104a. Iliescu, Ispas, Ilie, Sulea (2014) JAP

Journal of Applied Psychology
Vocational Fit and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A

Self-Regulation Perspective
Dragos Iliescu, Dan Ispas, Coralia Sulea, and Alexandra Ilie
Online First Publication, April 28, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036652
CITATION
Iliescu, D., Ispas, D., Sulea, C., & Ilie, A. (2014, April 28). Vocational Fit and
Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A Self-Regulation Perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036652
Journal of Applied Psychology

2014, Vol. 99, No. 4, 000
2014 American Psychological Association

0021-9010/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036652
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Vocational Fit and Counterproductive Work Behaviors:

A Self-Regulation Perspective
Dragos Iliescu
Dan Ispas
National School of Political and Administrative Studies
Illinois State University
Coralia Sulea
Alexandra Ilie
West University of Timisoara
Illinois State University
This article focuses on establishing a link between vocational fit and 1 domain of job performance:
counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). The authors offer a model explaining from a self-regulation
perspective how the lack of vocational fit generates CWB and test this model in 2 studies and 3
multisource samples. The 1st study offers support for the mediation model linking vocational lack of fit
to CWB through frustration. The 2nd study shows across 2 samples, using both self- and supervisor
ratings of CWB, that vocational fit has incremental validity for the prediction of CWB over established
predictors, such as broad and narrow personality traits and affect.
Keywords: vocational interests, vocational fit, counterproductive work behaviors, self-regulation theory
that vocational interests have incremental validity for predicting

job performance above and beyond cognitive ability and personality measures.
The goals of the current article are to contribute to this growing
body of research in three different ways. First, we examine the link
between vocational interests (VI) and counterproductive work
behaviors (CWB). Although CWB are considered as one of the
three major domains of job performance (e.g., Sackett & Lievens,
2008), little if any research attempted to link VI and CWB. CWB
are defined as volitional behaviors in the workplace that harm or
are intended to harm specific individuals and/or the organization
(Spector et al., 2006). CWB are extrarole and nontask in nature
(Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). If we are to reconsider the role of VI
in personnel selection, research should examine the relationship
between VI and all major dimensions of performance, not just task
performance. We also explore the incremental validity of VI for
predicting CWB over well-established predictors. Incremental validity refers to the degree to which a measure increases the ability
to predict an important phenomenon (Haynes & Lench, 2003). The
utility of a new predictor should be judged in terms of its incremental validity over commonly used predictors (e.g., Schmidt &
Hunter, 1998): if the new predictor fails to explain supplementary
variance over other constructs, the practical need for it is limited.
Extant research suggests that CWB are best predicted by noncognitive constructs such as broad and narrow personality traits (e.g.,
Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Judge, 2009; Judge, LePine, &
Rich, 2006) and affect/emotions (e.g., Kaplan et al., 2009; Shockley et al., 2012).
Second, we propose and test a theoretical model linking VI and
CWB. Some of the mechanisms through which VI impacts task
performance are well described (e.g., Van Iddekinge, Roth, et al.,
2011) and supported by evidence (e.g., Ackerman, 1996; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Van Iddekinge, Roth, et al.
(2011) identified two theoretical frameworks that explain how VI
Two major developments have shaped personnel selection research in the past two decades. First, extensive research has been
conducted with the goal of identifying noncognitive predictors of
job performance such as the Big Five personality traits and facets
(e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina,
2006), emotional intelligence (Joseph & Newman, 2010), and
affect (Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman, & Haynes, 2009; Shockley,
Ispas, Rossi, & Levine, 2012). Second, the criterion domain has
been expanded to include, in addition to task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors (Sackett & Lievens, 2008). Despite the abundance of
research, one set of noncognitive predictors that has received little
attention in the selection literature are vocational interests (Van
Iddekinge, Putka, & Campbell, 2011; Van Iddekinge, Roth, Putka,
& Lanivich, 2011). Recent work by Van Iddekinge and colleagues
has linked vocational interests to important organizational outcomes such as job performance (mostly conceptualized as task
performance), training performance, and turnover and has shown
Dragos Iliescu, Department of Psychology, National School of Political and Administrative Studies; Dan Ispas, Department of Psychology, Illinois State University; Coralia Sulea, Department of Psychology, West University of Timisoara; Alexandra Ilie, Department of
Psychology, Illinois State University.
The first author was the founder and former managing partner of the
publisher of the Romanian adaptation of the Self-Directed Search (SDS)
and the NEO Psychological Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R). He currently
has no affiliation or financial interest in the firm.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dragos
Iliescu, Department of Psychology, National School of Political And
Administrative Studies, 6-8 Povernei Street, Sector 1, Bucharest, 010643,
Romania. E-mail: dragos.iliescu@comunicare.ro
1
ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE
influence task performance: (a) through the preferred acquisition of

knowledge in the workplace and (b) through motivation, with VI
orienting the behaviors of employees toward preferred activities.
However, none of these mechanisms can be applied to the VI-CWB
relationship. The acquisition of job-relevant knowledge (Ackerman,
1996; Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003) mechanism posits that interests are volitional aspects that serve to orient a person toward their
preferred knowledge domains. As a result, because of heightened
exposure, acquisition of knowledge from the preferred knowledge
domains is stronger than the acquisition of knowledge from other, less
preferred knowledge domains. An employee showing a strong Conventional interest will be more motivated in acquiring knowledge
associated with Conventional activities (such as using office machinery) than an employee with a weak Conventional interest. Because
job-related knowledge is an important predictor of task performance
(e.g., Hunter, 1986), the orienting effect of VI has an effect on task
performance. However, job-related knowledge is not a predictor of
extrarole performance (Hoffman & Dilchert, 2012). As a consequence, this theoretical framework is inadequate for explaining the
link between VI and CWB.
The second mechanism linking VI and task performance is
based on theories of motivation. According to Campbell et al.
(1993), VI are volitional aspects (i.e., motivators) influencing the
choices made by people about aspects of their working life. They
dictate what work activities to pursue or avoid, and how much
effort and persistence to invest in them. This theory can explain
why a person will engage in a positive behavior at work or will
avoid another activity. But a CWB is not a work activity per se,
and the energizing effect of a motivator for an activity is difficult
to reconcile with such CWB as bullying or sabotage. For example,
an employee having a strong Conventional interest will be motivated to pursue and invest more energy in clerical activities, such
as using office instruments and machines, and working indoors,
than an employee with a weak Conventional interest. However, it
is difficult to explain why the same employee having a strong
Conventional interest will be motivated by his interest to engage in
verbal violence or abuse against a fellow employee or to sabotage
production. Since neither of the theoretical frameworks linking VI
to task performance are applicable to the VI-CWB link, we develop and test a new model based on self-regulation theories.
Third, we propose that a different conceptualization of VI is
more useful for predictive purposes: the supplementary coefficients extracted from VI inventories. In addition to scores for
vocational interests, VI inventories also allow the computation of
supplementary coefficients (Holland, Powell, & Fritzsche, 1994b;
Iachan, 1984a, 1984b). For example, one such traditional coefficient addresses the congruence of a profile with a given environment. Following methodological critiques (e.g., Edwards & Parry,
1993), research into the supplementary coefficients was largely
abandoned. The critique was based on the fact that congruence
indices impose constraints that often are not supported by the data
and, therefore, can result in suboptimal prediction of criteria (Edwards & Parry, 1993). As a result, they can mask potentially
important differential relations between components of the index
and criteria (Edwards, 1994a, 1994b). It is important to point out,
however, that this critique toward profile coefficients was atheoretical in nature. Obviously, profile coefficients capture variance,
and while, granted, this variance can be suboptimal when compared to the input variables it is based on, it can still be related to
important variables that have a role in a predictive model. If the fit

of a profile with an environment can be meaningfully integrated in
a predictive framework, methodological concerns can then be also
addressed, but these should not have prevalence over theory development. From an empirical point of view, recent metaanalytical research actually shows that the correlations between
congruence indices and performance were stronger than for interest scores alone (Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012, p. 384).
Vocational Interests: Definition and Conceptualization

Vocational interests are noncognitive constructs and are defined
as relatively stable individual preferences for certain types of work
activities and environments (Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994). Vocational interests have been studied primarily in the
counseling literature, but they have been shown to predict a number of work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Jackson,
Paunonen, & Rothstein, 1987; Wiener & Klein, 1978), well-being
(Dik & Hansen, 2008), job performance (Tziner, Meir, & Segal,
2002), customer service quality (Fritzsche, Powell, & Hoffman,
1999), and managerial effectiveness (Gellatly, Paunonen, Meyer,
& Jackson, 1991). More recently, vocational interests have been
revived in the selection literature and have been shown to be
promising predictors for job performance, job knowledge and
turnover/continuance (Van Iddekinge, Putke, & Campbell, 2011;
Van Iddekinge, Roth, et al., 2011).
The most influential theoretical framework for the study of
vocational interests is Hollands (1973, 1992) model. Although not
without criticism (e.g., Gati, 1979, 1982, 1991; Rounds & Tracey,
1996; Tinsley, 2000), Van Iddekinge, Putke, and Campbell (2011)
considered Hollands theory of vocational types to have attained
about the same status in the interests literature that the five-factor
model has attained in the personality literature (p. 14). Holland
(1992) saw vocational interests as expressions of personality and
labeled his six categories of vocational interests as personality
types. The six personality types proposed by Holland (1992),
namely, R (Realistic), I (Investigative), A (Artistic), S (Social), E
(Enterprising), and C (Conventional), are structured in a circumplex (hexagonal) structure. People with Realistic interests see
themselves as practical; like hands-on occupations, working outdoors, and using machinery and tools; and usually have mechanical abilities. People with Investigative interests see themselves as
analytical; like to understand, explore, and research things; and
usually have scientific abilities. People with Artistic interests see
themselves as creative and expressive, like creating original work,
and usually have artistic abilities. People with Social interests see
themselves as friendly, kind, and generous; like to help people by
teaching, counseling, and assisting them; and usually have social
and interactional abilities. People with Enterprising interests see
themselves as ambitious and acquisitive; like to persuade, influence, and direct others; and usually have leadership abilities.
People with Conventional interests see themselves as careful and
conforming; like to work indoors, to meet clear standards, and to
work based on clear rules and procedures; and usually have clerical abilities.
Hollands model allows scoring beyond the traditional six vocational types. Holland (1992) proposed three supplementary profile coefficients: a Congruence Index, a Differentiation Index, and
a Consistency Index. The Congruence Index measures the degree
VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB
of fit between an individuals vocational profile and his or her

work environment. The Differentiation Index measures the
strength of a persons vocational choice for one or the other of the
six types; a well-defined (i.e., differentiated) profile of interests
has ideally only one very strong preference and is indicative of a
person with strong options toward one work environment and
neutrality or even rejection with regard to others. The Consistency
Index measures the degree to which a specific profile of vocational
interests is aligned with the assumptions of Hollands model
regarding which types should occur together with which others.
The profile coefficients reflect the interplay between various interests, or between VI and the environment: They measure fit.
The usual approach in the study of vocational interests is to
consider the six types (R, I, A, S, E, and C) as predictors of various
outcomes. This approach has led to disappointing findings (Hunter
& Hunter, 1984), and as a result vocational interests have been
understudied as potential personnel selection tools (Van Iddekinge,
Putke, & Campbell, 2011). Profile coefficients have been studied
even less in the literature and have rarely been linked to predictions. This is due to methodological concerns (Edwards & Parry,
1993) pointing out that profile coefficients may mask important
relations in the underlying data (Edwards, 2002). While the computational approach to such indices could possibly be improved,
empirical research into their covariates is important, especially in
light of a recent meta-analysis by Nye et al. (2012), which has
found that profile coefficients have a stronger relationships with
job performance than interest scores alone.
Vocational Interests and CWB: A Theoretical Model

Theories of vocational interests at work are theories of personorganization (PO) fit. PO fit refers to the compatibility between
individuals and organizations (Kristof, 1996). Research has shown
that congruence between people and organizations is related to
positive behavioral outcomes, such as job performance, organizational citizenship behavior, reduced turnover (Hoffman & Woehr,
2006). Similarly, Holland (1992) also argued that both congruence
and the lack of congruence impact behavior at work. Examples of
PO fit theories are Hollands theory of vocational type versus
environment fit, or Schneiders (1987) attraction-selection-attrition
(ASA). The fit or lack of fit is seen in these theories as influencing
decisions limited to attraction or rejection, and not much thought
is given to how the fit or lack thereof will influence the hundreds
of self-regulatory and goal-directed decisions and behaviors made
by an employee in the workplace. For example, Schneiders (1987)
ASA model predicts how potential employees will be attracted to
jobs and companies where they perceive fit (decision to join the
company) and how, if the job does not match their interest, they
will leave the company (turnover). However, these theories do not
try to explain all the fine-grained day-to-day regulatory decisions
in the life of an employee or the wealth of emotions and cognitions
around such attitudes as job satisfaction, which are an important
antecedent of the final decision to leave (Judge, 1993).
We propose self-regulation theory as an overarching framework
to explain the effect of VI on goal-directed behavior in general and
on CWB in particular.1 Self-regulation theory is a leading
metatheory in the explanation of employee behavior (Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010). Self-regulation refers to the
motivational processes that define goal-directed behavior (Carver
& Scheier, 1998; Lord et al., 2010). Self-regulation theory differentiates between two states, or conditions: the current, experienced
state and the desired, ideal, or goal state. The concept of a goal
is central for self-regulation: Goals are seen as internal representations of what is desirable (Carver & Scheier, 1998). A central
tenet of self-regulation theory is the fact that employees are motivated to reduce the discrepancy between the experienced state
and the goal (ideal) state. This is the process through which goals
work in order to give meaning to human behavior and to the
allocation of resources (e.g., time, effort; Bandura, 2001).
The self-regulation process has been compared to a negative feedback loop, consisting of five elements: the input, the standard, the
comparator, the output, and the disturbance (Carver & Scheier, 1998;
Johnson, Howe, & Chang, 2013). The typical process begins with
information being brought in from the environment; this is the experienced state (the input). This input is compared by the comparator
(the employee) against the desired state (the standard). When there is
little difference between the two states, no action is taken. If, however,
a discrepancy has been registered, negative affect is elicited, and
motivation arises to take corrective action and reduce the discrepancy
(the output). Discrepancy can be reduced in two ways: by targeting
the experienced state (i.e., by influencing the environment) or by
targeting the desired state (i.e., by modifying the standard). The
experienced state is not only influenced by the actions of the comparator but also by disturbances in the environment, for example the
actions of other people or unforeseen events, such as equipment
breakdown. Figure 1 depicts such a simple self-regulatory mechanism
(Johnson et al., 2013).
When applied to vocational interests, the self-regulatory loop
functions in a very specific way (see Figure 2). We argue that only
one of the two possible routes of action can be pursued in the case
of VI. Changing the standard is in the case of VI very difficult
given that VI have been conceptualized and empirically shown
(Low, Yoon, Roberts, & Rounds, 2005) to be very stable individual traits, with some authors considering VI as the most stable of
all psychological constructs (e.g., Hansen, 2005, p. 284). For
example, VI are seen as being so deeply rooted that Holland (1992)
considered them personality types. VI are core preferences guiding the choice of explicit goals; they are implicit theories, and
they influence which explicit goals will be seen as more important
(Dweck, 1996). VI are part of the core set of beliefs that build up
a persons self-concept: they are related to personal ideas and
feelings about self, work and life (Savickas, 2005). Therefore, VI
are difficult to change, and even if they can be changed, it will
likely take more to change them than explicit goal-setting over a
short period of time.
For a description of the self-regulation process in the case of VI,
let us focus on an example of vocational misfit. Imagine an
employee with a strong Realistic interest, working as a customer
relations officer at the information desk of a bank. In a typical
self-regulatory process, information is brought in from the environment, showing that person that the job requires frequent interaction with other people, such as coworkers or customers, and a
number of clerical and administrative tasks, all of them performed
indoors. This input is compared now with the desired state, or goal
1
The authors give special thanks to Russ Johnson for his feedback and
suggestions on this section of the article.
Figure 1. A simple self-regulation process. Adapted from The Importance of Velocity, or Why Speed May
Matter More Than Distance, by R. E. Johnson, M. Howe, and C.-H. D. Chang, 2013, Organizational
Psychology Review, 3, Figure 1, p. 65. Copyright 2013 by Sage.
state, which is typical for a strong Realistic interest: working

outdoors with machinery in hands-on tasks that follow a wellestablished, mechanical logic and little interaction with people.
A clear discrepancy is detected, which elicits negative affect and
frustration: The employee does not like the experienced state. As
a result, the employee is motivated to generate an output that will
reduce the discrepancy.
It is difficult for the employee to consider changing the standard
since vocational interests are implicit theories and are part of his or her
self-image. Instead, the employee will try to influence the environment and make it more Realistic. It is possible that he or she will
resent the customer interactions and the emotional labor. As a result,
the employee will devise a more mechanical approach to informing
customers, in the hope that at least part of the pressure of direct
face-to-face interaction is going to be thus taken away. For example,
he or she will devise a Frequently Asked Questions brochure that
customers could read before approaching the information desk with
matters that are perceived by our employee as trivial. Or he or she will
design forms that have to be filled in by those seeking information
forms that can then be processed by a computer and information dealt
Figure 2. Self-regulation process with vocational interests (VI) as standards. CWB counterproductive work behaviors.
out in a more mechanical (what is certainly perceived by our Realistic

employee as a more efficient) way.
But it is possible that the environments will resist these changes.
These suggestions for new procedures would have to be sold to
and supported by the supervisor, and the supervisor could refuse to
support the changes. Even if the supervisor accepts, the organization could not have the budget to implement the changes in
procedures. Even more so, disturbance could be visible in the
system in the same timefor example, another employee could
propose a competing change, bank regulations could change and
hamper the proposal, the equipment could break down when
implementing the new system, etc. In this case, the environment
will change, but not as expected. In effect, the discrepancy between the experienced state and the goal state will not be reduced.
This will lead to frustration: against the supervisor who does not
support the proposals, against the organization which does not
have the budget, or against the customers who refuse to comply
with a request that is perceived as legitimate by our employee. In
the case of environment change through disturbance effects, frustration against the perceived causes of such disturbance will arise:
against the colleague who has proposed a competing change,
against the guys up there who have implemented the new bank
regulations, or against the computer that just broke down.
Frustration is an established predictor of CWB, and the affective
experience of frustration at work has been linked to CWB by both
theoretical frameworks and empirical findings (Chen & Spector,
1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Mnard,
Brunet, & Savoie, 2011; Shockley et al., 2012). In the classic
frustration-aggression hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1989; Dollard,
Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) frustration has been linked
to emotional/expressive aggression. Frustration can be easily integrated into a self-regulatory framework. Frustration is defined as
interference with goal achievement or goal oriented activity and
the interference with goal maintenance (Spector, 1978, p. 816).
Various forms of CWB, like withdrawal or interpersonal aggression may be enacted as a way to cope with the frustration generated by stressors in the work-setting (Chen & Spector, 1992;
Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010). Fox and Spector (1999) argued that frustration is experienced when work situations impede
achieving valued goals at work, therefore favoring CWB, as an
alternative way of achieving a goal and fulfilling an important
need. That is, by engaging in CWB, employees alleviate frustration
or even eliminate blockagesit is an adaptive mechanism (Chen
& Spector, 1992). For example, the employee may choose to do
the work at a slower pace, or he or she may take additional breaks
to escape even if only for a few minutes from a stressful task.
In summary, we propose a self-regulatory model of vocational
interests, in which vocational fit (or rather lack of fit) leads to
CWB through frustration. As a test of the advanced model we
propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Vocational fit between individual interests and
the work environment is negatively related to CWB, and this
effect is mediated by frustration.
Incremental Validity and Relative Importance of

Vocational Fit for Predicting CWB
In the theoretical model introduced above we established a link
between VI fit and CWB. However, if we are to consider VI fit for
theoretical and practical purposes we must also establish their
unique contribution above and beyond other individual difference
constructs previously linked to CWB.
Among individual differences, the best predictors of CWB have
been found to be broad and narrow personality traits (cf. Dilchert,
Ones, Davis, & Rostow, 2007). Some of the personality traits that
are most commonly examined as predictors of CWB are the broad
domains of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Metaanalytic research found that especially conscientiousness and
agreeableness and to a lower extent emotional stability (Berry et
al., 2007) are related to CWB. Explanations for the cognitivemotivational processes linking these personality traits to CWB
have also been offered (e.g., Barrick, Mitchell, & Stewart, 2003;
Penney, Hunter, & Perry, 2011). Also in the area of broad personality traits, core-self evaluations (CSE) have been linked to CWB,
Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) defined core selfevaluations as a broad personality domain, consisting of four
narrower traits (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism,
and locus of control) and being fundamental to the appraisal of a
persons own value and capability of performance. Judge (2009)
argues that people high on CSE have a high work performance and
blooming careers, also being less stressed and having better coping
mechanism. CSE as a broad domain, as well as its component traits
(Whelpley & McDaniel, 2011) have been negatively linked to
CWB (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012).
Narrow personality traits also predict CWB. In a comprehensive
meta-analysis, OBoyle, Forsyth, Banks, and McDaniel (2011)
found that all three components of the dark triad of personality
(i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) are good
predictors of CWB.
Self-Control (i.e., the ability to overpower ones impulses and

surmount undesirable behavioral tendencies; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) is positively related with better interpersonal
relationships (Tangney et al., 2004) and negatively related to
workplace deviance due to ones capacity to refrain from giving
way to angry impulses (Restubog, Garcia, Wang, & Cheng, 2010).
Locus of control, defined as the generalized expectancy of people
about whether they can control the environment by their own
actions or are in turn controlled by external forces (Rotter, 1966;
Spector, 1988) has consistently been linked with CWB, OBrien
and Allen (2008) explained this link by suggesting that people
internal in their locus of control are better at restraining aggressive
tendencies, while Fox and Spector (1999) suggested that the personal internal or external attributional style affects the experience
of frustration and the correspondent behavioral responses. In the
current study, we chose to focus on work locus of control because
it has stronger relationships with work-related criteria (Wang,
Bowling, & Eschleman, 2010).
Moving to affect/emotions, both positive and negative affectivity have been linked to CWB (Kaplan et al., 2009; Shockley et al.,
2012). Furthermore, trait anger, defined as the predisposition to
respond to situations with hostility, and to experience anger over
time and across contexts (Spielberger, 1996), has also been found
to be predictive of CWB independently of negative affectivity
(Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Ilie, Penney,
Ispas, & Iliescu, 2012).
Interests are conceptually different from personality traits and
from affect (Gottfredson, 1999). Interests are more proximal to
behavior than personality, which has a more distal influence (Borgen & Harmon, 1996). While VI are noncognitive and relatively
stable constructs akin to personality, they are more domain specific, i.e., they are specific to the work domain. They are also
directly related to a preference toward specific work tasks, actions,
and environments, while personality traits are general and not
specific for an activity domain (Blake & Sackett, 1999). The
distinction between personality and interests is supported empirically by meta-analyses (Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003; Larson,
Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2002), where the strongest corrected correlation is .41, and most of the other correlations are quite small.
Interests are also different from affect, because the former operate
through cognitive and deliberative channels, whereas the latter
operates through emotional, nonconscious, and more impulsive
channels.
Also, the specific mechanisms through which personality and
affect impact CWB are different from those proposed by us for
interests. It is argued that individual differences play an important
role for CWB, because they either have a direct influence on CWB
or can shape individual attitudes toward such behaviors (Cullen &
Sackett, 2003). Personality can affect the way individuals appraise
their environment and how they generate emotional responses and
can also affect their capacity to refrain from aggressive impulses
(Spector, 2011). Moreover, considering that CWB are volitional
and related to individual behavioral tendencies, a relevant focus in
predicting CWB is on personality variables that contribute to the
avoidance of such detrimental acts (Hoffman & Dilchert, 2012).
Therefore, positive broad or narrow stable personality traits are
negatively related with CWB because they provide individuals
with resources for dealing with stress at work, for keeping focused
on work tasks, and for maintaining positive attitudes and emotions
toward themselves and toward others at work. As a result, personality impacts CWB through a rather nonspecific, dispositional
mechanism.
Finally, from a statistical point of view, in order to explain
variance above personality and affect, VI fit should be correlated
with the criterion but should not be correlated with other predictors. However, most of the studies examining the relationship
between VI and personality conceptualized VI as types and without examining fit/profile coefficients (for meta-analyses, see Larson et al., 2002; Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005). Only
a very limited number of studies examined the relationship between vocational fit and personality, and we could not find any
studies examining the relationship between vocational fit and
affect. VI fit, conceptualized as congruence between vocational
interests and the work environment, was found to show no significant correlations with any of the FFM broad domains in both
studies identified by us (Bullock & Reardon, 2008; De Fruyt &
Mervielde, 1997).
Based on the theoretical and empirical arguments presented
above we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Vocational fit shows incremental validity over
personality and affect for predicting CWB.
Plan of Research
To test our hypotheses we conducted two multisource studies.
The goal of Study 1 was to test the theoretical model advanced in
Hypothesis 1, linking vocational fit and CWB through frustration.
In Study 2, across two samples, we examined Hypothesis 2 focusing on unique variance and relative importance of VI fit when
compared to personality and affect.
Study 1
Method
Participants. The sample consists of 226 participants, among
them 115 males (51%); the age of the participants ranged from 18
to 54 years (M 30.6, SD 9.5). The distribution of the
participants in terms of profession is heterogeneous: 95 different
professions, and none held by more than seven participants in the
sample; 56 different Holland codes. The supervisors assessing
these participants were 155 males (69%), and their age ranged
from 23 to 62 years (M 36.2, SD 9.0).
Procedure. The studies were conducted in Romania, which is
a Latin nation of Roman heritage, with a population of around 20
million, located in southeastern Europe with borders along the
Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary. All data (both
Study 1 and Study 2) was collected in Bucharest, which is a city
of about 2 million inhabitants and the capital of Romania. All the
instruments used were translated and adapted to the Romanian
culture following international guidelines for test adaptation and
validation. Part of the measures have been previously used in
published research on Romanian samples (e.g., Ilie et al., 2012;
Levine et al., 2011). The Self-Directed Search (SDS, Holland et
al., 1994b) has been thoroughly investigated in Romanian samples,
and Iliescu, Ispas, Ilie, and Ion (2013) have shown robust evidence
for measurement equivalence and for fit with various models of
vocational structure. The NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI have also been
extensively studied in Romania (e.g., Iliescu, Ilie, Ispas, & Ion,
2012), and Ispas, Iliescu, Ilie, and Johnson (in press) provided
evidence for a robust fit with the U.S. factor structure.
The participants were sampled randomly from a large database
of a market research institute. They were contacted by phone and
asked as filter questions if they were employed full-time, if they
would participate, and if they would be willing to provide contact
details of their supervisors. Around 20% of those contacted have
answered yes to all of the questions and were retained in the
database. The data were then collected by five professional interviewers, individually for each participant, in the participants
homes. Supervisory data were also collected individually for each
participant, at the supervisors home or workplace. Of the 250
participants originally retained, for 24 we were not able to collect
supervisor data.
Measures.
Vocational fit. We used the Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland
et al., 1994b) to assess vocational interests and to compute the Congruence index, our measure of VI fit. The SDS measures the six
personality types proposed by Hollands theory, namely, R (Realistic), I (Investigative), A (Artistic), S (Social), E (Enterprising), and C
(Conventional). The SDS has been adapted in Romania (Pitariu,
Iliescu, & Vercellino, 2009), and the Romanian form of the test has
been extensively validated (e.g., Iliescu et al., 2013). The SDS comprises 228 items, grouped in four sections: Activities (66 items),
Competencies (66 items), Occupations (84 items), and Selfassessment (12 items). Items for the first three sections are dichotomous, for which the test-taker answers if he or she likes ( 1) or
dislikes ( 0) a set of Activities (e.g., Learn strategies for business
success), if he or she holds a set of Competencies (e.g., I can use
algebra to solve mathematical problems), and if he or she feels
attracted by a set of Occupations (e.g., Airplane mechanic). The
Self-assessment section comprises 12 abilities (e.g., Mechanical ability), rated by the test-taker on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Reliabilities (alpha coefficients) computed for the R, I, A, S, E, and C scales
were .88, .92, .72, .81, .85, and .93, respectively.
We adopted an atomistic approach to assessing fit (Edwards,
Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006): The person and the
environment were measured as separate entities. Each participant
was asked to name his or her job; these were recorded as named by
the participant, and later RIASEC codes for these were generated
per Gottfredson and Holland (1996). A Congruence Index was
then computed between the two independent measures by comparing the first letter of the Holland code characteristic for a person
with the Holland code of the environment or profession. Based on
the hexagonal assumptions of the Holland model, the Congruence
Index is 4 if the letters are identical, 3 if the letters are adjacent, 2
of they are not adjacent but also not opposite, and 1 of the letter are
opposite. Higher congruence scores show a higher agreement. The
Congruence Index is our measure of VI fit.
Although a number of alternatives for the computation of the
Congruence Index have been proposed in the literature (e.g., Brown &
Gore, 1994; Iachan, 1984a, 1984b; Swaney & Prediger, 1985; Zener
& Schnuelle, 1976), we chose to use the original computation proposed by Holland et al. (1994b). There are two reasons for this
decision. First, Hollands approach is the most commonly used index
in research and practice (Holland et al., 1994b), as it is part of the
Counterproductive work behaviors. CWB were assessed with

the 32-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist
(CWB-C, Spector et al., 2006). A sample item is Purposely
wasted my employers materials/supplies. Items were assessed on
a 5-point frequency scale (1 never, 5 daily). The reliabilities
for self-ratings and for supervisor-ratings were .72 and .81.
standard scoring of the VI measure proposed by Holland and used in

our study (the Self-Directed Search).
Second, computational simplicity may be more helpful in our
context. Although some authors argued that more computationally
sophisticated indices should exhibit higher predictive validity
(Tranberg, Slane, & Ekeberg, 1993), empirical investigations
(Hoeglund & Hansen, 1999) could not find evidence supporting
this hypothesis when using job satisfaction as the criterion. There
have been discussions regarding the usage of one-, two-, or threeletter Holland codes in research and practice, with more-lettered
alternatives being more computationally sophisticated. While the
first letter of a vocational profile, standing for the most prominent
interest, is generally stable in time and valid for future career
decisions (ONeil, Magoon, & Tracey, 1978; Wiggins & Weslander, 1977), this may not be the case for the second letter or for
the third. Holland himself (Holland, Powell, & Fritzsche, 1994a, p.
22) noted that the first letter of the occupational code is most
important, most descriptive, and most reliable. The same applies
for the codes associated with environments, and Holland et al.
(1994a, p. 22) emphasize that the codes are approximate, not
precise . . . the degree of discrepancy between SDS codes and
occupational codes is rough, not precise. Using sophisticated
computations that make use of all three letters of a code or even all
six interests scales in a profile would build upon a degree of error
variance in both the individual profile and the environment profile
and may be more complex than it really needs to be (Gore &
Brown, 2006).
Frustration. Frustration was measured with six items written
by us. Existing scales of frustration (e.g., Peters & OConnor,
1980) are focused on frustration with specific characteristics such
as supervision or salary. Our operational definition of frustration is
focused on frustration with the work itself (a result of a lack of
vocational fit). The six items are At my job I feel frustrated
because I cannot fulfill my professional objectives; I am frustrated that I cannot get my job done, because of various obstacles
I meet; I am frustrated because at work I meet obstacles anywhere I turn; Frustration is an integral part of my job; My
frustration at work is generated by what I do or cannot do; The
very work I have to do is in fact frustrating for me. The items
were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 not at all true, 5
completely true). Internal consistency was .84.
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations between
the variables in Study 1. Correlational analyses support the links
between the components of our model. Vocational fit correlates
significantly with frustration (r .19, p .01) and with CWB
when measured by self-rating (r .15, p .05), although not
when measured by supervisor-ratings (r .00, ns.). Frustration
also correlates significantly with self-rated CWB (r .27, p
.001), but not with supervisor-rated CWB (r .03, ns).
In order to offer a robust test of the mediation model proposed
in Hypothesis 1, we ran mediation analyses for both self and
supervisor ratings of CWB. We used both the Sobel test and the
bootstrap confidence intervals, which are often preferred over the
Sobel test (Hayes, 2009). The Sobel test was computed based on
the SPSS syntax offered in Preacher and Hayes (2004), and the
bootstrap intervals were based on Hayes and Preacher (in press).
The results of these mediation analyses are presented in Table 2.
Hypothesis 1 was supported but only for self-ratings of CWB: The
indirect mediation effect is shown as significant both by the Sobel
test (r .13, p .05) and by the bootstrap confidence interval.
Discussion
In Study 1 we tested a model linking VI fit with CWB with
frustration as an explanatory mechanism. VI fit was negatively
related to CWB when using self-ratings but not when using supervisor ratings. We only found support for the proposed model
when using self-report ratings of CWB but not when using
supervisor-ratings.
Having established a link between VI fit and CWB we turn our
attention to Study 2 where we test Hypothesis 2, concerned with
the incremental contribution of VI fit over and above personality
and affect.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Study 1
Descriptive
Variable
Demographics
1. Gender
2. Age
Predictors
3. Vocational Fit
4. Frustration
Criterion
5. Self CWB
6. Supervisor CWB
SD
30.60
9.54
2.51
7.03
0.96
1.98
33.86
33.77
2.60
3.04
Note. CWB counterproductive work behaviors.
p .05. p .01. p .001.
Correlation
Alpha
.08
.84
.04
.03
.00
.03
.19
.72
.81
.01
.03
.02
.06
.15
.00
.27
.03
.59
8
Table 2
Mediation Analyses for Study 1
Significance for indirect effect

Sobel
Bootstrap
95% confidence
interval
95% confidence
interval
Variable
Total effect
Direct effect
Indirect effect
SE
Lower
Upper
SE
Lower
Upper
Self CWB
Supervisor CWB
.42
.01
.29
.01
.13
.02
.06
.04
.24
.11
.02
.06
.025
.635
.08
.04
.34
.13
.01
.05
Study 2
Method
Participants.
Sample 1. The sample consisted of 189 participants, among
them 83 males (44%); the ages of the participants ranged from 18
to 52 years (M 35.0, SD 7.2). The distribution of professions
held by participants was very diverse: Only one profession (accountant) was held by nine participants, while all other professions
present in the sample were held by four or fewer participants. A
total of 98 professions, with 97 different Holland codes, are
contained in the data collection, ranging from carpenters to economic analysts. For a part of the sample (76 participants) we
were also able to collect supervisor-ratings of CWB. Supervisors
were aged between 27 and 48 years (M 38.0, SD 4.9), and
42 were male.
Sample 2. The second sample consisted of 245 dyads (employees and their direct supervisors). The employees were 131
males (53%), and their ages ranged from 18 to 54 years (M 30.6,
SD 10.0). The supervisors were 180 males (73%), and their ages
ranged from 24 to 65 years (M 37.4, SD 8.5). The sample is
heterogeneous in terms of Holland codes, containing 49 different
codes.
Procedure.
Sample 1. The data were collected by four professional interviewers, individually for each participant, in the participants
home. All participants were employed full-time and were sampled
through a nonprobability route procedure, with every 10th household on the route being visited by an interviewer. While the route
composition principle was the same (turn left at every even crossing, turn right at every odd one), points of route entry were
different for each of the four interviewers and were selected
randomly, from the same large city. We used this sampling method
in an effort to select a heterogeneous sample. The interviewers
introduced themselves and explained that they were collecting data
for a research study. Participation was voluntary, and the surveys
were filled out on the spot or picked up by the interviewers the
following day in sealed envelopes. For the participants who chose
to answer on the spot, the administration lasted on average 55 min.
A subset of the participants (N 102) were willing to provide
contact information for their direct supervisor. The supervisors
were contacted and asked to complete the observer-rating form of
Bennett and Robinsons (2000) questionnaire on average 4 weeks
after the employee reports. The supervisors mailed the completed
surveys directly to us. We received 79 supervisor forms, but due to

excessive missing data, only 76 were usable.
There are no differences in criteria between the participants who
provided and those who did not provide supervisor contacts, but
there are some group differences in predictors. The group of
participants who provided supervisor contacts scored higher on
Investigative interests, t(187) 2.08, p .05, d 0.30; Enterprising interests, t(187) 2.29, p .05, d 0.33; Openness to
Experience, t(187) 2.15, p .05, d 0.31; Conscientiousness,
t(187) 2.30, p .05, d 0.34; Self-control, t(187) 3.05, p
.01, d 0.44; and scored lower on Psychopathy, t(187) 2.49,
p .05, d 0.36.
Sample 2. The participants for this sample were employees
from five different organizations, active in the areas of marketing,
communication, public administration, production of goods, and
information technology. Data were collected in the workplace for
both self-ratings and supervisor-ratings. A random sample of employees from each organization was invited to participate with the
goal of selecting a heterogeneous sample in terms of occupations.
The employees were asked to write down the name of their
supervisors who were then also invited to participate. Participation
was voluntary, and both the employees and the supervisors were
assured that the data would be confidential and would only be used
for research purposes. Four hundred fourteen pairs of questionnaires were distributed, and complete data (both supervisor and
employee reports) were obtained from 246 dyads (i.e., a 59%
response rate). Both the employees and the supervisors returned
the surveys in sealed envelopes collected in sealed boxes.
Some differences between the five organizations in terms of the
variables measured are visible: the company active in the production of goods has a higher rate of Realistic interests, F(4, 240)
32.25, p .001, 2 .41, than any of the other companies, and
the company active in communication and advertising has a higher
rate of Artistic interests, F(4, 240) 3.46, p .01, 2 .04, and
also a higher rate of Congruence, F(4, 240) 12.99, p .001,
2 .16, than the other companies. In view of the fact that we
have measured over 20 variables, and only three of them show
limited differences between one company and another, we combined the data in a single sample.
Measures.
Vocational fit. In both samples we used the Self-Directed
Search (SDS, Holland et al., 1994b) to assess vocational interests.
The SDS has been described in Study 1. Reliabilities computed for
the six scales were .90 for R, .87 for I, .88 for A, .87 for S, .90 for
E, and .89 for C for Sample 1 and .93 for R, .84 for I, .83 for A,
.77 for S, .83 for E, and .86 for C for Sample 2. As in Study 1, the
Congruence index of the SDS was used as a measure of vocational
fit.
PersonalityBig Five. In both samples we used the NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), the
short version of the NEO Personality Inventory, Revised (NEO
PI-R). The NEO PI-R is considered the most prominent questionnaire attached to the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality
(Hofstee, 2003). The NEO-FFI has 60 items measured by a 5-point
scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree): 12 items for
each of the five broad personality domains. Reliabilities computed
for the present study for the domain scales were .87 for N, .78 for
E, .79 for O, .78 for A, and .76 for C for Sample 1 and .77 for N,
.80 for E, .79 for O, .68 for A, and .92 for C for Sample 2. The
Romanian NEO-FFI shows very high convergence (above .90)
with the longer NEO PI-R (Ilie et al., 2012; Ispas et al., in press).
Core Self-Evaluations. In both samples, core self-evaluations
were measured with the Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003)
Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES). The CSES contains 12 items
(Sample 1 .88, Sample 2 .80), assessed on a 5-point scale
(1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree).
Dark triad. The dark triad of Machiavellianism, narcissism,
and psychopathy were assessed in the first sample using the
Paulhus and Jones (2011) measures. The questionnaire has 28
items: 10 for Machiavellianism (e.g., Its not wise to tell your
secrets), 9 for Narcissism (e.g., I have been compared to famous
people), and 9 for Psychopathy (e.g., Payback needs to be quick
and nasty). Items are rated based on a 5-point scale (1 strongly
disagree, 5 strongly agree). Reliabilities for the three scales in
Sample 1 are .63 for Machiavellianism, .49 for Narcissism, and .79
for Psychopathy.
In Sample 2, we used longer measures of the dark triad. Machiavellianism was assessed with the 20-item MACH-IV (Christie
& Geis, 1970). Items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 strongly
disagree, 5 strongly agree). Coefficient alpha was .81. Narcissism was assessed with the 40-item forced-choice Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1981). Coefficient
alpha was .70. Psychopathy was assessed with the 64-item SelfReport Psychopathy SRP-III (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in
press). Coefficient alpha was .92.
Self-control. Self-control was measured with the brief version
of the Self-Control Scale (SCS; Tangney et al., 2004). The brief
SCS contains 13 of the original 36 SCS items (e.g., I am good at
resisting temptation), rated on a 5-point scale (1 very atypical
for me, 5 very typical for me). Internal consistency was .83 for
Sample 1 and .81 for Sample 2.
Work locus of control. For the assessment of work locus of
control, we used the Work Locus of Control Scale (WLCS, Spector, 1988). The WLCS consists of 16 items (Sample 1 .70;
Sample 2 .85), assessed on a 6-point scale (1 strongly
disagree, 6 strongly agree).
Trait anger. Trait anger has been assessed by means of the
Trait section of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory
(STAXI-2, Spielberger, 1996). The Trait section of the STAXI-2
contains 10 items assessed on a 4-point scale (1 almost never,
4 almost always). Reliability in Samples 1 and 2 was .88 and
.85.
Positive and negative affectivity. Self-rated affect was measured with the 20-item version of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS-X, Watson & Clark, 1984). The 20-item version of the PANAS-X includes 10 items for each of the two
general dimension scales of Negative Affect and Positive Affect.
Items are adjectives, picturing affective states (e.g., afraid for
negative affect and enthusiastic for positive affect), assessed on
a 5-point scale (1 very slightly or not at all, 5 extremely), and
self-ratings were collected in the current study with instructions to
focus on the past 2 weeks. Reliabilities for the positive and the
negative affect scales were .76 and .85 in Sample 1 and .79 and .86
in Sample 2.
Counterproductive work behaviors. In both samples, CWB
were assessed with the Bennett and Robinson (2000) scale. The
Workplace Deviance Scale (WDS) consists of 19 items: seven
focusing on Interpersonal deviance (CWB-I, e.g., I have made fun
of someone at work) and 12 focusing on Organizational deviance
(CWB-O, e.g., I have taken property from work without permission). The items are assessed on a 5-point scale (1 never, 5
daily). We only used the overall CWB score in our study. Reliabilities in Sample 1 were self-ratings were .85 for self-ratings
and .88 for supervisor-ratings. Reliabilities for Sample 2 were
computed as .93 for self- and .85 for supervisor-ratings,
respectively.
Results
Descriptive statistics. Table 3 reports descriptive statistics for
the variables included in both samples. The intercorrelations
among the study variables are presented in Table 4 for Sample 1
and in Table 5 for Sample 2.
Hypothesis 2 states that interests have unique effects for predicting CWB, when compared with personality and affect. We
assess uniqueness via two ways: incremental prediction and relative weights analyses. Before assessing uniqueness per se, we have
also at first established the criterion validity of vocational fit for
CWB.
Vocational fit and CWB. We computed zero-order correlations between the vocational fit index and CWB in both samples.
For self-ratings of CWB, the results show that in both samples
CWB is negatively and significantly correlated with both the
vocational fit index (r .35, p .001 for Sample 1 and r .21,
p .001 for Sample 2). For supervisor ratings of CWB, a similar
pattern emerged. CWB is associated with the Congruence index
(r .40, p .001 for Sample 1 and r .24, p .001 for
Sample 2). Therefore, the direct link between vocational fit and
CWB is supported for both self and supervisor ratings of CWB.
Incremental validity of vocational fit. Incremental prediction was tested by conducting hierarchical regressions for both self
and supervisor rated CWB across both samples. In Step 1 we
entered age and gender, broad and narrow personality, and affect.
In Step 2 we entered the vocational fit index. The results for both
samples are presented in Table 6.
For self-ratings of CWB, demographics and personality predictors of CWB cover R2 .39, p .001 in Sample 1 and R2 .20,
p .001 in Sample 2. The vocational profile coefficients explain
additional variance in both samples: R2 .06, p .001 for
Sample 1 and R2 .05, p .01 for Sample 2. Similar results
were obtained for supervisor-ratings of CWB. Demographics and
10
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Variables in Study 2 (Samples 1 and 2)
Sample 1
CWB as self-ratings (N 189)

Variable
SD
Age
Personality broad
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Personality narrow
Machiavellianism
Narcissism
Psychopathy
Self-control
Locus of Control
Trait Anger
Core Self-Evaluations
Positive Emotions
Negative Emotions
Vocational types
Realistic
Investigative
Artistic
Social
Enterprising
Conventional
Vocational Fit
Criterion
Self CWB
Supervisor CWB
34.98
7.25
32.78
44.79
35.77
40.79
48.70
10.04
6.77
7.71
7.39
5.90
33.50
27.82
20.89
43.86
58.62
23.16
43.90
39.70
23.03
Alpha
CWB as supervisor-ratings (N
76)
M
SD
34.89
7.44
.87
.78
.79
.78
.76
31.64
45.03
37.22
41.95
49.89
8.93
6.46
6.28
6.93
5.02
4.88
4.49
6.64
9.29
9.69
6.50
8.37
5.28
6.72
.63
.49
.78
.83
.70
.88
.88
.76
.85
32.67
28.37
19.45
46.32
60.30
22.09
45.26
40.24
22.76
19.29
17.93
15.04
21.29
24.84
23.12
3.42
12.29
8.71
11.43
11.05
11.06
10.52
0.96
.90
.87
.88
.87
.90
.89
44.55
18.15
.93
Alpha
Sample 2
M
SD
Alpha
30.64
10.04
.85
.77
.68
.74
.69
25.80
49.14
29.98
36.67
54.56
7.62
6.91
8.66
6.58
5.91
.77
.80
.79
.68
.92
4.48
4.55
6.17
7.67
8.51
6.27
7.32
5.67
6.78
.63
.54
.77
.76
.71
.88
.86
.82
.89
58.00
18.48
9.40
52.49
44.26
30.09
48.42
41.57
21.09
12.46
5.01
1.85
7.55
11.88
7.45
7.14
5.12
7.13
.81
.70
.92
.81
.85
.85
.80
.79
.86
18.54
19.53
15.03
23.08
27.07
24.83
3.54
11.79
8.58
10.67
11.76
10.71
11.42
0.87
.90
.85
.86
.86
.91
.89
22.64
15.96
11.58
21.23
26.13
20.69
2.72
15.24
8.55
9.73
7.93
8.16
8.58
0.95
.93
.84
.83
.77
.83
.86
49.80
12.39
.88
26.78
22.86
10.58
5.21
.94
.86
personality variables had an R2 .34, p .001 in Sample 1 and

R2 .32, p .001 in Sample 2. The vocational profile coefficients
explain additional variance in both samples: R2 .10, p .001
for Sample 1 and R2 .04, p .01 in Sample 2.
Relative importance of vocational fit. LeBreton, Hargis,
Griepentrog, Oswald, and Ployhart (2007) proposed that, in addition to testing for incremental validity in prediction, it is also
important to estimate the relative importance of predictor variables
through a relative weights analysis.2 By using relative weights
analysis we can examine each predictors relative importance, or
the proportionate contribution each predictor makes to R2, considering both its direct effect (i.e., its correlation with the criterion)
and its effect when combined with the other variables in the
regression equation (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004, p. 240). LeBreton et al. (2007) showed that even small increments in validity can
reflect sizeable contributions to overall prediction.
To examine the relative weights of the predictors, as a percentage of R2, we conducted a relative weights analysis based on the
method proposed by Johnson (2000). The results of the analysis
are presented in Table 7. Vocational fit emerges consistently as
among the best predictors of CWB. For example, in Sample 1
vocational fit is the second strongest predictor (11.5%), after
psychopathy (20.6%), when CWB is self-rated and is the fourth
strongest predictor (9.1%), after agreeableness (10.0%), core selfevaluations (9.5%) and narcissism (9.2%), when CWB is
supervisor-rated. In Sample 2, vocational fit is the second strongest

predictor (12.7%), after psychopathy (19.3%), when CWB is selfrated and the second strongest predictor (9.2%), after agreeableness (10.0%), when CWB is supervisor-rated.
The results show that vocational fit has incremental validity
over personality and affect for predicting CWB. Additionally,
vocational fit emerges as one of the most important predictors of
CWB in terms of its relative importance. Therefore, Hypothesis 2
was supported.
General Discussion
Summary of Findings
In the current study we proposed and tested a theoretical model
based on a self-regulatory framework explaining how vocational
fit is linked to counterproductive work behaviors. The model was
supported when self-report ratings of CWB were used. We further
advanced vocational fit as a new and important predictor of CWB,
one that is conceptually different and functions through different
mechanisms than other already established individual differences
predictors. Across two multisource samples and using two differ2
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this analysis.
.08
.06
.08 .02
10
.12 .05 .21

.07 .08
.09
.13
.22 .01
.16
6
.05
.05
11
13
14
15
16
17
.04 .05
.00 .16
.10 .02 .03 .19 .18 .17

.15 .12 .07 .19 .24 .24
.19
.07
.11
.04
19
.36 .48
.21 .43
.40
.21
.25 .03
.29
.25
.34
.24
.03
.38
.09
.24
.05
.22
.27 .26
21
.06 .12
.03
.13
20
.01
.16
22
24
.03 .10
.16
.11
23
.50
.36
.10
.05
.34
.19
.14
.18
.14 .03
.07 .09
.05
.03
.14
.34
.37 .33
.08
.24
.26
.31
.11
.08
.10
.19
.69
.25 .19 .03

.11
.59
.45
.08
.10
.41
.41 .29
.23
.57
.52
.04
.06
.54 .02
.03
.66
.10
.00
.08
.23 .30
.13
.13
.04
.15
.23
.02
.01
.14
.15 .04
.07
.05 .35
.04 .11 .16 .08 .40
.02 .04 .02

.05 .13 .08
.26
.08
.17 .05
.59
.60
.50
.28
.36 .20
.41
.65
.16
.41
.21 .47
.32
.69
.28
.49
.13 .18
.41
.59
.65
.23
.28
.26 .48
.44
.51
.70
.02 .09
.02 .35 .02
.14
.22
.02
.21
.05
.17
.22
.17
.11
.50
.22
.34
.17
.11
.03 .30 .01
.09
.37
.45
.40
.24
.04
.18
.10
.10
.07 .10
.00
.31
.20
.26
.28 .02
.60 .34
.60 .05 .07
.32
.15 .09
.05 .28
.34
.12
.10 .13 .06
.06
.32
.33
.22
.34 .10 .08
.01
.11
.13 .07
.42
.75
.58
.42
.40 .19
.29
.74
.01 .45 .25
.06 .06 .04 .08
.04
.12 .21
.42
.50 .40
.03
.05 .04
.02
.18
.13
.16 .29
.41
.49 .52
.23 .09 .52 .31
.12 .05
.26 .26
.03
.16
.22
.20
.26 .21 .05 .11
.28
.36 .44 .06
.37
.07
.24
.18
.15
.11 .36
.51
.45
.15
.27
.29
.29
.11
.13
.07
.10
.48 .26
.16
.05
.09
.20
.03
.29 .28 .40 .52
.30
.22 .53
.09
.42 .03
.35
.12
.08 .01 .41
.21 .09
.39
.54
.47 .45
.04 .52
.13 .61
.28 .43 .12
.06 .03
.16
.32
.25 .19 .02
.03
.08
.36
.06 .11 .02
.18
.10 .09
.10
.00
.32
.04
.13 .39 .25 .50
.36
.10
.63 .56
.14 .14
.60
.17
.16
.10
.04
.37
.46 .08
.31
.29
.25
.48
.07 .02
.31
.02 .18
.21
.07 .09
.37 .11
.17 .27 .28 .54
.13 .16
.48 .44 .01
.57 .02 .01
.44 .32 .20 .23 .37 .22

.00
.16
.13 .03
.02
.09
.33 .06
.07
.04 .30 .04 .16
.13
.24
.30
.21
.14
.23
.22
.61 .03 .12 .30
.25
.47
.41
.23
.23
.34
.41
.72 .07
.06 .23
.16
.33
.06
.04
.21 .06
.36
.54 .04
.13 .02
.31
.56
.36
.22
.28
.15
.31
.51 .16 .01 .25
.09
.30
.29
.00
.10
.04
.07
.03
.13
.19 .06 .09 .12 .22
18
.01
.01 .02 .14
.00 .37 .07
.10
.17 .15 .10
.19 .08
.26
.02 .11
12
.17
.00 .22
.26 .54 .57 .61
.30 .34
.30 .63
.02
.12
.11 .06
.27
.16
.26 .06
.16
.23
.10
.10
.38
.22
.17
.28
.35
.00
.09 .36
.00
.13
.31 .11
.56
.08
.06 .50
.15
.06
.28
.29 .30 .06 .35
.53
.14
.07 .14 .46
.26 .02
.09
.51 .09
.30 .34
.66
.24
.09 .11 .61
.13 .13
.32
.60 .23
.38 .52
.59 .21
.08
.15
.19 .17
Note. CWB counterproductive work behaviors. Correlations above the diagonal are for participants without supervisor data (N 113; | r | .19 for p .05; | r | .25 for p .01, | r | .31
for p .001) and under the diagonal for participants with supervisor data (N 76; | r | .23 for p .05; | r | .30 for p .01, | r | .38 for p .001.).
Demographics
1. Gender
2. Age
Personality broad
3. Neuroticism
4. Extraversion
5. Openness
6. Agreeableness
7. Conscientiousness
8. Core Self-Evaluations
Personality narrow
9. Machiavellianism
10. Narcissism
11. Psychopathy
12. Self-control
13. Locus of Control
14. Trait Anger
15. Positive Emotions
16. Negative Emotions
Vocational types
17. Realistic
18. Investigative
19. Artistic
20. Social
21. Enterprising
22. Conventional
23. Vocational Fit
Criterion
24. Self CWB
25. Supervisor CWB
Variable
Table 4
Correlations of Variables in Study 2 (Sample 1)
11
Note.
.30
.20
.22
.38
.39
.27
.34
.31
.34
.05 .02
.05
.05
.20 .28
.26 .29
10
11
12
13
14
15
.10 .09 .25 .23

.11 .28 .33 .42
.22
.34
.08
.22
.28
.37
16
17
18
19
.23 .07 .04

.36 .06 .07
21
.79
.80 .77
.03 .10
20
.06
22
23
24 25
.18 .06 .03 .01 .21

.23 .18 .07
.11 .24 .62
.12 .31
.06
.02
.20
.19
.10
.10 .00
.15
.10
.02 .64
.09
.05 .01
.17 .65
.11
.12
.14 .08 .60
.03
.10 .04
.11 .13 .65
.20 .28
.31 .45
.13 .25
.03
.09
.03
.01
.21
.18
.11
.14
.09
.08
.05 .02
.02
.12
.09
.00
.06 .06 .05
.31 .30
.37 .42
.17
.14
.23
.17
.08
.20
.09
.14
.20
.05
.00
.11
.05
.01
.14
.01 .04
.06
.01 .03 .08
.40
.40
.48
.39
.61
.51
.71 .37 .37 .45
.66
.35
.24
.21 .78
.40
.32
.30
.47 .48
.37
.66 .38 .39 .51
.81 .71 .55
.64
.22
.16
.16 .80
.81
.41 .77
.07 .03 .21

.06 .30 .13
.04
.16
.00
.07 .01 .04
.06 .11 .12 .10
.06
.04
.17 .21
.06 .14 .21 .15
.03
.04
.09 .12
.23 .06 .16 .14
.10
.10
.08 .08
.11 .15 .09 .03
.06
.12
.13 .10
.27 .05 .15 .15
.09 .06 .01
.05
.03
.09
.03
.01
.23
.21
.25
.11
.05
.05
.12
.00
.07
.04
.27 .32
.03
.01 .03
.15 .18 .06
.07
.05
.19 .29 .01
.02 .06 .39
.32 .28
.04
.01
.41 .29
.36
.09
.05
.22 .30
.17
.00
.00 .36
.33 .26
.05
.04
.36 .25
.36
.28
.15
.05
.07
.00
.08
.02
.02
.10
.01
.05
.01
.02
.05
.56
.41 .31
.14
.13
.18
.48
.59 .35
.38
.31 .30
.15
CWB counterproductive work behaviors. | r | .13 for p .05; | r | .17 for p .01, | r | .21 for p .001.
Demographics
1. Gender
2. Age
Personality broad
3. Neuroticism
4. Extraversion
5. Openness
6. Agreeableness
7. Conscientiousness
8. Core Self-Evaluations
Personality narrow
9. Machiavellianism
10. Narcissism
11. Psychopathy
12. Self-control
13. Locus of Control
14. Trait Anger
15. Positive Emotions
16. Negative Emotions
Vocational types
17. Realistic
18. Investigative
19. Artistic
20. Social
21. Enterprising
22. Conventional
23. Vocational Fit
Criterion
24. Self CWB
25. Supervisor CWB
Variable
Table 5
Correlations of Variables in Study 2 (Sample 2)
12
13
Table 6
Incremental Validity of Vocational Fit Over Demographic Variables, Personality, Core Self-Evaluations, and Affectivity for the
Prediction of CWB in Study 2
Sample 1
Self CWB
(N 189)
Sample 2
Supervisor CWB
(N 76)
Self CWB
(N 245)
Supervisor CWB
(N 245)
Step
Variable
R2
R2
R2
R2
Age
Gender
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeability
Conscientiousness
Machiavellianism
Narcissism
Psychopathy
Self-control
Locus of Control
Trait Anger
Positive Emotionality
Negative Emotionality
Age
Gender
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeability
Conscientiousness
Machiavellianism
Narcissism
Psychopathy
Self-control
Locus of Control
Trait Anger
Positive Emotionality
Negative Emotionality
Vocational Fit
.12
.08
.13
.11
.09
.16
.00
.07
.26
.05
.20
.35
.34
.27
.12
.04
.16
.10
.14
.06
.07
.13
.02
.11
.22
.00
.17
.24
.33
.31
.12
.02
.18
.39
.17
.03
.07
.11
.20
.06
.06
.25
.14
.15
.16
.36
.14
.25
.22
.09
.13
.01
.01
.05
.14
.06
.06
.30
.18
.16
.33
.24
.05
.38
.24
.07
.34
.34
.05
.06
.00
.15
.06
.02
.08
.01
.02
.15
.33
.04
.18
.01
.08
.07
.07
.05
.01
.13
.06
.04
.10
.02
.01
.16
.32
.05
.11
.00
.04
.04
.17
.20
.06
.09
.02
.05
.03
.17
.07
.15
.08
.08
.13
.02
.03
.05
.12
.08
.04
.07
.01
.03
.03
.16
.09
.15
.12
.09
.11
.00
.02
.06
.14
.05
.18
.32
.06
.10
.05
.04
p .05. p .01. p .001.
ent analyses hierarchical regression and relative weights analysiswe found compelling evidence for the incremental validity of
vocational interest fit, over broad and narrow personality traits and
affect, for predicting CWB.
Study Limitations
This study also has several limitations that should be mentioned.
First, the participants were job incumbents and not actual job
applicants assessed in a high-stakes setting. Given our interest in
using a very diverse sample in terms of job codes, it was not
feasible to use job applicants. Longstaff (1948) found that vocational interests were easily faked by respondents, but further research is needed to examine the extent of faking and its impact on
criterion validity. The literature on the use of personality measures
in selection shows mixed results, with some studies (e.g., Hough,
1998) finding reduced validity coefficients in applicant samples
and other studies (e.g., Weekley, Ployhart, & Harold, 2004) finding no differences between applicant and incumbent samples.
Research on vocational interests using job applicants is sorely

needed. Second, we used a cross-sectional design, with both the
predictors and criteria assessed at the same point in time for the
self-ratings. Even though supervisor ratings were collected approximately 4 weeks after the self-evaluations in Study 2, Sample 1,
there is a clear need for long term predictive designs. Even though
the causal mechanism proposed has been tested with crosssectional data, we feel that there is need for the mechanism to be
confirmed in stronger research designs. Third, we only used the
simplest computation for the fit index. Profile indices are very
much dependent on the basic assumptions of Hollands structure of
interests. This ideal model is rarely, if ever, confirmed in the
literature, but on the other hand, more sophisticated indices are not
necessarily better and may actually only enhance the errors induced by the differences between the assumed and the real structure of vocational interests. Nevertheless, we feel that more research is needed on the different indices and the amount of
relevant vocational fit variance captured by the different compu-
14
Table 7
Relative Weights of Predictors, as Percentage of R2, for the Variables in Study 2
Sample 2 (N 245)
Sample 1
Variable
Demographics
Gender
Age
Personality broad
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Personality narrow
Machiavellianism
Narcissism
Psychopathy
Self-control
Locus of Control
Trait Anger
Positive Emotions
Negative Emotions
Vocational types
Realistic
Investigative
Artistic
Social
Enterprising
Conventional
Vocational fit
Note.
Self CWB
(N 189)
Supervisor CWB
(N 76)
Self CWB
Supervisor CWB
1.3
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.3
0.7
1.2
0.5
2.6
10.8
0.6
0.6
6.0
3.0
2.7
4.3
0.8
10.0
5.1
9.5
2.5
10.1
0.7
0.6
6.7
3.2
2.5
3.5
0.7
10.0
5.7
9.2
3.6
10.1
20.6
5.7
4.3
2.5
4.0
2.7
2.2
9.2
7.0
5.9
4.6
5.2
7.5
4.8
4.8
2.7
19.3
6.1
7.1
2.6
4.0
3.8
7.2
1.5
8.7
5.7
5.1
4.5
7.9
6.2
1.9
0.8
2.6
1.0
1.1
2.3
11.5
0.4
0.7
2.5
4.6
1.1
1.1
9.1
2.2
0.8
2.9
1.1
1.5
2.6
12.7
0.8
0.7
2.7
4.3
1.0
1.1
9.2
CWB counterproductive work behaviors.
tational approaches. Fourth, the result of the regression analyses

shows some differences between Sample 1 and Sample 2 (Table
6). While in both samples, vocational fit has good criterion and
incremental validity, the pattern of regression coefficients for the
other variables is somewhat different. This can be due to the fact
that we used a large number of predictors, different measures for
the dark triad constructs, and we had different sample sizes.
However, a closer look at the relative weights analysis in Table 7,
shows only minor differences between the two samples. For example, while Machiavellianism only has a significant regression
coefficient in Sample 1, its relative weights are quite similar in
both samples (3.6 vs. 4.8% for self-ratings of CWB). A similar
pattern emerges for Trait Anger (2.5 vs. 2.6%), Self-control (5.7
vs. 6.1%), and Psychopathy (20.6 vs. 19.3%). Finally, we only
used one vocational interest instrument, the SDS. Future research
should investigate if the findings of the current study generalize to
other vocational interest inventories.
Theoretical and Practical Implications

An important contribution of the present study is the proposal of
a theory-driven mechanism which explains how vocational interests are linked to the performance domain. Self-regulation theory
offers an overarching framework, which fits well into the logic of
person-organization fit. Theories of vocational interests at work
are fundamentally theories of person-organization fit, but these
theories have never been too specific in predicting actual emotions
or behaviorsthey rather focus on large outcomes, such as job and

life satisfaction (Holland, 1992) or employment continuance (Schneider, 1987). Self-regulation theory allows an explanation of how
work behaviors are formed under the influence of standards (which
are internal representations of desired states), inputs from the
environment, comparative reasoning, and goal-setting.
We argue that in the case of stable constructs such as vocational
interests, the route to standard modificationthat is, the change or
development of internal representations of what is desirable and
aspirationalis closed and that only the route to external action is
possible. Such goal-setting leads to behavior. Depending on personal capabilities and on the environment (specifically, on the
existence of a disturbance factor), this can lead to successful
behaviors, or to frustration. When disturbance is high, goaloriented behavior cannot lead to the desired outcome, and frustration follows. Frustration then leads to counterproductive work
behaviors.
In theory, an alternative route to modification in case of vocational misfit than the one described by us could be a change in the
employees internal representation of the situation. For example,
an employee may acknowledge the fact that the job is not likeable
(i.e., does not fulfill interests) but will accept this, because it
provides security and a source of income. The employee could also
focus on pursuing activities that better fit his or her interests
outside of work. But even in this case, frustration will still likely
arise. Vocational interests guide our behavior beyond conscious
decisions, and it is not possible to switch off the need for a certain
type of environment when at work, only to switch it on again when
outside of work. While conscious acceptance of a less-thanlikeable situation may be reached, frustration will still be present.
Our findings supplement the Van Iddekinge, Putke, and Campbell (2011) study in making a case for the use of vocational
interests in personnel selection. However, our take on vocational
interests is different from their approach, as we focus on the
congruence index as a measure of vocational fit. Van Iddekinge,
Putke, and Campbell (2011) used vocational interest scores (i.e.,
RIASEC) and argued against the use of vocational profile coefficients as potentially masking meaningful relationships between
vocational interest dimensions and criterion variables. Although
the traditional interest scores tend to be favored in research, recent
studies (e.g., Nye et al., 2012) found that profile coefficients are
more predictive than the actual vocational interest scores. This was
also the case in our samples, where RIASEC scores failed to show
predictive or incremental validity for the prediction of CWB. We
argue that the higher validity of profile coefficients is due to the
fact that vocational interest scores are not generalizable in their
validity. Vocational interest scores are valid only for specific work
environments: The validity of a Realistic preference for working in
a Realistic environment is clear. However, the validity of a Realistic preference drops toward zero when considered in a heterogeneous sample. Profile coefficients, on the other hand, capture
individual differences that are generalizable beyond the effect of a
specific environment.
15
able gender differences in vocational interests (e.g., Lippa, 2010),

with women favoring occupations and activities that are peopleoriented (Social, Artistic, and Enterprising from RIASEC). While
mean differences do not automatically translate into differential
prediction, future research should address this issue. We also note
that most of this research is focused on interests scores and not
profile coefficients.
Conclusions
In the past two decades research examining noncognitive predictors of job performance has blossomed. In the current article we
showed the potential value of using vocational profile coefficients
for predicting one of the major criteria in industrial and organizational psychology: counterproductive work behaviors. The findings show that vocational fit indices, which are often considered a
less important byproduct of vocational interest scales, capture
relevant variance, which can predict an important facet of performance, CWB, over and above other already established predictors,
such as broad and narrow personality traits and affect. The results
also show that the vocational fit index is, unlike interest scores,
generalizable in its effect and that it functions as a predictor of
CWB in vocationally heterogeneous samples. It is our hope that
the current article, together with other recent work (e.g., Nye et al.,
2012; Van Iddekinge, Putka, & Campbell, 2011; Van Iddekinge,
Roth, et al., 2011), will encourage future research into vocational
interests in general and vocational profile coefficients in particular.
References
Directions for Future Research
Our results should encourage further research into the congruence index in particular, and into profile coefficients in general.
Other profile coefficients should be considered, such as the Differentiation and the Consistency indices. More research into the
specific nature of these coefficients could also focus on the best
computational strategy; although we chose simplicity, more sophisticated approaches to the computation of these indices should
be examined. Although we have found good evidence for the
association of vocational fit and CWB, more research is needed
into the association of vocational fit coefficients with other components of the criterion realm, such as organizational citizenship
behavior. The mechanisms (acquisition of knowledge and motivation) linking interests to task performance identified by Van Iddekinge, Roth, et al. (2011) need to be empirically tested. We
found that one specific profile coefficient, from one specific measure of vocational interests, captures important variance. Further
research could examine profile coefficients provided by other
measures of vocational interests, built on other underlying theoretical models than Hollands model. Future research should also
consider possible moderators of the relationship between interests
and CWB. For example, a number of situational variables such as
organizational justice and various workplace stressors (e.g., Berry
et al., 2007; Fox et al., 2001; Ilie et al., 2012) have been linked to
CWB either directly or by interacting with individual differences.
Adopting a person by situation perspective, it is possible that
interests interact with situational variables to impact CWB. Finally, if vocational interests are to be considered for use in selection settings, issues such as applicant reactions and differential
prediction need to be addressed. There are well established, size-
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development:

Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227
257. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 126. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52
.1.1
Barrick, M. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Stewart, G. L. (2003). Situational and
motivational influences on trait-behavior relationship. In M. R. Barrick
& A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of
personality in organizations (pp. 60 82). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
126. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the
relationship between the five-factor model of personality and Hollands
occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 4574. doi:10.1111/j
.1744-6570.2003.tb00143.x
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 360. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and
reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59 73. doi:10.1037/00332909.106.1.59
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance,
organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410 424. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410
Blake, R. J., & Sackett, S. A. (1999). Hollands typology and the fivefactor model: A rational-empirical analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 249 279. doi:10.1177/106907279900700305
Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). Linking interest assessment and
personality theory: An example of convergence between practice and
16
theory. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career

counseling theory and practice (pp. 251266). Palo Alto, CA: DaviesBlack.
Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. (1994). An evaluation of interest congruence
indices: Distribution characteristics and measurement properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 310 327. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1038
Bullock, E., & Reardon, R. (2008). Interest profile elevation, Big Five
personality traits, and secondary constructs on the Self-Directed Search:
A replication and extension. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 326
338. doi:10.1177/1069072708317379
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A
theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel
selection in organizations (pp. 3570). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9781139174794
Chang, C.-H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A.
(2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature.
Journal of Management, 38, 81128. doi:10.1177/0149206311419661
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with
aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177184.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00495.x
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive
workplace behavior. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality
and work. Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp.
150 183). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1997). The five-factor model of personality
and Hollands RIASEC interest types. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 87103. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00004-4
Dik, B. J., & Hansen, J. C. (2008). Following passionate interests to
well-being. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 86 100. doi:10.1177/
1069072707305773
Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive
ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 616 627. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
.92.3.616
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R.
(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Freer. doi:10.1037/10022-000
Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual
differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 547559. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.547
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A
meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job
performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40 57.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40
Dweck, C. S. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior.
In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action:
Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 69 90). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Edwards, J. R. (1994a). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference
scores. Journal of Management, 20, 683 689. doi:10.1016/01492063(94)90011-6
Edwards, J. R. (1994b). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51100. doi:10.1006/obhd.1994
.1029
Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow &
N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations:
Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350 400). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp,
A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 802 827. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression
equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 15771613. doi:10.2307/
256822
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915931. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6915::AID-JOB9183.0.CO;2-6
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work
behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice:
Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Fritzsche, B. A., Powell, A. B., & Hoffman, R. (1999). Person-environment
congruence as a predictor of customer service performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 54, 59 70. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1645
Gati, I. (1979). A hierarchical model for the structure of vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 90 106. doi:10.1016/00018791(79)90021-6
Gati, I. (1982). Testing models for the structure of vocational interests.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 164 182. doi:10.1016/00018791(82)90027-6
Gati, I. (1991). The structure of vocational interests. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 309 324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.309
Gellatly, I. R., Paunonen, S. V., Meyer, J. P., & Jackson, D. N. (1991).
Personality, vocational interest, and cognitive predictors of managerial
job performance and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 221231. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90108-N
Gore, P. A., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Simpler may still be better: A reply
to Eggerth and Andrew. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 276 282.
doi:10.1177/1069072705283977
Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1996). Dictionary of Holland occupational codes. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1999). The nature and nurture of vocational interests. In
M. Savickas & A. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning,
measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 57 85). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Hansen, J. C. (2005). Assessment of interests. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research
to work (pp. 281304). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994).
Applications and technical guide for the Strong Interest Inventory. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation
analysis. Communication Monographs, 76, 408 420. doi:10.1080/
03637750903310360
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (in press). Statistical mediation analysis
with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Psychology.
Haynes, S. N., & Lench, H. (2003). Incremental validity of new clinical
assessment measures. Psychological Assessment, 15, 456 466. doi:
10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.456
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupr, K. E.,
Inness, M., . . . Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228 238. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228

Hoeglund, T. J., & Hansen, J.-I. C. (1999). Holland-style measures of
congruence: Are complex indices more effective predictors of satisfaction? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 471 482. doi:10.1006/jvbe
.1998.1675
Hoffman, B. J., & Dilchert, S. (2012). A review of citizenship and counterproductive behaviors in organizational decision-making. In N.
Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 543569). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199732579.013.0024
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the
relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 389 399. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005
.08.003
Hofstee, W. K. B. (2003). Structures of personality traits. In I. B. Weiner
(Series Ed.), T. Millon, & M. Lerner (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology (pp. 231254). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational
personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L., Powell, A. B., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1994a). The Self-Directed
Search professional users guide. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L., Powell, A. B., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1994b). The Self-Directed
Search technical manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance,
11, 209 244. doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668032
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge,
and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340 362.
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(86)90013-8
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative
predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 7298. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72
Iachan, R. (1984a). A family of differentiation indices. Psychometrika, 49,
217222. doi:10.1007/BF02294173
Iachan, R. (1984b). A measure of agreement for use with the Holland
classification system. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 133141.
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(84)90001-0
Ilie, A., Ispas, D., Iliescu, D., Askew, K., Rohlfs, J., & Whalen, K. (2012,
April). A psychometric analysis of the Romanian NEO PI-R. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Ilie, A., Penney, L. M., Ispas, D., & Iliescu, D. (2012). The role of trait
anger in the relationship between stressors and counterproductive work
behaviors: Convergent findings from multiple studies and methodologies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 415 436. doi:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00476.x
Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., Ispas, D., & Ion, A. (2012). Emotional intelligence in
personnel selection: Applicant reactions, criterion and incremental validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 347358.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00605.x
Iliescu, D., Ispas, D., Ilie, A., & Ion, A. (2013). The structure of vocational
interests in Romania. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 294 302.
doi:10.1037/a0032199
Ispas, D., Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., & Johnson, R. E. (in press). Exploring the
cross-cultural generalizability of the five factor model of personality:
The Romanian NEO PI-R. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, V. S., & Rothstein, M. G. (1987). Personnel
executives: Personality, vocational interests, and job satisfaction. Jour-
17
nal of Employment Counseling, 24, 8296. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920

.1987.tb00221.x
Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative
weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 119. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1
Johnson, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238 257. doi:10.1177/1094428104266510
Johnson, R. E., Howe, M., & Chang, C.-H. D. (2013). The importance of
velocity, or why speed may matter more than distance. Organizational
Psychology Review, 3, 62 85. doi:10.1177/2041386612463836
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An
integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54 78. doi:10.1037/a0017286
Judge, T. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship
between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 395 401. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.395
Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 58 62. doi:10.1111/j.14678721.2009.01606.x
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core
Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel
Psychology, 56, 303331. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself
abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other
perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762776. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.91.4.762
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).
Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core
evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 1734. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.83.1.17
Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the
role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A metaanalytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 162176.
doi:10.1037/a0013115
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 154 166. doi:
10.1037/a0018349
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1 49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analyses
of Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217239. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1854
LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart,
R. E. (2007). A multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in
organizational research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475
498. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00080.x
Levine, E. L., Xu, X., Yang, L. Q., Ispas, D., Pitariu, H. D., Bian, R., . . .
Musat, S. (2011). Cross-national explorations of the impact of affect at
work using the State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM): A coordinated
series of studies in three countries. Human Performance, 24, 405 442.
doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.614302
Lippa, R. A. (2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When,
where, and why? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1098
1110. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
Longstaff, H. P. (1948). Fakability of the strong vocational interest blank
and the Kuder preference record. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32,
360 369. doi:10.1037/h0055301
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010).
Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543568.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314
18
Low, K. S. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The
stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 713737. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.713
Mnard, J., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A. (2011). Interpersonal workplace
deviance: Why do offenders act out? A comparative look on personality
and organisational variables. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,
43, 309 317. doi:10.1037/a0024741
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005).
Higher-order dimensions of the Big Five personality traits and the big
six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447 478. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00468.x
Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests
and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 384 403. doi:10.1177/
1745691612449021
OBoyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A.
(2011). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social
exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1037/a0025679
OBrien, K. E., & Allen, T. D. (2008). The relative importance of correlates of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work
behavior using multiple sources of data. Human Performance, 21, 62
88.
ONeil, J. M., Magoon, T. M., & Tracey, T. J. (1978). Status of Hollands
investigative personality type and their consistency levels seven years
later. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 530 535. doi:10.1037/
0022-0167.25.6.530
Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2011, January). Introducing a short
measure of the Dark Triad. Poster presented at the meeting of the
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (in press). Manual for the
Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MultiHealth Systems.
Penney, L. M., Hunter, E. M., & Perry, S. J. (2011). Personality and
counterproductive work behavior: Using conservation of resources theory to narrow the profile of deviant employees. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 84, 58 77. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325
.2010.02007.x
Peters, L. H., & OConnor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work
outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy
of Management Review, 5, 391397.
Pitariu, H. P., Iliescu, D., & Vercellino, D. (2009). The Self-Directed
Search occupations finderRomanian edition. Bucharest, Romania: OS
Romania.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 717731. doi:10.3758/
BF03206553
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The narcissistic personality inventory:
Alternative form reliability and further evidence of construct validity.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159 162. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4502_10
Restubog, S. L. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Wang, L., & Cheng, D. (2010). Its
all about control: The role of self-control in buffering the effects of
negative reciprocity beliefs and trait anger on workplace deviance.
Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 655 660. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010
.06.007
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 128. doi:10.1037/h0092976
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job
performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66 80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1996). Cross-cultural structural equivalence of
RIASEC models and measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43,
310 329. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.310
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of
Psychology, 59, 419 450. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006
.093716
Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In
S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling:
Putting theory and research to work (pp. 4270). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications
of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262274.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,
40, 437 453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x
Shockley, K. M., Ispas, D., Rossi, M. E., & Levine, E. L. (2012). A
meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between state affect,
discrete emotions, and job performance. Human Performance, 25, 377
411. doi:10.1080/08959285.2012.721832
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of
the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 815 829. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.1978.tb02125.x
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335340. doi:10.1111/j.20448325.1988.tb00470.x
Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive
work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resources Management Review, 21, 342352.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler,
S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,
446 460. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Spielberger, C. D. (1996). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, research edition: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Swaney, K., & Prediger, D. (1985). The relationship between interestoccupation congruence and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 1324. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(85)90022-3
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control
predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271324. doi:10.1111/j.00223506.2004.00263.x
Tinsley, H. T. A. (2000). The congruence myth revisited. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56, 405 423. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1754
Tranberg, M., Slane, S., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1993). The relation between
interest congruence and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 253264. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1993.1018
Tziner, A., Meir, E. I., & Segal, H. (2002). Occupational congruence and
personal task-related attribute: How do they relate to work performance?
Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 401 412. doi:10.1177/
1069072702238403
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Putka, D. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2011). Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: The validity of an
interest based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
1333. doi:10.1037/a0021193
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Putka, D. J., & Lanivich, S. E. (2011).
Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational
interests and employee performance and turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 11671194. doi:10.1037/a0024343

Wang, Q., Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). A meta-analytic
examination of work and general locus of control. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 761768. doi:10.1037/a0017707
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465
490. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465
Weekley, J. A., Ployhart, R. E., & Harold, C. M. (2004). Personality and
situational judgment tests across applicant and incumbent contexts: An
examination of validity, measurement, and subgroup differences. Human
Performance, 17, 433 461. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1704_5
Whelpley, C. E., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). Self-esteem and counterproductive behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the 26th
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Wiener, Y., & Klein, K. L. (1978). The relationship between vocational
interests and job satisfaction: Reconciliation of divergent results. Jour-
19
nal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 298 304. doi:10.1016/00018791(78)90056-8

Wiggins, J. D., & Weslander, D. (1977). Expressed vocational choices and
later employment compared with Vocational Preference Inventory and
Kuder Preference Record-Vocational scores. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11, 158 165. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(77)90003-3
Zener, T. B., & Schnuelle, L. (1976). Effects of the Self-Directed Search
on high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 353
359. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.23.4.353
Received June 28, 2012

Revision received March 5, 2014
Accepted March 18, 2014

104a. Iliescu, Ispas, Ilie, Sulea (2014) JAP

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

104a. Iliescu, Ispas, Ilie, Sulea (2014) JAP

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Applied Psychology

Vocational Fit and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A

Journal of Applied Psychology

2014 American Psychological Association

Vocational Fit and Counterproductive Work Behaviors:

National School of Political and Administrative Studies

Illinois State University

West University of Timisoara

Illinois State University

that vocational interests have incremental validity for predicting

ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE

influence task performance: (a) through the preferred acquisition of

important variables that have a role in a predictive model. If the fit

Vocational Interests: Definition and Conceptualization

VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB

of fit between an individuals vocational profile and his or her

Vocational Interests and CWB: A Theoretical Model

ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE

state, which is typical for a strong Realistic interest: working

out in a more mechanical (what is certainly perceived by our Realistic

VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB

Incremental Validity and Relative Importance of

Self-Control (i.e., the ability to overpower ones impulses and

ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE

VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB

Counterproductive work behaviors. CWB were assessed with

standard scoring of the VI measure proposed by Holland and used in

Note. CWB counterproductive work behaviors.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE

Significance for indirect effect

Note. CWB counterproductive work behaviors.

surveys directly to us. We received 79 supervisor forms, but due to

VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB

ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE

CWB as self-ratings (N 189)

Note. CWB counterproductive work behaviors.

personality variables had an R2 .34, p .001 in Sample 1 and

supervisor-rated. In Sample 2, vocational fit is the second strongest

We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this analysis.

.12 .05 .21

.10 .02 .03 .19 .18 .17

.25 .19 .03

.02 .04 .02

.44 .32 .20 .23 .37 .22

VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB

.10 .09 .25 .23

.23 .07 .04

.18 .06 .03 .01 .21

.07 .03 .21

VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB

Note. CWB counterproductive work behaviors.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

Research on vocational interests using job applicants is sorely

ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE

CWB counterproductive work behaviors.

tational approaches. Fourth, the result of the regression analyses

Theoretical and Practical Implications

or behaviorsthey rather focus on large outcomes, such as job and

VOCATIONAL FIT AND CWB

able gender differences in vocational interests (e.g., Lippa, 2010),

Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development:

ILIESCU, ISPAS, SULEA, AND ILIE

theory. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career