Journal of Ergonomics

Abstract

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour (CWB) is investigated in Organisational Psychology as well as in the area of Human Factors. So far, each of these disciplines has mostly disregarded findings by the other. The present studies integrate findings gained from the two disciplines to investigate the qualities of personality traits that predict safety-related rule violations in a production context. A pilot study was conducted to test a set of personality traits in terms of their
predictive qualities regarding the intention to violate a rule. Three traits (integrity subscale: cautiousness, self-interest,injustice sensitivity) emerged as predictors and were applied in a business simulation of a production environment (main study). Cautiousness turned out to be significantly correlated with safety-related rule violations in the production context. Hence, cautiousness should be measured in personnel selection in order to enhance safety and reduce the costs of CWB in organisations.

Full text

Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
Research Article Open Access
Heyde et al., J Ergonomics 2014, 4:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Research Article Open Access
Ergonomics
Keywords: Rule violation; Personnel selection; Counterproductive
behaviour; Personality traits; Integrity; Cautiousness; Self-interest;
Injustice sensitivity
e relationship between Counterproductive Work-
place Behaviour (CWB) and Human Factors research
on safety-related rule violations
Enhancing the productivity and wellbeing of people in organisations
is the major goal of work and organisational psychologists. Traditionally,
organisational psychologists have focused on the investigation of
benecial behaviour, such as motivation or job satisfaction, while
less attention has been paid to negative, counterproductive behaviour
patterns [1]. According to Sacket [2], CWB is dened as intentional
behaviour on the part of an organisational member, which is contrary
to the interests of the organisation. Examples of CWB include the,
misuse of information or unsafe behaviour [3]. ere are many terms
which describe behaviour that is similar to or the same as CWB. In line
with some authors who suggest using CWB as generic term [3], in the
following, CWB is used as generic term for all concepts which describe
deviant behaviour in the work context.
e fact that CWB is assumed to cost organisations billions of
dollars every year [4,5] demonstrates that CWB is not an unlikely
practice in many organisations. In the past years, CWB has become an
important topic in the area of Organisational Psychology as well as in
Human Factors research.
e human factors perspective
Human Factors research is concerned with the investigation of
the human-system interaction and its eects on performance, user
satisfaction and safety [6]. In the area of Human Factors, CWB is
mainly considered under the heading of safety-related rule violations
and their impact on safety. e violation of safety-related rules is
dened as deliberate departures from rules that describe the safe or
approved methods of performing a particular task or job [7].
Reason [8] further dierentiates between malevolent violations,
which are undertaken to damage the system, and non-malevolent
violations, which are not committed to harm an organisation.
Malevolent violations occur due to dierent motivations: Some
are committed to compensate for deciencies in the workplace [8],
while others are due to the general human tendency to choose the
most comfortable, less eortful behaviour [9]. According to Reason
[8], some violations are committed to demonstrate skills in handling
dicult risky situations or arouse a thrilling experience.
e organisational psychology perspective
Like rule violations, CWB is aected by dierent factors. Possible
variables that might inuence CWB include the safety climate in an
organisation [10], and a lack of vocational t [11]. CWB in general has
been measured by several instruments which use peer rating as well
as self-rating. Since self-reports were shown to be more valid than
external assessments, the self-rating method of measurement is highly
recommended [12]. In the area of Organisational Psychology, CWB
is investigated under dierent headings and terms. CWB includes
a variety of dierent behaviour patterns, which are described with
dierent terms and at dierent levels of abstraction. e following list
is not exhaustive; on the contrary, only the terms which are relevant
in the context of the investigation at hand are described and dened.
ere are terms that are used more or less synonymously with CWB,
like employee deviance [13], and terms that describe behaviour which
can be categorized as CWB if it occurs in the organisational context
but which are not restricted to this area, like antisocial behaviour [14],
lying behaviour [15], or imprudent and criminal behaviour [16,17].
*Corresponding author: Ananda von der Heyde, University Duisburg-
Essen, Department of Engineering, Business and Organizational
Psychology, Lotharstr 65, D- 47057 Duisburg, Tel: +49 203 379 241;
E-mail: ananda.von-der-heyde@uni-due.de
Received July 23, 2014; Accepted September 08, 2014; Published September
15, 2014
Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work
Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics
4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Copyright: © 2014 Heyde A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Abstract
Counterproductive Workplace Behaviour (CWB) is investigated in Organisational Psychology as well as in the area
of Human Factors. So far, each of these disciplines has mostly disregarded ndings by the other. The present studies
integrate ndings gained from the two disciplines to investigate the qualities of personality traits that predict safety-related
rule violations in a production context. A pilot study was conducted to test a set of personality traits in terms of their
predictive qualities regarding the intention to violate a rule. Three traits (integrity subscale: cautiousness, self-interest,
injustice sensitivity) emerged as predictors and were applied in a business simulation of a production environment (main
study). Cautiousness turned out to be signicantly correlated with safety-related rule violations in the production context.
Hence, cautiousness should be measured in personnel selection in order to enhance safety and reduce the costs of CWB
in organisations.
Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An
Exploratory Study with Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related
Rule Violations
Ananda von der Heyde1*, Julia Miebach1 and Annette Kluge2
1University Duisburg-Essen, Department of Engineering, Business and Organizational Psychology, Lotharstr 65, D- 47057 Duisburg, Germany
2Ruhr University Bochum, Business Psychology, Universitätsstr 150, GAFO 04/273, D- 44801 Bochum, Germany

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 2 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
Employee deviance refers to voluntary behaviour that violates
signicant organizational norms and in doing so threatens the well-
being of an organization, its members, or both [13]. Examples of
such behaviour include the, disciplinary problems, substance abuse,
property damage or organizational rule-breaking [18]. All of these
examples refer to rule-violating behaviour; however, the latter example
plays an important role in the context of safety-related rule violations
in organisations. Antisocial behaviour can be dened as any behaviour
that impairs or aims to impair an organization or its members [14].
According to the authors, examples of antisocial behaviour in
organizations are fraud, interpersonal violence, lying or violations of
condentiality.
Lying behaviour can be understood as an assertion, the content of
which the speaker believes to be false, which is made with the intention
to deceive the hearer with regard to that content [15]. As such, lying
behaviour involves the act of knowingly giving out wrong information
with the intention of misleading another person; behaviour that can
harm an organization or even endanger work safety.
Imprudent behaviours can be conceived of as irresponsible acts
such as smoking, alcohol consumption and gambling [16]. Similar to
criminal behaviours, imprudent behaviours also require little planning,
provide immediate gratication, and oer a great deal of excitement
[19]. According to Arneklev et al. [17], the dierence between the two
types of behaviour is that imprudent behaviour is not illegal while
criminal behaviour always is.
Integrating the organisational psychology and human factors
perspective
e wide range of terms makes it hard to integrate and compare
empirical ndings. Most researchers have a specialised understanding
and have developed their own theories regarding their conception of
CWB; hence, the research results pertaining to similar constructs are
oen not considered [5]. In particular, the research in the dierent
areas of Organisational Psychology and Human Factors have mostly
disregarded ndings and developments in the respective other area.
When considering these terms and denitions, the link between
CWB and safety-related rule violations becomes apparent. CWB
involves the violation of certain rules or norms, but rule violations are
oen, but not necessarily, CWB. Rule violations are associated with
the risk of undesired outcomes, but most violations do not result in
harm for the organisation [20,21]. If the rule violation is committed in
order to handle a new situation, or to achieve other, more important,
organisational goals, the violation can even be advantageous for the
organisation [21,22]. Taken together, the constructs of CWB and rule
violations seem to be closely connected. e connection between these
constructs suggests that there are similar processes which determine
these behaviours.
Preliminary ndings regarding safety-related rule violations
e present investigation assumes a Human Factors-oriented
perspective and therefore focuses on the violation of safety-related
rules. As such, the Macro ergonomic Framework of Rule-Violations by
Alper and Karsh [20] was used as a starting point for the investigations.
Alper and Karsh [20] described dierent levels of factors which
inuence the decision to violate a safety-related rule. ey dierentiate
between individual factors, such as experience, knowledge, or age;
factors which are associated with the work system, such as the task
complexity, time demands or department goals; organisational factors,
such as organisational policy or social norms; and nally, external,
environmental factors, such as the legislation, or inuences of the
industry.
Our research concentrated on the investigation of factors which
refer to the work system level or the organisational level. Nevertheless,
some individual factors, like sex, age, conscientiousness or risky
decision-making were measured as control variables, because there are
already some ndings showing that these factors are valid predictors
of rule violations [22,23]. Surprisingly, none of the measured
predictors, like conscientiousness or risky decision-making, proved to
be signicant predictors of the violation of safety-related rules in our
investigations. erefore, the present study aims to identify personality
traits that potentially predict rule-violating behaviour which have not
yet been investigated in this context.
While the investigation of these correlations is comparatively
less common in the area of Human Factors research, in the area of
Organisational Psychology and personnel selection, the prediction of
CWB on the basis of certain variables, like integrity or certain other
personality traits, is quite common [18,24-26]. e empirical ndings
concerning the correlation between CWB and personality traits should
be used to gain new ideas for personality traits that might predict
safety-related rule violations in organisations.
Personality traits for predicting safety-related rule violations
in the production context
e review of the literature regarding the association between
personality traits and various CWB behaviour patterns revealed eight
concepts to be promising for the prediction of rule-violating behaviour.
Self-control describes the tendency to avoid acts whose negative long-
term consequences outweigh current advantages [27]. e general
theory of crime proposes that engagement in criminal behaviour is
caused by low self-control [28]. ese ndings are supported by research
demonstrating that various criminal and imprudent behaviours can
be attributed to low self-control [29]. A more recent investigation in
a student sample even found that self-control is associated with the
violation of rules [30]. erefore, self-control was included as one
possible predictor.
Integrity is understood as an individual’s conformity regarding
values, norms and actions [31]. Marcus developed a practice-oriented
method of integrity measurement to predict counterproductive
behaviour in organisations. Integrity was included in this study because
it is a well-established construct for predicting counterproductive work
behaviour [32]. Five sub-constructs of integrity [31] were assessed in
the current study:
1. Low distribution assesses the strength with which the violation
of norms and rules is distributed in daily work settings.
2. Non-rationalization describes the tendency to search for causes
that justify unreasonable behaviour.
3. People with high levels of reliability are supposed to work in
a structured manner, to keep their word and to control their
impulses.
4. Cautiousness describes a person’s preference for safe and
predictable actions as opposed to risky and exciting situations.
5. Conict avoidance refers to a person’s tendency to avoid conicts
and to pursue a peaceful way of problem solving.
e belief in a just world is a concept that was originally introduced
by Lerner [33], who dened it as the belief that we are living in a world

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 3 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
where individuals always get what they deserve. Hafer [34] found that
a strong belief in a just world was associated with a decreased use of
unjust means to achieve long-term goals. e violation of rules can, to
some extent, be regarded as use of unjust means; hence, it is assumed
that rule-violating behaviour can be associated with a low belief in a
just world.
e sensitivity towards injustice is, according to Schmitt, Maes
and Schmal [35], a construct which needs to be assessed from three
perspectives: the victim perspective (others are advantaged while
oneself is disadvantaged), the observer perspective (observing someone
else being treated unfairly from a neutral position), and the perpetrator
perspective [35]. e latter perspective is mostly interesting in terms of
an individual’s tendency to feel guilty about unjustied benets [35].
Violations may be conducted to acquire (unjustied) benets; hence,
this perspective is also included in the present investigation. Research
investigating the eects of this trait suggests that sensitivity towards
injustice from the perpetrator’s perspective is positively related to
prosocial behaviour and negatively related to antisocial behaviour [36].
Self-interest can be described as an action that is “undertaken for
the sole purpose of achieving a personal benet or benets”, such as
tangible (e.g. monetary) or intangible (e.g. group status) benets [37].
Self-interest was included in the current investigation because it was
found to inuence lying behaviour [38].
Self-responsibility is focused on decision-making processes
concerning planning and action regarding an individual’s behaviour.
An individual acts self-responsibly if important objectives and the
achievement of objectives are thoroughly thought through before
action is taken [39]. is personality trait was chosen because prior
research found that the amount of performed safety observations can
be associated with feelings of personal or self-responsibility [40].
Regulatory focus at work refers to the regulatory focus theory [41]
which dierentiates between promotion-oriented individuals, who aim
to achieve desirable outcomes, and prevention-oriented individuals,
who aim to avoid undesirable outcomes. Depending on the type of
regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention), individuals tend to
apply dierent approaches which lead to the desired outcomes. e
regulatory focus also leads to the occurrence of dierent error types.
Higgins et al. [42] found that Individuals who are promotion-oriented
were less likely to make an “error of omission”. Furthermore, an
“error of commission” was less likely for individuals with a prevention
orientation. Wallace et al. [43] applied the regulatory focus theory to
work settings and found this theory to be a valid and reliable measure for
predicting work outcomes such as productivity or safety performance.
More specically, Wallace et al. [43] found that a promotion focus was
positively related to productivity performance but negatively related to
safety performance, suggesting that individuals with a promotion focus
tend to work quickly rather than accurately and safely. Conversely,
individuals with a prevention focus showed a positive relationship with
safety performance [43]. It can be assumed that the regulatory focus is
also associated with rule violations because the compliance with rules
is an integral part of safety performance.
To investigate whether these personality traits are suitable for the
prediction of safety-related rule violations in the production context
(as a subtype of CWB), two studies were conducted. In the pilot study,
merely the intention to violate a rule was investigated, whereas in the
main study, concrete behaviour was looked at.
Pilot Study
A web-based pilot study was conducted in order to preselect
the personality traits which show the most promise regarding the
prediction of safety-related rule violations in the production context
(main study). e underlying assumption is that the personality
traits which signicantly predict rule-violating behaviour in daily life
scenarios are also applicable for the prediction of safety-related rule
violations in the production context. e pilot study included eight
personality traits and their relations to rule-violating behaviour in daily
life settings. Personality traits were measured using existing scales. e
intention to violate rules in daily life settings was measured applying
a self-constructed ten-item instrument, the purpose of which was to
mirror the underlying principles of the business simulation production
scenario of goal conicts (used in the main study and which takes 5
hours to complete) in ten small-scaled scenarios.
Method
Overall, 91 participants were recruited (65 female), most of whom
(86.8%) were students while the rest were employees or freelancers. e
participants were aged between 18 and 50 years (M = 24.43; SD = 6.92).
e study was a questionnaire-based online study which took about 45
minutes to complete. Students were compensated with course credits;
the remaining participants did not receive any compensation. e
online study was conducted between September and November 2012.
It was approved by the local Ethics Committee. Subjects were informed
about the purposes of the study and told that they could discontinue
at any time (in terms of informed consent). e participants were
recruited on the campus of the [name deleted to maintain the integrity
of the review process] through yers and posters, and posts in online
forums as well as in online social communities (German student
forums such as uni-protokolle.de and forums and social communities
of students from dierent universities).
Predictor variables: As outlined in the theoretical background,
seven personality traits were selected to be tested as predictors of
rule-violating behaviour: self-control, integrity, belief in a just world,
sensitivity towards injustice, self-interest, self-responsibility and
regulatory focus at work. Apart from the constructs self-control and
regulatory focus at work, all scales used in the study were designed in
German. Exemplary items were translated for the purpose of this paper
only.
e operationalization of the predictor variables including the
scale description, authors and exemplary items are displayed in (Table
1). Most of the applied scales were shortened; items that t well into
the study’s context were selected (an overview of items used can be
found in the Appendix). All α-values provided in (Table 1) refer to the
reliability measures of the present pilot study.
Criterion: Rule-violating behaviour in daily life situations: Ten
items measuring the tendency for rule violations in daily life situations
(Table 2) were developed by the authors (for the German Items, see
Appendix I). e rule violation instrument was developed as a short
and ecient way to measure rule violations in the pilot study. Since
the business simulation used in the main study is very time-consuming
(taking 5 hours per person), the rule violation instrument was
developed to enable a comparatively quick pre test of a large number
of personality traits. e purpose was not to develop and validate the
rule violation instrument as a new measurement method but rather to
use it as a substitute for the comprehensive simulation. is enabled
the pilot study to be conducted online with the aim of selecting the

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 4 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
best predictors of rule-violating behaviour from a number of already
validated instruments.
e items of the rule violation instrument explore an individual’s
intention to violate a rule, guideline or social norm in daily life settings.
e instrument consists of ten items in which dilemma situations are
described. e dilemma situations address dierent areas of daily life
concerns that are assumed to be commonly experienced by individuals
across Europe. As such, the dilemma situations include heterogeneous
behaviour concerning sports activities, public and road transport,
(illegal) internet activities and general social behaviour. Each situation
comprises self-interested goals which are in conict with dierent types
of rules (e.g. social norm or law) in order to correspond to the behaviour
investigated in the main study, as explained below. e rule violation
instrument was developed to measure a person’s tendency to violate
or comply with rules when s/he is exposed to conicting goals which
either suggest complying with or violating a rule or social norm. Since
these goal conicts appear in dierent contexts, the items represent
the various goal conicts in various social situations. Nevertheless, in
order to mirror the simulation context which is used in the main study,
the items of the rule violation instrument are congruent regarding the
underlying conict between the individual goal and the rule or norm.
e content validity of the rule violation instrument was designed
to be high, since the propensity to commit rule violations in situations
with conicting goals is measured across dierent situational contexts
and with reference to dierent rules and norms. Furthermore, the items
were rated by a group of ten experts with respect to their closeness to
reality and the extent of the dilemma which is experienced regarding
each item. Only the items with a high interrater agreement in the expert
rating were included in the rule violation instrument. Since the rule
violation instrument was designed as a method to measure the criterion
of rule violations more eciently in a pretest, and was not conceived
as a new instrument, neither the convergent nor the divergent validity
was determined in the present investigation.
For each situation, the individual has to rate the degree to which
s/he would violate the rule on a four-point Likert scale (disagree/agree).
rough the use of a four-point scale, the participants are forced to indicate
at least a tendency for one decision option (compliance/violation). e full
list of items including means, standard deviations, item diculties and
discriminatory powers is presented below (Table 2).
e item diculties are satisfactory; they are in the middle range
and vary between 0.43 (Item 1) and 0.78 (Item 4). e discriminatory
power of the items is not satisfactory; most items vary between .23 and
.37. e items with a lower discriminatory power than 0.23 (items 1,
2 and 10) were excluded from the score calculation (excluded items
are marked in a lighter font in Table 2). As indicator for the reliability
consistency of the rule violation instrument, we suggest to consider the
discriminatory power values of the items (Table 2).
As the rule violation instrument covers a heterogeneous construct,
the calculation of Cronbach’s Alpha as an indicator of reliability was
not assumed to be applicable. e calculation of retest reliability
seems to be more appropriate, but requires two measurement times.
Due to the fact that the rule violation instrument was designed not as
a new measurement method but merely as a time- and cost-ecient
alternative method (to the business simulation) for measuring the
criterion in the pretest, only the discriminatory power values of the
items (Table 2) are described.
Results
Pearson correlations were calculated to analyse the relationships
between the items of the rule violation instrument and the personality
traits. e means, standard deviations and correlations are displayed
in Table 3. Signicant medium-sized negative correlations were
found between the rule violation instrument and the scales assessing
Personality trait Authors Scale description Exemplary items All items
Self-control Seipel (1999) (derived from
Grasmick et al., 1993)
15 out of 21 items (α = .67); 5-point Likert
scale (disagree/agree) “I never allow myself to lose control.” Appendix A
Integrity
Marcus (2006) – Inventory
of Work-Related Attitudes
and Self-Assessment
5 (35 items) out of 9 (115 items)
subscales
• Low distribution (α = .67)
• Non-Rationalization (α = .54)
• Reliability (α = .64)
• Cautiousness (α = .76)
• Conict avoidance (α = .77)
5-point Likert scale (disagree/agree)
• Low distribution (“Everyone cheats on their
tax returns”)
• Non-Rationalization (“To be successful in
one’s professional life, one mustn’t be too
particular about rules and guidelines”)
• Reliability (“I work on tasks quickly rather
than thoroughly”)
• Cautiousness (“I am sensible rather than
adventurous)
• Conict avoidance (“I try to avoid conict
if possible”)
Appendix B
Belief in a just world Schmitt et al. (1997) Subscale “ultimate justice”; 6 items (α =
.89); 5-point Likert scale (disagree/agree)
“Anyone who does wrong will be called to account for
it one day.” Appendix C
Sensitivity towards injustice Schmitt et al. (1997)
Subscale “perpetrator perspective”;
9 items (α = .90); 5-point Likert scale
(disagree/agree)
“It bothers me if I get something that someone else
deserves” Appendix D
Self-interest Mohiyeddini & Montada
(2004)
8 items (α = .80); 6-point Likert scale
(disagree/agree)
“I think it is more important to follow my own interests
than the interests of others” Appendix E
Self-responsibility* Bierhoff et al. (2005) 6 out of 20 items (α = .39); 6-point Likert
scale (disagree/agree)
“I think everyone can contribute to improving their
daily life.” Appendix F
Regulatory focus at work Solga (in prep.) (derived
from Wallace et al., 2009)
6 items (1,3,5,7,9,11) subscale prev.
focus (α = .87); 5 items (2,4,6,8,10)
subscale prom. focus (α =.70); 5-point
Likert scale (never/always)
“I concentrate on completing work tasks correctly”
(prev. Focus) Appendix G
* Scale was excluded from analysis due to poor reliability levels
Table 1: Operationalisation of the predictor variables.

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 5 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
sensitivity towards injustice, non-rationalization, reliability and
cautiousness (Table 3). ese correlations suggest that higher scores on
the respective scales assessing the personality traits are accompanied
by a lower intention to violate a rule in a daily life setting. A signicant
medium-sized positive correlation was found between several items
and the total score of the rule violation instrument and self-interest.
Regression: A backward regression was conducted to assess which
combination of predictor variables (personality constructs) is best able
to predict the dependent variable (intention to violate a rule in daily
life settings). All predictors which signicantly correlated with the rule
violation instrument were entered into the model. e weak predictors
were removed until only useful predictor variables remained in the
model (see Table 4). erefore, not all of the tested predictors ended
up in the model. e results of the backward regression indicated that
four predictors explained 42% of the variance (F(4,85) = 15.17, p < .01).
Signicant predictors of rule violations are cautiousness (ß = -0.41,
p < 0.01), sensitivity towards injustice (ß = -0.24, p < .05) and self-
interest (ß = .22, p < .05). e Beta coecient of non-rationalization
was not signicant (ß = -.17, p =.05). e results indicate that low levels
of cautiousness as well as sensitivity towards injustice (perpetrators
perspective) are indicators of a high intention to violate a rule in daily
life settings, whereas low levels of self-interest are associated with a low
intention to violate a rule in daily life settings (Table 4).
Discussion: e pilot study suggests that cautiousness, sensitivity
towards injustice, as well as self-interest are personality predictors
of the violation of rules in daily life settings. ese results must be
interpreted with caution because the criterion validity of the rule
violation instrument could not be determined, as no external criterion
for the violation of safety-related rules was measured. Due to the fact
that this was a pilot study aiming to reveal which personality traits show
the most promise regarding the prediction of rule-violating behaviour,
the eort was minimized, but further studies should be conducted to
determine the validity of the rule violation instrument.
e pilot study revealed cautiousness, injustice sensitivity and
self-interest as valid predictors of the intention to violate a rule in
daily life situations. e main study aims to investigate whether these
personality traits are also suitable for the prediction of actual behaviour
in a production work setting.
Main study: e investigation of rule violations in a real work setting
Item M SD pmrit
1 I would rather risk being caught speeding than be late for an important appointment.2.23 .97 .56 -.17
2Although I have a blood alcohol level of 0.8 per cent (blatantly above the legal limit), I give my injured friend a lift to
the hospital. 2.14 1.03 .54 .12
3Although an opposing player lies injured on the ground due to my foul, I continue the match to make the nal score
for my team. 2.12 .97 .53 .33
4I would cross the street when the lights are red in order to catch the bus, even though a family with small children is
standing next to me. 3.13 .11 .78 .23
5 I would rather risk missing the last train than get on it without a valid ticket. 2.79 .11 .70 .23
6 I would rather risk failing an important exam than cheat using illegal means. 2.26 1.1 .56 .25
7Although I notice that I’ve damaged another car while backing out of a parking space, I drive on (hit and run) so that
my insurance doesn’t go up. 1.98 1.01 .49 .37
8Although I suspect the Smart phone (list price 600€) being offered to me by an acquaintance for 200€ is stolen, I buy it 2.23 1.13 .56 .37
9Since my favourite lm is out of stock in the shops, I download it illegally off the internet 2.74 1.22 .69 .37
10 Although I do not feel well, I offer my bus/train seat to a frail person. 1.72 .82 .43 .12
Notes pm = item difculty; rit = discriminatory power; items written in a lighter font are not included in the score calculation
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, item difculties and discriminatory powers for items of the rule violation instrument, N=90.
Item
Self-
control
(Range
1-5)
Injustice
sensi-tivity
(Range
1-5)
Self-
interest
(Range
1-6)
Regulatory
focus at
work prom.
Focus
(Range 1-5)
Regulatory
focus at
work prev.
Focus
(Range 1-5)
Self-
responsibility
(Range 1-6)
Belief in a
just world
(Range
1-6)
+Low
distribution
(Range1-5)
+Non-ra-
tionalization
(Range 1-5)
+Reliability
(Range
1-5)
+Cautiousness
(Range 1-5)
+Con-ict
avoid-ance
(Range
1-5)
1 -.01 -.10 .19 .21 .17 .04 .13 .24 .16 . 11 .33 .09
2 -.09 .11 .04 .00 -.13 -.27** -.01 .09 .03 -.17 -.09 -.11
3 -.05 -.36** .39** .21* .11 -.12 -.07 -.04 -.31** -.13 -.27* -.16
4 .14 -.26* .11 .32** .14 .03 -.17 .07 -.04 -.04 -.44** -.15
5 -.02 -.12 .12 -.04 .01 .03 -.16 .11 -.09 -.13 -.32** -.13
6 -.06 -.11 .05 -.17 -.02 .03 -.07 -.26* -.19 -.11 -.16 -.12
7 -.04 -.39** .48** -.10 -.09 -.13 .10 -.02 -.17 -.31* -.22 .05
8 -.17 -.28** .18 -.02 -.22* -.13 -.11 -.02 -.16 -.17 -.21 -.06
9 -.19 -.15 .16 -.14 -.18 -.15 -.14 .03 -.09 -.19 -.16 -.12
10 .14 -.07 .26* .21 .31** .04 -.07 .21* -.01 -.06 .08
Rule-
violation
instrument
(13) (Range
1-4)
-.11 -.42** .37** .10 -.07 -.12 -.16 -.03 -.27* -.28** -.45**
Note: + indicates a subscale of the Integrity Inventory, ** p < .01, * p < .05
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Correlations for the Criterion and the Predictor Variables, N=91.

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 6 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
is challenging because violations are associated with serious risks
and endangerments. erefore, a business simulation was used to
investigate this research question. e business simulation represents
the work situation of an operator in a chemical plant. e participants
assumed the role of an operator who has the task of starting up the
plant each week (48 weeks in total) for one simulated production year.
e participants were told that they would be paid for their participation
and that their salary would be dependent on their performance level
when operating the plant. As operators, they had to decide for every
simulated week whether to comply with the rule and start up the plant
according to the compulsory and safe 11-step procedure (productive
behaviour), which is, however, not as protable, or to violate the rule,
applying a more protable but unsafe 8-step start-up (work-around)
procedure (CWB). Overall, the participants were confronted 48 times
with the goal conict (or dilemma), with a good remuneration on the
one hand and safety on the other hand.
e behaviour in this dilemma situation is assumed to be
determined by several factors. On the basis of the pilot study results, it
can be assumed that cautiousness, injustice sensitivity and self-interest
are valid personality predictor variables not only for the intention to
violate a rule in a daily life dilemma situation, but also for the actual
behaviour concerning safety-related rule violations in a production
environment.
Hypotheses
1. Low rates of safety-related rule violations can be associated with
high scores on the cautiousness scale.
2. Low rates of safety-related rule violations can be associated with
high scores on the sensitivity towards injustice scale.
3. Low rates of safety-related rule violations can be associated with
low scores on the self-interest scale.
Method
Overall, 152 students (38 female) of the Faculty of Engineering of
the University of [name deleted to maintain the integrity of the review
process] were recruited to participate in the study. e sample was
aged between 18 and 33 years (M = 21.32; SD = 2.39). e study took
about ve hours to complete, including the training of operators. To
generate a goal conict between safety and good remuneration, the
participants were told that they will be paid based on their performance
in operating the plant. Due to ethical considerations, every participant
was compensated with 50 Euros each. e study was conducted
between November 2012 and July 2013. It was approved by the local
Ethics Committee. e participants were recruited on the campus
through yers, posters, face-to-face contact in lectures and by posts in
online forums and in social networks (forums and social communities
of students of the city in which the study takes place and of cities in the
immediately surrounding areas).
Procedure: First, participants were informed about the purposes
of the study and told that they could discontinue at any time (in terms
of informed consent). en, they were introduced to the business
simulation [name deleted to maintain the integrity of the review
process] [reference deleted to maintain the integrity of the review
process]. ey learned and were trained on how to operate the chemical
plant by applying the two start-up procedures. Aer the training, the
participants had to start up the plant and make their own decisions
regarding which procedure to use. Aer they had completed the year
in the business simulation, the predictor’s cautiousness, injustice
sensitivity and self-interest were measured. At the end of the study, the
participants were debriefed and paid.
e criterion variable: Aer the rst quarter of the simulated
year, the 8-step procedure was declared as forbidden, because this
procedure bears the risk of a deagration. To underline the severity
of the consequence, participants were informed that the compliance
with the mandatory procedure would be audited [44]. If a participant
violated the mandatory procedure and this was uncovered by an audit,
s/he would have to pay a ne, which was to receive no weekly salary
for the respective production week. From this point, the participants
were in a goal conict: ey had to decide whether they would comply
with the rule by using the safe but less protable 11-step procedure or
whether they would violate the rule by using the protable but unsafe
8-step procedure (CWB). is decision had to be made a total of 36
times (criterion: 0-36 rule violations).
Results
Due to missing values in the data set or the inability to perform the
two start-up procedures (measured by the performance in applying the
procedures during the training), eight participants were excluded from
further analysis. us, 144 participants were included in the analysis.
Regarding the means and standard deviations, it becomes clear that the
participants decided to violate the safety-related rule on average 13 out
of 36 trials when starting up the plant (Table 5).
Testing the hypotheses: It was hypothesized that low rates of
safety-related rule violations (CWB) can be associated with high scores
on the cautiousness scale (H1), high scores on the sensitivity towards
injustice scale (H2) and low scores on the self-interest scale (H3).
Hypotheses 2 and 3 have to be rejected, as there were no signicant
correlations of sensitivity towards injustice and self-interest with the
amount of rule violations (Table 5). A signicant negative correlation
was found between cautiousness and violations (rs = -.21, p < .05),
supporting hypothesis 1, which predicts that high levels of cautiousness
are associated with low rates of safety-related rule violations.
Discussion
e present investigation aimed at forging bridges between the
research into CWB in the areas of Organisational Psychology and
Human Factors research. Predictors of CWB which are particularly
suitable for the identication of applicants who are prone to safety-
related rule violations were identied. e integrity subscale
Predictor B SE ß T p
Cautiousness
(Range 1-5) -.33 .07 -.41 -4.93 .00
Injustice sensitivity
(Range 1-5) -.14 .06 -.24 -2.50 .02
Self-interest (Range 1-6) .15 .06 .22 2.25 .03
Non-rationalization (Range 1-5) -.17 .09 -.17 -1.99 .05
R² .42
Table 4: Regression Analysis with Rule-Violating Behaviour (Rule Violation
instrument) as Criterion.
M SD 1 2 3
Cautiousness (1) 2.43 .72 - - -
Injustice sensitivity (2) 3.53 1.01 -.09 - -
Self-interest (3) 2.60 .96 .05 -.41** -
Number of violations (4) 13.33 10.54 -.21* -.04 .13
Note:. **p < .01, *p < .05
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Correlations, N = 144.

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 7 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
cautiousness is seen as a promising personality trait for predicting rule
violating behaviour in daily life situations, as well as the violation of
safety-related rules in the production context.
Although it is very eective and time-saving to measure only one
predictor, the prediction of behaviour is more reliable if dierent
predictor variables are used. Unfortunately, of the three investigated
traits, only one trait (cautiousness) was found to be associated with
rule violations in the production context. Further investigations
should identify more predictors to ensure a reliable identication of
applicants who are not prone to safety-related rule violations. Besides
variables investigated in the main study, the pilot study showed further
personality traits which correlated signicantly with rule violations
in daily life settings. Reliability and non-rationalization, which are
subscales of integrity, correlated signicantly with the criterion, but
were not chosen for the main investigation because they explained the
same variance as the chosen variables. Nevertheless, these traits may be
more suitable for the prediction of safety-related rule violations in the
production context. Furthermore, only ve out of nine subscales of the
integrity questionnaire were applied in the pilot study [27]. However,
the remaining four subscales (behavioural intentions, calmness/self-
esteem, reliability/forethought and restraint) may also have the power
to predict safety-related rule violations in the production context. is
should be investigated in subsequent studies.
e initial assumption that there are similar processes and
inuencing factors which determine rule violations in the dierent
contexts has to be reconsidered. e fact that only one of three
investigated personality traits seems to be suitable for the prediction of
rule violations both in daily life settings and in the production context
suggests that rule-related decisions are inuenced by the context in
which the decision has to be made. It appears to make a dierence
whether the decision making concerning the violation of rules has to
be made in the private or in the professional sector.
Limitations
Although a business simulation was used, the investigation
was experimental in nature, meaning that it may be subject to a
comparatively lower power in terms of generalising the ndings
to an organisational context on a 1:1 basis. In this regard, it may be
asked whether the behaviour in organisational settings is comparable
with the behaviour of the participants in the study at hand. Violating
a rule in a simulation environment might dier from violating a
rule in a true organisational setting because participants are aware
that the consequence associated with their rule-violating behaviour
(deagration) is only a ctitious one.
e decit regarding the external validity is one limitation of the
main study. Nevertheless, the lacking external validity can be assumed
to be compensated by the high internal validity associated with this
type of experimental investigation [45]. Besides the fact that relations
can best be identied in experimental settings [45], it is very dicult
to investigate rule violations in organisational settings. e issue of
rule violations is a sensitive one, and the management and industrial
council have to allow the collection of person-related data, including
the measurement of certain personality traits as well as the person-
related recording of rule violations. As a result, the investigation of
rule violations in organisations, as it is proposed in the study at hand,
is virtually impossible from both an ethical and an internal validity
perspective.
However, the experimental setting is not necessarily
disadvantageous: Stone-Romero [45] pointed out that the ndings
gained in experimental settings are highly valuable because the
internal validity is high and the relations found in the experimental
setting can be generalised to eld settings (such as the organisational
setting). A further limitation concerns the sample, which consisted
only of students with the respective educational background and age
range. Although the participants were engineering students (the same
education as the people who work in such plants), the external validity
of the results has to be veried. In this regard, an (ideally longitudinal)
eld study is needed to prove whether the identied personality trait
is, in fact, a good predictor of safety-related rule violations in the
organisational context.
e participants in both studies were recruited not only personally
(main study), but also via online forums and social communities
(pilot study, main study) in which the study was announced. It
might be argued that due to the investigation method of the pilot
study and the recruitment procedures of both studies, the samples
are not representative and that certain traits and experiences might
be overrepresented. As there is evidence that online and paper-and-
pencil data collection can generally be seen as equivalent [46], and
as predominantly student forums and communities were used for
recruitment, it can be assumed that there are no fundamental dierences
between the participants recruited online and those recruited face-to-
face. Hence, the authors assume that the samples are representative for
the considered student population.
Conclusions
e present study considered deviant behaviour from various
angles. e Organisational Psychology perspective and the Human
Factors perspective were combined in order to gain new insights. e
associations between CWB and personality traits were used to generate
ideas for personality predictors of the violation of rules and norms in
daily life settings as well as in the organisational context. In summary,
it can be stated that the assumption that both CWB and rule violations
are determined by the same factors was partially conrmed. Injustice
sensitivity, self-interest and cautiousness are associated with CWB as
well as the intention to violate a rule in daily life settings. With regard
to rule-violating behaviour in the production context, cautiousness
remained as a common predictor.
e outcomes show that interconnecting the ndings from the
dierent areas of Organisational Psychology and Human Factors
oers a valuable resource to generate new ideas for the investigation
of deviant behaviour in the respective other area. Future investigations
should use this option more intensively in order to gain a better
interdisciplinary understanding of the research topic of CWB and rule
violations, respectively.
If further investigations replicate the ndings of an association
between cautiousness and safety-related rule violations, cautiousness
should be used in the selection and development process of employees
in general to prevent CWB. However, it should be used in particular
for employees who work in high-risk settings, such as the production
context, to prevent safety-related rule violations. Previous safety
management regarding the “Human Factor” has been concerned with
the prevention of unsafe acts mostly in terms of industrial engineering
and ergonomics. e measures of personnel selection are not yet
used consistently. In the future, the measures of personnel selection
should not only be used to improve performance, but should also be
applied to enhance safety. As Kamp and Krause [47-49] suggested, the
identication of employees who are especially prone to rule violations

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 8 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
should be an integral part of safety management measures in every
organisation.
Acknowledgement
This investigation was conducted as part of a project funded by the “Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG” (project ID: (German Research Council): KL
2207/2-1).
References
1. Grifn RW, O’Leary-Kelly AE, Collins JM (1998) Dysfunctional behavior in
organizations: Violent and deviant behavior. Stanford, Conneticut: JAI Press.
2. Sackett PR (2002) The structure of counterproductive work behaviors:
Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. Int J Select
Assess 10: 5-11.
3. Gruys ML, Sackett, PR (2003) Investigating the dimensionality of
counterproductive work behavior. Int J Select Assess 11: 30-42.
4. Murphy KR (1993) Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, C.A.: Brooks/Cole.
5. Ones DS (2002) Introduction to the special issue on counterproductive
behaviors at work. Int J Select Assess 10: 1-4.
6. Wickens CD, Lee J, Liu Y, Gordon Becker S (2004). An introduction to human
factors engineering (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
7. Lawton R (1998) Not working to rule: Understanding procedural violations at
work. Safety Science 28: 77-95.
8. Reason JT (2008) The human contribution. Unsafe acts, accidents and heroic
recoveries. Farnham: Ashgate.
9. Reason JT (1990) Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Ehrhart MG, Raver JL (2014) The effects of organizational climate and culture
on productive and counterproductive behavior. The oxford handbook of
organisational climate and culture, Oxford University Press, New York, USA,
pp. 153-176.
11. Iliescu D, Ispas D, Sulea C, Ilie A (2014) Vocational t and counterproductive
work behaviors: A self-regulation perspective. J Appl Psychol .
12. Berry CM, Carpenter NC, Barratt CL (2012) Do other-reports of
counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-
reports? A meta-analytic comparison. J Appl Psychol 97: 613-636.
13. Bennett RJ, Robinson SL (2000) Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. J Appl Psychol 85: 349-360.
14. Giacalone RA, Greenberg JE (1997) Antisocial behavior in organizations. Sage
Publications, Inc.
15. Williams B (2002) Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
16. Arneklev BJ, Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik Jr, RJ (1993). Low self-control and
imprudent behavior. J Quant Criminol 9: 225-247.
17. Arneklev BJ, Elis L, Medlicott S (2006) Testing the general theory of crime:
Comparing the effects of “imprudent behavior” and an attitudinal indicator of
“low self-control”. Western Criminology Review 7: 41-55.
18. Salgado JF (2002) The big ve personality dimensions and counterproductive
behaviors. Int J Select Assess 10: 117-125.
19. Baron SW (2003) Self-control, social consequences, and criminal behavior:
Street youth and the general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 40: 403-425.
20. Alper SJ, Karsh BT (2009) A systematic review of safety violations in industry.
Accid Anal Prev 41: 739-754.
21. Besnard D, Hollnagel E (2014) I want to believe: Some myths about the
management of industrial safety. Cognition, Technology & Work 16: 13-23.
22. Hale A, Swuste P (1998) Safety rules: Procedural freedom or action constraint.
Safety Science 29: 163-177.
23. Berry CM, Ones DS, Sackett PR (2007) Interpersonal deviance, organizational
deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. J Appl
Psychol 92: 410-424.
24. Ones DS, Viswesvaran C, Schmidt FL (1993) Comprehensive meta-analysis
of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and
theories of job performance. J Appl Psychol 78: 679-703.
25. Peng H (2012) Counterproductive work behavior among chinese knowledge
workers. Int J Select Assess 20: 119-138.
26. Woolley RM, Hakstian AR (1993) A comparative study of integrity tests: The
Criterion-Related validity of Personality-Based and overt measures of integrity.
Int J Select Assess 1: 27-40.
27. Marcus B (2004) Self-control in the general theory of crime: Theoretical
implications of a measurement problem. Theoretical Criminology 8: 33-55.
28. Gottfredson M (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
29. Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ, Arneklev BJ (1993) Testing the core
empirical implications of gottfredson and hirschi’s general theory of crime.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30: 5-29.
30. Muraven M, Pogarsky G, Shmueli D (2006) Self-control depletion and the
general theory of crime. J Quant Criminol 22: 263-277.
31. Marcus B (2006) Inventar berufsbezogener einstellungen und
selbsteinschätzungen (IBES). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
32. Marcus B, Ashton MC, Lee K (2013) A note on the incremental validity of
integrity tests beyond standard personality inventories for the criterion of
counterproductive behavior. Can J Adm Sci 30: 18-25.
33. Lerner MJ (1980) The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. NY:
Plenum Press New York.
34. Hafer CL (2000) Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means
drive the need to believe in a just world. Pers Soc Psychol B 26: 1059-1073.
35. Schmitt M, Maes J, Schmal A (1997) Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches problem:
Analyse der meßeigenschaften von meßinstrumenten für einstellungen zu
verteilungsprinzipien, ungerechtigkeitssensibilität und glaube an eine gerechte
welt. Universität Trier: Fachbereich I - Psychologie.
36. Gollwitzer M, Schmitt M, Schalke R, Maes J, Baer A (2005) Asymmetrical
effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior.
Social Justice Research 18:183-201.
37. Cropanzano R., Goldman B, Folger R (2005) Self-interest: Dening and
understanding a human motive. J Organ Behav 26: 985-991.
38. Grover SL, Hui C (1994) The inuence of role conict and self-interest on lying
in organizations. J Bus Ethics 13: 295-303.
39. Bierhoff H, Wegge J, Bipp T, Kleinbeck U, Attig-Grabosch C, et al. (2005)
Entwicklung eines fragebogens zur messung von eigenverantwortung oder:“Es
gibt nichts gutes, außer man tut es”. Zeitschrift Für Personalpsychologie, 4(1):
4-18.
40. DePasquale JP (1999) Exploring personal responsibility for participation in
organizational processes: Antecedents and consequences. (Phd, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University).
41. Higgins ET (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a
motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 1-46)
42. Higgins ET, Friedman RS, Harlow RE, Idson LC, Ayduk ON, et al. (2001)
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride
versus prevention pride. Eur J Soc Psychol 31: 3-23.
43. Wallace JC, Johnson PD, Frazier ML (2009) An examination of the factorial,
construct, and predictive validity and utility of the regulatory focus at work scale.
J Organ Behav 30(6): 805-831.
44. von der Heyde A, Brandhorst S, Kluge A (2013) Safety related rule violations
investigated experimentally one can only comply with rules one remembers
and the higher the ne, the more likely the “soft violations”. Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 57:
225-229.
45. Stone-Romero EF (2011) Research strategies in industrial and organizational
psychology: Nonexperimental, quasi-experimental, and randomized
experimental research in special purpose and nonspecial purpose settings. In
S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
37-72). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
46. Weigold A, Weigold IK, Russell EJ (2013) Examination of the equivalence

Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics 4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Page 9 of 9
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000130
J Ergonomics
ISSN: 2165-7556 JER, an open access journal
of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection
methods. Psychol Methods 18: 53-70.
47. Kamp J, Krause TR (1997) Selecting safe employees: A behavioral science
perspective. Professional Safety 42: 24-28.
48. Seipel C (1999) Die Bedeutung von Gelegenheitsstrukturen in der ‘general
theory of crime’ [The importance of opportunity structures in the ‘general theory
of crime’] by Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi. Soziale Probleme, 10:
144-156.
49. Mohiyeddini C, Montada L (2004) „ Eigeninteresse“ und“ Zentralität des
wertes Gerechtigkeit für eigenes handeln“: Neue Skalen zur Psychologie der
Gerechtigkeit. [“Self-interest” and “centrality of the value of justice for one’s
own actions”: New scales on the psychology of justice] Universität Zürich:
Fachrichtung Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Diagnostik. Universität Trier:
Fachbereich 1. Psychologie: Fachbereich I - Psychologie.
Citation: Heyde AVD, Miebach J, Kluge A (2014) Counterproductive Work
Behaviour in a Simulated Production Context: An Exploratory Study with
Personality Traits As Predictors of Safety-Related Rule Violations. J Ergonomics
4: 130. doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000130
Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of OMICS
Group submissions
Unique features:
• User friendly/feasible website-translation of your paper to 50 world’s leading languages
• Audio Version of published paper
• Digital articles to share and explore
Special features:
• 350 Open Access Journals
• 30,000 editorial team
• 21 days rapid review process
• Quality and quick editorial, review and publication processing
• Indexing at PubMed (partial), Scopus, EBSCO, Index Copernicus and Google Scholar etc
• Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled
• Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientic Credits
• Better discount for your subsequent articles
Submit your manuscript at: www.omicsonline.org/submission