. The sample in

this study consisted of 100 participants. James et al. (2004) utilized a much larger sample

than this study, thus increasing the chances of having more aggressive responses.

Implications for Future Research

Due to the small sample size utilized in this study the relationship between

disposition for aggression and job satisfaction was not significant; however the

correlation value was negative and possibly with a larger sample size allowing for more

aggressive responses increasing the variability may make this finding significant. Also,

conducting this research in an actual work setting may also lend to increase the variability

of these findings. It would also be imperative that an appropriate method of scoring the

CRT-A be determined, whether using all three responses or a dichotomous scoring


In summary, only one hypothesis was partially supported, and one unexpected

finding was reported. There are numerous reasons why the other hypothesis was not

supported. Range restriction of the CRT-A lead to the reliability being rather small, and

finally the lack of variability in the small sample could have caused the hypotheses not to

be supported.



Organizations have known for some years now that employees who are satisfied

with their jobs lead to high productivity and profits. One part of employee satisfaction is

the dispositional traits that each employee brings to work everyday. Disposition for

aggressive is a part of that disposition that may vary in everyone. Organizations need to

know ways to handle individuals who are predisposed for aggressive acts or behavior,

because studies have show that these types of acts and behaviors have devastating effects

on productivity and even profits.

This study contributed by making an effort to further understanding of the

relationship between disposition and job satisfaction. The connection between disposition

and job satisfaction is important due to the fact antisocial behavior and aggressive acts

undermine employee morale in organizations.

The CRT-A has only been around for a few years, however does demonstrate the

potential to predict aggressive behaviors in employees. The CRT-A was found in this

study to have a positive relationship with extraversion and agreeableness. The CRT-A is

still relatively new, and a has a relatively low reliability due to the fact the literature does

not implicitly identify which measure of reliability should be used, thus letting us know

to use caution when interpreting the results of this test.


Berry, C.M., Ones, S.D., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational

deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 410-424.

Brayfield, A.H., & Rothe, H.F. (1951) An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35, 307-311.

Rendel, D.J., Mandy, & E.G., Paul, G.W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth

need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 350-356.

Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A Broad-Bandwidth, Public Domain, Personality Inventory

Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five Factor Models. In I.

Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in

Europe, 7, 7-28.

Hershcovis, S.M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Durpre, K.E., & Inness, M. et al.

(2007) Predicting workplace aggression: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 228-238.

James, L.R., McIntyre, M.D., Glisson, C.A., Bowler, J.L., & Mitchell, T.R. (2004) The

conditional measurement system for aggression: An overview. Human

Performance, 17, 3, 271-295.

James, L.R., McIntyre, M.D., Glisson, C.A., Green, P.D., Patton, T.W., Lebreton, J.M.,

Frost, B.C., Russell, S.M., Sabylynski, C.J., Mitchell, T.R., & Williams, L.J.

(2005) A conditional reasoning measure for aggression. Organizational Research

Methods, 8, 1, 66-99.

Jex, S.M. (2002). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Jex, S.M., & Spector, P.E. (1996) The impact of negative affectivity on stressor-strain

relations: A replication and extension. Work and Stress, 10, 36-45.

Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002) Five factor model of personality and job

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3, 530-541.

Judge, T.A., Scott, B.A., & Illies, R. (2006) Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace

deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1, 126-


LeBreton, J.M., Robin, J., Barksdale, C. D., & James, L. R. (2007). Measurement issues

associated with conditional reasoning tests: Indirect measurement and test faking.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 1-16.

Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., & Kang, H.S. (2005) Personality correlates of workplace anti-

social behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 1, 81-98.

Levin, I., & Stokes, J.P. (1989) Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of

negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752-758.

Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005) Personality at work: Raising

awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18, 4, 389-404.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Appendix A

Informed Consent Form

Consent to Participate in a Research Study

Aggressive Disposition as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction and Personality Correlates


You are being invited to take part in a research study about Aggression and Job

Satisfaction. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 120 people to do so.


The person in charge of this study is Jerry Warren at Eastern Kentucky University. He is

being guided in this research by Dr. Jerry Palmer.


By doing this study, we hope to learn about the relationships between job satisfaction,

disposition for aggression, and personality traits.



The research procedures will be conducted at KCTCS colleges, or Eastern Kentucky

University classrooms. The study will take about 50 minutes to complete. The total

amount of time you will be asked to volunteer for this study is 1.


You will be asked to complete tasks that test your reasoning ability, tell us how you feel,

and how you feel about work. All the tasks should take no longer than 50 minutes to



No reasons exist that prevent any student in participating in this study.


To the best of our knowledge, the things you will be doing have no more risk of harm

than you would experience in everyday life.


You will not get any personal benefit from taking part in this study.


If you decide to take part in the study, it should be because you really want to volunteer.

You will not lose any benefits or rights you would normally have if you choose not to

volunteer. You can stop at any time during the study and still keep the benefits and rights

you had before volunteering.



If you do not want to be in the study, there are no other choices except to not take part in

the study.


There are no costs associated with taking part in this study.



You will receive extra credit for taking part in this study. If you should have to quit

before the study is finished, the payment you receive will be based on the amount of time

you were in the study.


This study is anonymous. That means that no one, not even members of the research

team, will know that the information you give came from you.

However, there are some circumstances in which we may have to show your information

to other people. For example, the law may require us to show your information to a court

Also, we may be required to show information that identifies you to people who need to

be sure we have done the research correctly; these would be people from such

organizations as Eastern Kentucky University.


If you decide to take part in the study, you still have the right to decide at any time that

you no longer want to participate. You will not be treated differently if you decide to

stop taking part in the study.

The individuals conducting the study may need end your participation in the study. They

may do this if you are not able to follow the directions they give you, if they find that

your being in the study is more risk than benefit to you, or if the agency funding the study

decides to stop the study early for a variety of scientific reasons.


If you believe you are hurt or if you get sick because of something that is done during the

study, you should call Jerry Warren at 606-219-3787 immediately. It is important for you

to understand that Eastern Kentucky University will not pay for the cost of any care or

treatment that might be necessary because you get hurt or sick while taking part in this

study. That cost will be your responsibility. Also, Eastern Kentucky University will not

pay for any wages you may lose if you are harmed by this study.

Usually, medical costs that result from research-related harm cannot be included as

regular medical costs. Eastern Kentucky University is not allowed to bill your insurance

company, Medicare, or Medicaid for these costs without first getting permission. You

should ask your insurer if you have any questions about your insurer’s willingness to pay

under these circumstances. Therefore, the costs related to your care and treatment

because of something that is done during the study will be your responsibility.


Before you decide whether to accept this invitation to take part in the study, please ask

any questions that might come to mind now. Later, if you have questions about the

study, you can contact the investigator, Jerry Warren at If you

have any questions about your rights as a research volunteer, contact the staff in the

Division of Sponsored Programs at Eastern Kentucky University at 859-622-3636. We

will give you a copy of this consent form to take with you.

You will be told if any new information is learned which may affect your condition or

influence your willingness to continue taking part in this study.

Signature of person agreeing to take part in the study


Printed name of person taking part in the study

Name of person providing information to subject

Appendix B

Debriefing Form

Explanation – Aggression and Job Satisfaction

This study was conducted to examine the relationships between disposition for

aggression, job satisfaction, and personality. The study will also examine the ability to

use disposition for aggression to predict job satisfaction and personality. The prediction

of the study is that people who are high in disposition for aggression will have low job

satisfaction, and have high levels of neuroticism and extraversion.

This study builds on previous work by examining the relationships between

workplace deviance and personality, and disposition for aggression and personality.

Thank you for participation in this study. Psychological research is only possible

with your participation, and cooperation. I hope you found this study interesting. If you

want to learn more about disposition for aggression, job satisfaction, or the big five

personality theory you may contact me or consult the references listed below. The results

will be analyzed by the end of the Spring 08 semester and if you are interested in learning

about the findings please contact me by email.

Jerry Warren

De Jong, R.D., P.G., & Van Der Velde, M.E. (2001). Openness to Experience and
Growth Needs Strength as Moderators between Job Characteristics and
Satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 4, 350-356.

James, L.R., McIntyre, M.D., Glisson, C.A., Bowler, J.L., & Mitchell, T.R. (2004). The
conditional measurement system for aggression: An overview. Human
Performance, 3, 271-295

Appendix C

Job Satisfaction Scale

Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement

describes you. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, not as you wish to

be in the future. Your responses will be kept confidential. Please read each

statement carefully and check the appropriate box.




Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

4 = Agree

3 = Undecided

2 = Disagree

1 = Strongly disagree
1. My job is usually interesting 5 4 3 2 1

enough to keep me from getting

2. Most days I am enthusiastic about 5 4 3 2 1

my work.
3. I feel my job is more interesting 5 4 3 2 1

than others I could get.

4. I find real enjoyment in my work. 5 4 3 2 1
5. I feel that I am happier in my work 5 4 3 2 1

than most other people.
6. I feel fairly well satisfied with my 5 4 3 2 1

present job.
7. I am satisfied with my job for the 5 4 3 2 1

time being.
8. I like my job better than the 5 4 3 2 1

average worker does.

9. My job is like a hobby to me. 5 4 3 2 1
10. It seems that my friends are more 5 4 3 2 1

interested in their jobs.

11. My job has a fair (impartial) 5 4 3 2 1

promotion policy.
12. I enjoy my work more than my 5 4 3 2 1

leisure time.

Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

4 = Agree

3 = Undecided

2 = Disagree

1 = Strongly disagree
13. Most of the time I have to force 5 4 3 2 1

myself to go to work.
14. I consider my job rather 5 4 3 2 1


15. I am disappointed that I took this 5 4 3 2 1

16. My job is pretty interesting. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Each day of work seems like it will 5 4 3 2 1

never end.
18. I am adequately paid for the job I 5 4 3 2 1

19. I am often bored with my job. 5 4 3 2 1
20. I definitely dislike my work. 5 4 3 2 1

Appendix D

Demographics Form

We’d like to learn about how you feel – so please don’t leave any questions blank.

Age _______________

Gender (circle): M F

How many credit hours are you taking this semester? _______________

What was your grade point average last semester? __________________

(if this is your first semester, put “TBD” in the blank.)

What is your overall grade point average? ____________________

(if this is your first semester, put “TBD” in the blank.)

Race (circle one): Caucasian-American African-American Asian-American


Academic Major ____________________

Status (circle one): Senior Junior Sophomore Freshman

Are you Currently Employed? ( ) Yes ( ) No

Appendix E

Big Five Personality Measure

On the following pages, there are phrases describing people's behaviors. Please use the

rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe

yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself

as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you

are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner,

your responses will be kept in absolute confidence. Please read each statement carefully,

and then fill in the bubble that corresponds to the number on the scale.

Neither Accurate
5 = Very Accurate

4 = Moderately Accurate

Moderately Inaccurate

Very Inaccurate
3 = Neither Accurate Nor


2 = Moderately Inaccurate
Nor Inaccurate

1 = Very Inaccurate

1 I am the life of the party. 5 4 3 2 1

2 I am interested in people. 5 4 3 2 1
3 I am always prepared. 5 4 3 2 1
4 I get stressed out easily. 5 4 3 2 1
5 I have a vivid imagination. 5 4 3 2 1

6 I don’t talk a lot. 5 4 3 2 1
7 I have a soft heart. 5 4 3 2 1
8 I pay attention to details. 5 4 3 2 1
9 I worry about things. 5 4 3 2 1
10 I use difficult words. 5 4 3 2 1
I feel comfortable around
11 5 4 3 2 1
12 I feel others’ emotions. 5 4 3 2 1
I leave my belongings laying
13 5 4 3 2 1
14 I get upset easily. 5 4 3 2 1
15 I am full of ideas. 5 4 3 2 1
I tend to keep in the
16 5 4 3 2 1
17 I insult people. 5 4 3 2 1
I get chores and tasks done
18 5 4 3 2 1
right away.
19 I often feel blue. 5 4 3 2 1
20 I am quick to understand things. 5 4 3 2 1
21 I start conversations. 5 4 3 2 1
22 I take time out for others. 5 4 3 2 1
I often forget to put things back
23 5 4 3 2 1
in their proper place.
24 I am relaxed most of the time. 5 4 3 2 1

Neither Accurate
5 = Very Accurate

Moderately Inaccurate
4 = Moderately Accurate


Very Inaccurate
3 = Neither Accurate Nor


2 = Moderately Inaccurate

Nor Inaccurate
1 = Very Inaccurate

I am not interested in abstract

25 5 4 3 2 1
26 I have little to say. 5 4 3 2 1
I sympathize with others’
27 5 4 3 2 1
28 I follow a schedule. 5 4 3 2 1
29 I have frequent mood swings. 5 4 3 2 1
30 I have a rich vocabulary. 5 4 3 2 1
I talk to a lot of different people
31 5 4 3 2 1
at parties.
I am not really interested in
32 5 4 3 2 1
I am exacting (thorough) in my
33 5 4 3 2 1
34 I am easily disturbed. 5 4 3 2 1
35 I have excellent ideas. 5 4 3 2 1

I don’t like to draw attention to
36 5 4 3 2 1
37 I feel little concern for others. 5 4 3 2 1
38 I make a mess of things. 5 4 3 2 1
39 I change my mood a lot. 5 4 3 2 1
I do not have a good
40 5 4 3 2 1
I don’t mind being the center of
41 5 4 3 2 1
42 I make people feel at ease. 5 4 3 2 1
43 I like order. 5 4 3 2 1
44 I get irritated easily. 5 4 3 2 1
I have difficulty understanding
45 5 4 3 2 1
abstract ideas.
46 I am quiet around strangers. 5 4 3 2 1
I am not interested in other
47 5 4 3 2 1
people’s problems.
48 I shirk (get out of) my duties. 5 4 3 2 1
49 I seldom feel blue. 5 4 3 2 1
I spend time reflecting on
50 5 4 3 2 1

Appendix F



Once the participants are seated in the room the researcher will say

“Thank you for participating in today’s research study.”

The researcher in the room will read these instructions “You will be given some surveys

today to complete that will tell us how well you reason, how you feel, and how you feel about

work. You will have 50 minutes to complete the surveys. If you finish early that is ok, just put all

your materials in the envelope provided for you and sit quietly until everyone is finished.”

After everyone is finished the experimenter will say

“This concludes the experiment.”

The experimenter will then debrief the participants and say “Thank you for participating

in the experiment. Feel free to email me any questions or comments you have. Once again thank

you for participating today.”