Avoiding the issue: Disengagement coping style and the personality–CWB link

The current study positions coping as a motivational framework to understand why Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness are related to the performance of organization- and person-directed counterproductive work behavior (CWB) when employees experience constraints at work. In particular, we hypothesized a moderated meditational model wherein individuals low in Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability engage in CWB because these traits contribute to a preferred style of coping with stressors (disengagement coping style) that is particularly likely to be triggered when one's coping preferences are consistent with the coping demands of the situation. Our hypotheses were supported and point to the joint importance of personality-based coping predispositions and situational demands in determining the use of CWB as a coping strategy.

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) reflects a set of intentional behaviors by employees that are contrary to the legitimate interests of the organization (Sackett & DeVore, [73]). These include wasting time and effort, stealing from the organization, disclosing confidential company information, sabotaging organizational efforts, being rude to others, and making threats. Perhaps not surprisingly given the high costs of these behaviors as well as challenges inherent in monitoring for them, researchers and practitioners have been particularly interested in understanding the characteristics of employees who are likely to engage in these behaviors (i.e., the who question). Arguably the largest body of CWB research has focused on identifying personality trait antecedents of CWB. Of the Big Five traits, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability have emerged as the most consistent predictors of CWB (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, [11]; Cullen & Sackett, [29]).

In addition to traits, researchers have also examined situational experiences associated with the performance of CWB (i.e., the when question). Situational models of CWB suggest that such behaviors are triggered by stressful experiences at work, especially those that may be attributed to actions by the organization or its agents (e.g., injustice, organizational constraints; Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, [60]; Spector & Fox, [78]). Researchers have also integrated personality and situational explanations of CWB to identify the particular circumstances under which those low in Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability are most likely to engage in these behaviors (e.g., Bowling & Eschelman, [17]; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, [25]). Although this research has been helpful in identifying predictors of CWB, as Cullen and Sackett ([29]) noted, "Despite overwhelming evidence that personality traits are useful predictors of counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs), little progress has been made in describing the processes underlying the observed empirical linkage between personality and CWBs" (p. 150). That is, few empirical studies have examined why Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness are associated with the enactment of CWB in stressful situations (Cullen & Sackett, [29]; Spector & Fox, [79]).

Theories on the relationship between personality and job performance more broadly have asserted that the key mechanism linking personality to behavior is motivational in nature (e.g., Barrick, Mitchell, & Stewart, [6]; Kanfer & Ackerman, [52]). This logic suggests that Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability predict CWB because they are associated with general tendencies to pursue specific goals in stressful situations. Indeed, Spector and Fox ([78]) and Krischer, Penney, and Hunter ([54]) suggested that CWB reflects attempts by employees to cope with perceived stressors. That is, CWB may represent behavior directed toward the goal of avoiding stressors in order to reduce their concomitant negative emotions. Coping researchers refer to the general tendency to pursue the alleviation of negative emotions in the face of stressors as a disengagement coping style, and this coping style has been linked to Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability (Carver & Connor-Smith, [22]; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, [27]). However, despite these obvious synergies in the coping and CWB literatures, to our knowledge no studies to date have attempted to bridge the two areas to increase our understanding of the process through which these three traits manifest in CWB.

In the current study, we address a major limitation in the CWB literature by examining coping as an integrative motivational explanation that can serve to explain why individuals low in Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability engage in CWB when experiencing stressful workplace situations. In particular, we draw from coping and personality research to present the novel argument that low levels of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability are associated with CWB because they are associated with employees' general tendencies to cope by attempting to escape or avoid stressors (i.e., disengagement coping style). Moreover, this coping preference translates into the selection of CWB as coping strategies when employees experience uncontrollable stressors (operationalized here as organizational constraints). Thus, we propose that disengagement coping style mediates the relationship between the three personality traits and CWB, and perceptions of organizational constraints moderate the link between disengagement coping style and CWB (see Figure 1). We describe our theoretical rationale and associated research hypotheses in the following sections.

Graph: Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

Coping refers to thoughts and behaviors that occur in response to perceived stressors in the environment (Lazarus & Folkman, [57]). State coping theories, most notably the transactional model of stress (Folkman & Lazarus, [33], [34]), often classify coping strategies as either problem focused or emotion focused based on the idea that strain can be reduced via two pathways: addressing the stressor or addressing the negative emotion that accompanies the stressor. Generally, problem-focused coping strategies directly address the source of stress. Such strategies include generating problem-solving solutions and taking action to solve the problem (Baker & Berenbaum, [5]). In contrast, emotion-focused coping strategies aim to reduce the negative emotional response associated with stress. Emotion-focused coping involves a wide range of strategies, including seeking emotional support, denial, venting, and withdrawing from the situation (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, [23]).

Because the experience of workplace stress is thought to be a trigger for CWB (Spector & Fox, [78]), coping theory is commonly referenced in the CWB literature. Although some have considered CWB to be a response to maladaptive coping (Bowling & Eschleman, [17]), others have noted overlap between behaviors indicative of emotion-focused coping and CWB (e.g., Allen & Greenberger, [3]; Krischer et al., [54]; Penney & Spector, [68]; Spector & Fox, [78]). Such arguments follow coping theory's prediction that individuals' behavioral responses to stress involve attempts at coping (Folkman & Lazarus, [34]; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, [35]; Smith & Lazarus, [76]). For example, Krischer et al. ([54]) focused specifically on two types of CWB—withdrawal and production deviance (e.g., intentionally doing work incorrectly; Spector, Fox, et al., [80])—and suggested that these behaviors reflect state coping, that is, actions taken in response to a stressor. They noted that employees may circumvent negative emotions by withdrawing from the situation, withholding effort in order to conserve resources, and retaliating against the offending organization in order to regain a sense of control and equity. Consistent with theory that emotion-focused coping strategies may aid in coping with uncontrollable situations (Folkman & Lazarus, [33]), Krischer et al. ([54]) found that under conditions of injustice, those who engaged in high levels of withdrawal and production deviance tended to experience less emotional exhaustion than those who engaged in low levels of those behaviors.

Krischer et al. ([54]) focused solely on production deviance and withdrawal because they suggested that passive forms of CWB (i.e., withholding action as opposed to performing some action) were likely to be most effective at managing emotions. They noted that the potential positive impact of engaging in more active forms of CWB (e.g., theft, sabotage) might be outweighed by the negative impact of being caught and punished for these behaviors. However, active forms of CWB might also be performed for coping purposes, regardless of whether they are ultimately effective toward this aim. For example, stealing from the organization or sabotaging organizational property may reflect employee attempts to feel better by directly harming the organization (Adams, [1]). Social psychological research suggests that society has maintained a belief in the cathartic value of aggression and that such views might underlie the enactment of such behavior in stressful situations (Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, [19]; Carlsmith, Wilson, & Gilbert, [20]). Thus, we expected that coping might, at least to some extent, motivate CWB.

Trait coping researchers argue that coping strategy choice, also called coping styles, can be relatively stable for each individual resembling traitlike ways of responding to stressors (Beutler, Moos, & Lane, [12]; Skinner, [75]; Swaen, Kant, Van Amelsvoort, & Beurskens, [86]). Although coping strategies (state coping) are often discussed in terms of being problem focused or emotion focused, coping styles (trait coping) are often discussed in terms of engagement and disengagement (sometimes labeled as approach-avoidance). This terminology is consistent with work in developmental psychology on temperament- and biological-based tendencies to engage or disengage from potentially threatening situations (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, [27]). Connor-Smith and Flachsbart ([27]) suggested that the engagement–disengagement distinction is particularly relevant when considering the relationship between coping styles and personality traits (see also Carver & Connor-Smith, [22]).

Broadly, the engagement–disengagement dichotomy reflects the extent to which individuals generally respond to stressors by engaging or approaching either the stressor itself or the accompanying negative emotion. Those with an engagement coping style tend to seek assistance from others, engage in problem solving, and attempt to regulate their emotions by reappraising and generating meaning from the situation. In contrast, those with a disengagement coping style prefer to try to regulate their emotions by avoiding stressors. Disengagement is not simply denial; disengagement can also reflect attempts to distance oneself from negative emotions by "releasing" or expressing emotions (e.g., via venting, engaging in drinking, or smoking for tension reduction; Holahan & Moos, [50]). Although engagement strategies can be both problem focused and emotion focused, disengagement strategies are generally emotion focused, as they primarily aim to help individuals reduce negative emotions associated with stressors in ways that do not include addressing the event or cognitively processing how they feel about it (Latack & Havlovic, [56]; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, [74]). Stated otherwise, individuals with a disengagement coping style tend to prefer those coping strategies that allow them to cope while avoiding the actual problem at hand. In keeping with Krischer et al.'s ([54]) framing of withdrawal and production deviance, two forms of organization-directed CWB, as emotion-focused coping, we assert that CWBs reflect state coping behaviors consistent with a disengagement style of trait coping.

Connor-Smith and Flachsbart ([27]) pointed out that although coping is not simply "personality in action under stress" (Bolger, [13], p. 525), personality certainly plays a role in shaping how individuals tend to respond to stressors. Indeed, Higgins and Scholer ([47]) argued that personality reflects motivated preferences for the ways that individuals choose to cope with situations they encounter in the world. Of the Big Five personality traits (Barrick & Mount, [7]), Conscientiousness (meta-analytic r = –.15), Emotional Stability (meta-analytic r = –.27), and Agreeableness (meta-analytic r = –.13) are empirically related to disengagement coping style (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, [27]) and are most strongly associated with CWB (Berry et al., [11]). From a theoretical standpoint, disengaging following stressors may become learned responses to stress as individuals navigate the challenges of their daily lives. First, coping develops from early biologically based systems, and a child's temperament to withdraw from potential threats may persist into adulthood. For example, Emotional Stability has been linked to behavioral inhibition system sensitivity, or sensitivity toward signals of punishment, negative affect, and an inhibition of direct behavioral approach in stressful situations (Carver & White, [24]; Lahey, [55]). In addition, due to their impulsivity, those low in Conscientiousness may also be unable to "resist impulses to give up or vent emotions inappropriately" (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, [27], p. 1083).

Second, personality may affect coping by way of influencing the amount and severity of stressors that individuals encounter where the experience of consistent and severe stress may promote disengagement coping (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, [27]). Research findings indicate that individuals with low Emotional Stability tend to be more sensitive and reactive to stressors as well as provoke more stressors from their behavior (Bolger & Schilling, [14]; Halbesleben & Buckley, [44]; Spector, [77]; Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, [83]; Suls, Green, & Hills, [85]). In particular, individuals low in Emotional Stability are predisposed to anxiety, irritability, and worry (Costa & McCrae, [28]). These characteristics contribute to greater reports of workplace stressors such as role conflict and ambiguity (Grant & Langan-Fox, 2007), and to greater emotional and physiological reactivity to stress (Lahey, [55]). Conscientiousness is also linked to stressor exposure and reactivity via self-regulatory mechanisms (Barrick & Mount, [7]; Vollrath, [89]). Because those high in Conscientiousness are detail oriented and organized, they can more readily plan ahead and avoid stressors; these traits also allow them to view stressors as more manageable and therefore experience less distress (Carver & Connor-Smith, [22]; Vollrath, [89]). Finally, Agreeableness can also be linked to stressor exposure and reactivity via its connection to the obtainment of social support resources, which have both stressor eliminating and strain-buffering benefits (Bowling, Beehr, & Swader, [16]; Carver & Connor-Smith, [22]; Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, [88]). Because those low in Agreeableness lack the protective benefits of social support, they are likely to experience more stressors and experience them more severely.

Finally, these traits may contribute to a disengagement coping style because they influence the short-term success of strategies consistent with it (Bolger & Zuckerman, [15]; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, [27]). For example, individuals low in Emotional Stability may achieve short-term benefits from disengagement coping, thus leading them to continue to employ strategies consistent with this coping style despite the fact that they may lead to increased distress in the long run (Bolger & Zuckerman, [15]). Because those low in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness have few resources to effectively manage stressors, they might also experience disengagement strategies as relatively beneficial, at least in the short term. Based on this theory and prior research, we hypothesized the following:

(a) Emotional Stability, (b) Agreeableness, and (c) Conscientiousness are negatively associated with a disengagement coping style.

Although low levels of Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness may predispose individuals to engage in disengagement coping, situational features determine whether individuals will act according to these propensities. Trait coping researchers emphasize the need to consider the context of coping in addition to person-related factors to fully understand the specific coping strategies one chooses to engage (Dewe & Cooper, [31]; Folkman & Lazarus, [34]; Holahan & Moos, [50]). Likewise, similar arguments have been made in the CWB literature, where research demonstrates that CWB may be elicited by a number of personal and situational factors (Bowling & Eschleman, [17]; Marcus & Schuler, [59]; Spector, Fox, & Domagalski, [80]). As stress theorists have emphasized that situations are filtered through perception (Lazarus, [58]), we suggest that an examination of individual differences in concert with perceptions of situations is appropriate when considering CWB as attempts at coping. We note that the emphasis on perception is consistent with CWB theory as well, with most theories of CWB pointing to employees' subjective appraisals of their environment as a trigger for these behaviors (e.g., Marinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, [60]; Spector & Fox, [79]).

Integrating these perspectives, we suggest that coping styles are likely to manifest in particular coping strategies, such as CWB, if the coping style matches the coping requirements of the situation (Dewe & Cooper, [31]; Suls & David, [84]). That is, although individuals may tend toward certain coping styles based on personality, the situation is an important determinant of whether they will actually engage in strategies associated with these styles (Lazarus, [58]). This rationale is consistent with the assertion by stress theorists that coping strategies are jointly influenced by both environmental and personal variables (Folkman & Lazarus, [34]; Kinicki, McKee, & Wade, [53]). It also echoes Tett and Burnett's ([87]) trait activation theory, which suggests that the requirements of the situation encourage or suppress the expression of individual traits. Moreover, this thinking aligns with arguments that stable individual differences, such as personality and coping styles, reflect a set of if–then rules and, therefore, consideration of individuals' subjective experiences of the situation is necessary to understand when stable individual differences will be associated with behavior (Funder, [39]; Mischel & Shoda, [62], [63]). Thus, theorists argue that certain features of situations may "reveal" or "activate" personality and other stable tendencies, such as personality-based coping styles (Higgins & Scholer, [47]; Mischel & Shoda, [63]).

Coping researchers point to controllability as an important determinant of coping strategy selection. According to this perspective, individuals are more likely to employ emotion-focused strategies when the stressor is uncontrollable, because such strategies are likely to be more effective in these types of situations (Armstrong-Stassen, [4]; Folkman & Lazarus, [33]). Along these lines, CWB researchers have suggested that CWB is particularly likely to be performed in uncontrollable situations, because these behaviors allow employees to assert and regain control, at least symbolically (Allen & Greenberger, [3]; Bennett, [9]; Folger & Skarlicki, [32]). Although CWB is not necessarily synonymous with aggressive behavior (Neuman & Baron, [66]), script theories and neo-associationist models suggest that certain individuals develop associations between situations, emotions, and experiences that might lead them to view aggressive behavior as "an effective remedy to a loss of control or power" (Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, [90], p. 214; Wranik & Scherer, [92]). Thus, control appears to play an important role in eliciting both emotion-focused coping strategies more generally and CWB in particular. Consistent with an interactionist approach, we argue that perceptions of uncontrollable stressors trigger those with a disengagement coping style to engage in CWB.

In the current study, we focused on organizational constraints as a broad set of uncontrollable stressors that employees may perceive. Specifically, organizational constraints reflect conditions in the work environment that one perceives as interfering with one's ability to perform one's job, including poor equipment, red tape, hindrance from others in the workplace, conflicting job demands, and inadequate information and training (Peters & O'Connor, [69]; Spector & Jex, [82]). Employees who perceive such conditions likely also perceive that they are generally beyond their control. Not surprisingly, organizational constraints have been associated with frustration, negative affect, decreased job satisfaction, and CWB (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector, & Miles, [38]; Penney & Spector, [67]). Therefore, due to their uncontrollable nature, we hypothesize that perceptions of organizational constraints will trigger employees who are predisposed toward a disengagement coping style to perform CWB directed at both the organization (CWB-O) and other people (CWB-I), because these behaviors presumably provide ways to release or get rid of negative emotions in a manner that does not involve directly confronting the stressor or their feelings.

The relationships between disengagement coping style and (a) CWB-O and (b) CWB-I are moderated by organizational constraints such that these relationships are stronger when organizational constraints are high.

Taken together, H1 through H4 suggest a moderated mediation model wherein personality is associated with CWB by way of influencing individuals' preferred ways of coping with stressors, specifically disengagement coping style. Such tendencies are particularly likely to result in CWB when constraints are high. Support for this indirect effect would support the argument that the enactment of disengaged coping strategies serve as the process through which personality manifests in CWB under constraining situations.

The negative indirect effect of (H5) Emotional Stability, (H6) Agreeableness, and (H7) Conscientiousness on (a) CWB-O and (b) CWB-I through disengagement coping style is stronger when organizational constraints are high as opposed to low.

We recruited participants through an online survey using Zoomerang data collection company, which is both an online research pool and a survey platform. Samples collected using online research pools have been used in the management literature (e.g., Harris, Anseel, & Lievens, [45]; Piccolo & Colquitt, [70]). Recruiting participants in this manner allowed us to prescreen participants to ensure that the sample is representative of the population of interest. We required the respondents to be employed full-time. Participants were rewarded for completing the survey with points that can be redeemed for movies, music, gift cards, and other items.

We received survey responses from 581 individuals. However, we dropped 105 cases based on responses to two items designed to detect nonconscientious responding (e.g., "This item for key purposes only. Please select 'Agree.'"). We dropped an additional 16 cases because of substantial missing data, leaving 461 usable cases. Participants (50.4% female; 84% Caucasian) reported working in a wide variety of jobs in a broad range of industries, including education, healthcare, government, manufacturing, and technology. They ranged from 17 to 85 years of age (M = 45, SD = 14.32) and in job tenure from less than a year to 41 years (M = 10.20 years, 8.90); 11% had a high school diploma, 33% had an associate's degree or some college, 33% had a bachelor's degree, 15% had a master's degree, and 4% had an advanced degree. Although we requested that participants work full-time, 17% reported that they worked part-time (< 40 hr a week). We compared mean scores of participants working full time versus part time for each of the measures using t tests for independent samples and found no significant differences. Following the theoretical ordering of the variables, we asked participants to answer questions about personality, coping style, constraints, and CWB, in this order.

We used the 10-item Conscientiousness (α = .86; e.g., "I am exacting in my work"), 10-item Agreeableness (α = .89; e.g., "I sympathize with other people's feelings"), and 10-item Emotional Stability (α = .91; e.g., "I seldom feel blue") scales from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, [40]). Items were presented with a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree very much) to 6 (agree very much). The International Personality Item Pool personality scales have demonstrated internal consistencies and criterion-related validity on par with that of the NEO (Goldberg, [40]; Goldberg, Grenier, Guion, Sechrest, & Wing, [41]; Johnson, [51]).

We used Holahan and Moos's ([50]) eight-item Avoidance Coping subscale of the Coping Strategies Scale to assess disengagement coping. Respondents were asked to indicate how they generally cope with stress using items such as "Avoided being with people in general" and "Tried to reduce tension by eating more." The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency was α = .80.

We used an 11-item measure of organizational constraints (Spector & Jex, [82]). Respondents were asked "How often do you find it difficult or impossible to do your job because of ..." and items included "poor equipment or supplies" and "interruptions by other people." Items were presented with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (less than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per day). Internal consistency was α = .88.

We assessed CWB-O (α = .93) and CWB-I (α = .95) using the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (Spector, Fox, et al., [81]). Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they engage in each behavior (e.g., "Purposely did your work incorrectly; "Started an argument with someone at work") using a response scale of 1 (never) to 5 (every day).

We present descriptive statistics and variable intercorrelations in Table 1. The correlations between the three personality traits and CWB-O and CWB-I were in line with those reported in prior research (Berry et al., [11]). Further, the correlations between the personality traits and disengagement coping style were significant in the expected direction and stronger than the correlations between the personality traits and CWB-O and CWB-I, as would be expected based on our hypotheses. This finding is also consistent with Connor-Smith and Flachsbart's ([27]) findings that personality was more strongly related with measures of dispositional than situational coping.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and variable intercorrelations.

• 4 Note. Ns = 461–476. Alpha coefficients are presented in the diagonal. Gender is coded 1 = female, 2 = male. CWB-O = counterproductive work behavior directed at the organization; CWB-I = counterproductive work behavior directed toward other people.
• 5 *p < .05. **p < .01.

Because our variables were measured via self-report, we also followed procedures described by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) and Williams, Cote, and Buckley (1989) to examine the percentage of variance in responses to the personality, coping, and constraints that could be attributed to method. This involved estimating a confirmatory factor analysis model wherein items loaded on their respective factor as well as on an uncorrelated latent variable that represented a method factor. The average variance explained in the items by the method factor was 15.46%, which is below the 25% average reported by Williams et al.

Given that personality traits as well as the CWB variables tended to correlate with each other, we tested our hypotheses simultaneously by estimating a path model using the MPLUS software program (Muthén & Muthén, [65]–2011). The personality variables, disengagement coping style, and organizational constraints were centered before conducting the analyses. In addition to estimating the indirect effects of personality on CWB-O and CWB-I via disengagement coping style, we also estimated direct effects from personality to CWB-O and CWB-I to assess for other possible pathways between personality and these behaviors. Evidence of a direct effect would be suggestive of partial rather than full mediation. Finally, we estimated paths between personality and constraints to capture any personality-related differences in exposure to this organizational stressor (Bolger & Zuckerman, [15]; Spector, [77]).

The fit statistics indicated that the model fit the data well, χ2 = 14.18, p < .01; root mean square error of approximation = .07, comparative fit index = .99, standardized root mean square residual = .04. The coefficient estimates, as well as 95% confidence intervals obtained via 1,000 bootstrapped samples, are displayed in Figure 2. As seen there, all three personality variables were significantly and negatively related to disengagement coping style, supporting H1, H2, and H3.

Graph: Figure 2. Path analysis results.

Also, as expected, the interaction between disengagement coping style and organizational constraints significantly predicted both CWB variables. Although not displayed in Figure 2 for the sake of parsimony, there were also significant main effects of disengagement coping style and organizational constraints for all of the CWB outcomes: Disengagement coping style to CWB-O: b = .28, SE = .06, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.16,.40], CWB-I: b = .18, SE = .05, CI [.09,.28]; Constraints to CWB-O: b = .09, SE = .02, CI [.05,.13], CWB-I: b = .06, SE = .02, CI [.02,.09], all ps < .01.

To determine the nature of the interactions between disengagement coping style and organizational constraints predicting the two types of CWB, we plotted them at ± 1 SD of disengagement style and constraints (Aiken & West, [2]). As seen in Figure 3, the relationships between disengagement coping style and CWB-O and CWB-I were significant when organizational constraints were high (CWB-O: b = .39, SE = .06; CWB-I: b = .30, SE = .06; all ps < .01). The relationships between disengagement coping style and CWB-O and CWB-I were also significant albeit weaker when organizational constraints were low (CWB-O: b = .16, SE = .00; CWB-I: b = .06, SE = .00, all ps < .01. This pattern of results supports H4a and H4b.

Graph: Figure 3. Interactions between disengagement coping style and organizational constraints predicting counterproductive work behavior directed at the organization (CWB-O) and counterproductive work behavior directed toward other people (CWB-I).

To test for mediation, we followed recommendations by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes ([72]) to obtain bias corrected bootstrapped estimates for the conditional indirect effect effects of all three personality variables on each of the outcomes via disengagement coping style. The 95% CIs are displayed in Table 2. Recall that the conditional indirect effects when perceptions of organizational constraints are high are of particular interest in this study, as we expected organizational constraints to trigger the enactment of CWB among those with a disengagement coping style (i.e., that the conditional indirect effects of personality on CWB will be stronger when organizational constraints are high). As seen in the table, the CIs did not include zero when organizational constraints were high (+ 1 SD). Using the model constraint command in MPLUS, we tested the difference in the estimates for the conditional indirect effect at high and low levels of constraints. The 95% bootstrap estimates for these differences did not include 0, indicating that the conditional indirect effects of the personality variables on CWB-O and CWB-I were stronger when organizational constraints were high. These results support H5, H6, and H7. Finally, we note that there were significant direct paths between Conscientiousness and CWB-O (estimate displayed in Figure 2). This pattern of results indicates partial mediation for the Conscientiousness–CWB-O relationship and full mediation for the other personality–CWB-O and CWB-I relationships.

Table 2. Bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence interval for conditional indirect effects.

6 Note. DV = dependent variable; IV = independent variable; CWB-O = counterproductive work behavior directed at the organization; CWB-I = counterproductive work behavior directed toward other people.

Following research suggesting that CWB may have instrumental, emotion-focused coping motives (Krischer et al., [54]), the current study used coping theory to understand one process through which personality may lead to the enactment of CWB. In particular, we hypothesized that personality is associated with individuals' general tendencies to disengage when experiencing stressors (disengagement coping style), and in turn those with a disengagement coping style are likely to respond to uncontrollable stressors (i.e., organizational constraints) by engaging in acts of CWB. Consistent with our hypothesized moderated mediation model, we found that Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness were negatively associated with a disengagement coping style. In turn, a disengagement coping style was associated with CWB, particularly among employees reporting high levels of organizational constraints.

These findings contribute to the CWB literature by positioning coping as an explanatory mechanism for why personality is related to CWB. Researchers have argued that personality moderates the stressor–CWB relationship based on the expectation that personality "influence[s] one's characteristic style of responding to stressors" (Bowling & Eschleman, [17], p. 91). However, such arguments are based on two assumptions: (a) that employees engage in CWB to cope and (b) that employees will always act in accordance with these broad personality-based tendencies. Whereas support for the first assumption has been implied from data, we provide a more direct test by considering general coping preferences (i.e., disengagement coping style) as a mediator between personality and CWB and organizational constraints as a moderator. Our findings provide support for the idea that personality is linked to CWB via coping. In doing so, we address a major limitation in the CWB literature regarding the processes underlying the relationships between personality and CWB (Cullen & Sackett, [29]). We also provide evidence supporting the widely claimed, but rarely empirically studied, idea that employees respond to negative workplace situations with CWB because they view such behaviors as instrumental in helping them cope.

The second assumption—that employees will always act in accordance with broad personality-based coping tendencies—is inconsistent with stress theory's emphasis on the situation in determining coping behavior (Armstrong-Stassen, [4]; Folkman & Lazarus, [33]). However, personality not only influences one's characteristic style of coping with situations but also may influence how individuals perceive different situations, thereby providing more opportunities for individuals to act in personality-consistent ways. These effects are important to untangle both theoretically and empirically. By integrating the perspective that individuals have characteristic ways of responding to stressors (trait coping theory) with theory suggesting that perceptions of the situation determine which coping strategies individuals will ultimately engage (state coping theory), we contribute to the understanding of coping as a mechanism relating personality to CWB. Also, in contrast to prior research that has been criticized for implying rather than directly measuring the relationship between personality and coping (Cartwright & Cooper, [21]), we examine the role of coping style empirically.

More generally, our work bolsters theory and research indicating that motivation is the key mediating mechanism of the relationship between personality and various types of job performance (Barrick & Mount, [8]; Hogan & Holland, [49]; Kanfer & Ackerman, [52]). To elaborate, Halbesleben and Bowler ([43]) described motivation as "the investment of resources" (p. 94), such as time, attention, and effort toward goals. Disengagement coping style reflects the extent to which individuals respond to stressors by focusing resources on their negative emotions as opposed to the stressor itself. Put another way, disengagement coping reflects the motivation to direct attention and effort toward the goal of alleviating negative emotions. Thus, our results suggest that the motivation to reduce negative emotion, as reflected in a disengagement coping style, is an important underlying process linking Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability with various forms of CWB.

However, whereas disengagement coping style appeared to fully account for the relationships between Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and CWB-O and CWB-I, it only partially explained the relationship between Conscientiousness and CWB-O. This finding suggests that there might be other processes in addition to coping that explain the Conscientiousness–CWB-O connection. For example, it may be that the impulsiveness characteristic of those low in Conscientiousness motivates CWB-O independent of coping aims. We encourage future research to explore other motivational factors that might also link personality to CWB, especially those processes that might explain the enactment of CWB when stressors are low. We also found main effects of organizational constraints and disengagement coping style on CWB in conjunction with their interaction. Both are consistent with theory suggesting that stressors trigger acts of CWB and that individual differences in tendencies to pursue disengagement strategies in response to stressors may translate into an increased incidence of CWB. The main effect of organizational constraints is consistent with extant research indicating that constraints serve to motivate acts of CWB (e.g., Meier & Spector, [61]; Spector, Fox, et al., [81]). Furthermore, our finding of a main effect of a disengagement coping style is consistent with Krischer et al.'s ([54]) framing of certain forms of CWB-O (i.e., withdrawal and production deviance) as emotion-focused coping. Thus, CWB-O can be viewed as behaviors that are typically enacted by individuals with a disengagement style of trait coping. The interaction effect suggests that, whereas individuals with a disengagement coping style have a predisposition to enact CWB, they are particularly likely to do so when working in an environment characterized by high organizational constraints.

Although our study has many strengths, it is not without limitations. One potential limitation is the use of employee self-reports. There is some advantage to self-reports, as we obtained measures of the extent to which employees view themselves as Conscientiousness, perceive that they experience organizational constraints, perceive that they generally disengage in response to stressors, and recall engaging in counterproductive work behaviors. The self-assessment of these variables is theoretically consistent with stress and coping theory's emphasis on individual perception and appraisal as crucially important pieces in the stress process.

That said, there is little work examining whether others can accurately report an individual's perceptions or coping behavior. Likewise, although Connelly and Ones ([26]) reported that other-ratings of personality yield incremental and stronger predictive validities than self-ratings, there is good reason to believe that others' judgments may be distorted based on limited exposures, attributions, and impression management (e.g., Heslin, Latham, & VandeWalle, [46]; Morgeson & Campion, [64]). Further, it is unclear the extent to which others' ratings of personality more strongly relate to behavior by virtue of the fact that others use behavior to make these judgments.

Recent research also suggests that individuals may provide the most accurate reports of their own CWB, as others may not have sufficient opportunity to observe such behavior (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, [10]). Using meta-analytic techniques, Berry et al. found that (a) self-reported CWB correlated moderately with other-reported CWB, (b) self- and other-reports of CWB shared similar patterns of correlations, and (c) mean levels of CWB were higher in self- than other-reports. Similarly, Fox, Spector, Goh, and Bruursema ([37]) found that coworker reports of CWB were significantly lower than self-reports of the same behavior. They also reported attenuated correlations between CWB and stressors using coworker-reports compared to self-reports and mixed-source analyses. This is consistent with theory suggesting that individuals may avoid performing CWB when it may be observed and possibly punished (Spector, Fox, et al., [81]).

Another potential limitation is our use of a cross-sectional design. Although personality and coping dispositions are thought to be relatively stable, our use of this design required participants to retrospectively report the experience of organizational constraints and CWB. We point out that, although we argue the enactment of CWB is consistent with a disengagement coping style, they are independent in their conceptualization and measurement. A disengagement coping style involves general preferences toward certain ways of responding to stressors across contexts, whereas CWB refers to enacted behavior within the specific context of the workplace. Put another way, when asking about a disengagement coping style we asked individuals to indicate how they generally try to cope with stress, whereas we asked participants how often they had engaged in various CWBs at work (without any reference to coping). The fact that we found that the disengagement coping style–CWB link was moderated provides additional support for their distinction. Future research might examine the relationships proposed here with daily or weekly measures of experienced constraints and CWB. Such approaches have the added advantage of being able to examine fluctuations in these variables.

It may also be interesting to examine aspects of a situation in addition to controllability that influence the degree to which those with a disengagement coping style engage in CWB. For example, to the extent that certain stressors are experienced as particularly stressful and therefore deplete self-regulatory resources (Hobfoll, [48]), individuals may be more likely to act in accordance with their personality-based tendencies. Also, if others in an employee's workgroup respond to stressors by engaging in CWB, this may reinforce an employee's already learned approach to coping. Along these lines, research might also explore the consequences of a mismatch between an individual's coping predispositions and the demands of the situation. Perhaps the match between coping style and coping responses might play a role in determining the effectiveness of CWB as a coping strategy. As has been argued by coping researchers, coping strategies are not inherently good or bad; rather, their effectiveness is influenced by a variety of factors including the match between a coping response and perceived situational demands (Dewe & Cooper, [31]).

Although we focused here on the performance of CWB for emotion-focused coping aims, we note that there may be some situations in which CWB might be used as problem-focused coping. For example, researchers have suggested that employees might purposefully not follow procedures if they have come up with more efficient ways of getting tasks done, to assist coworkers, or to assist customers (Dahling, Chau, Mayer, & Gregory, [30]). In these cases, an engagement coping style might predict engaging in these behaviors. Given findings that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are positively associated with an engagement coping style (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, [27]), this line of reasoning would suggest that there are situations wherein those high in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness might engage in CWB for problem-focused coping aims. Understanding these contingencies is an important direction for future research. Research might also consider the extent to which coping reflects a motivation for other forms of discretionary work behavior as well. Finally, we wish to point out that coping style is just one of a number of possible paths that relate personality to CWB. For example, some have suggested that CWB may be driven by temptation and boredom (Bruursema, Kessler, & Spector, [18]; Marcus & Schuler, [59]). To the extent to which these experiences are influenced by personality, they may reflect other motivational mechanisms linking personality to CWB.

Practically, our findings point to the business argument for managers to be aware of and address the situational conditions that trigger individuals with a disengagement coping style to engage in CWB. Managers, equipped with the knowledge that those who are low in Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness tend to cope by disengaging, might try to proactively help employees with these traits manage stress in order to preempt them from responding to stressors with CWB. Along these lines, research is needed to examine situational conditions that dissuade individuals from using these types of behaviors as ways to cope. Given that a disengagement coping strategy seems to be linked to stable differences in personality, our findings also echo prior research in personnel selection encouraging employers to consider personality in their selection decisions (e.g., Barrick & Mount, [7]).

In summary, our findings suggest Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability influence CWB because they predispose individuals to engage in emotion-focused coping strategies in response to stressors; individuals are particularly likely to act in accordance with these predispositions (i.e., engage in CWB) when experiencing organizational constraints. Thus, we extend research suggesting that CWB may be performed to help individuals cope with uncontrollable stressors in the workplace by suggesting which individuals may be likely to do so and why. We encourage the continued exploration of CWB as coping strategies.