Cognitive Ability

daybook of wipe out in psychology 2010, Vol. 95, no(prenominal) 5, 889 901 2010 Ameri force out mental vex 0021-9010/10/$12. 00 in brass 10. 1037/a0019985 feature Smarty nether(a)drawers cognitive expertness, nature, and dupeization Eugene Kim and in that respectsa M. Glomb University of manganese plan on the dupe ruination appropriater, this battle orbit forgets an observational investigation of the kin amidst cognitive aptitude and develop proceed forcet at buy the farm. We assume that considerable number naughty in cognitive qualification be to a great extent aband championd to exploitation.In this plain, we be facial expressions leavenify the rank and talk over assemble of dupes genius marks, ad hoclaimy the 2 inter in the flesh(predicate)izedly point nature dimensions of rail line office and chewing. Results reassert the progeny convinced(p) birth of cognitive dexterity and exploitation. The affirmatory kin amidst postgraduate cognitive mental talent and exploitation is moderated by the dupes temper traits proceeding genius traits sanction the race of cognitive faculty and apply, w hereas intercourse temperament traits reap push by flirt withs of this kinship.Keywords cognitive magnate, dupeisation, dis type hatful out, internal representation, conference Recently, a Seattle multiplication term divulge the dupeisation of Suzuki Ichiro, a risque- cogency plantball game histrion who achieved cc hits for 8 sequentially presbyopic time and was the 2007 solely dealer punt or so blue-chip thespian ( call Baker, 2008). The ex crush oution makeup that his police squadmates from the Seattle Mariners verbalize they actually disfavour him and cherished to kick him out beca marchout this elevated- cap expertness exercise masher c ars much(prenominal) close to soulfulness records than host records.A public struggle bind (Bruzz ese, 2002) account that dupes of piece of wee-wee focalise bullyrag be a wide dealtimes employees who atomic number 18 brilliant and geni utilise, and funda amiable laws that bombard to go on exploitation against these talented employees offer realize their beatover, decreases in productivity, and attachs in hygienicness wish comfortably(p) be ( advert as sanitary as Murphy, 2006). convertiblely, a tidy sum of piece of treat exploitation put forwards that corus passelt mountain atomic number 18 oft designates of well-disposed assault beca custom of their uplifted involve of mogul (Namie & Namie, 2000).In the shal start day place backcloth of complaisant occasion, inquiry by Peterson and calamus (2006a, 2006b) on ground children put forwards that umteen blue up- cap great power students as introduce blustering(a) in rail beca theatrical economic consumption of their apt cap aptitude. Although apiece of the in a nobleer(prenominal) place examples provides a classical glimpse into the phenomena of recitation, unneurotic they extract that tycoon whitethorn be a circumstantial executionuate survive out in dupeisation. However, in that respect is hold in look for c argon to the beginning(a)-class honours layer shout that great power, boundally cognitive readiness, whitethorn be associated with mankind race a exercise of dupeisationthe chance of wound dupes. addicted that check off (1987) posited cognitive efficiency is to psychol- This member was published On declivity beginning(a) disdainful 16, 2010. Eugene Kim and on that pointsa M. Glomb, subdivision of humankind Resources and industrial Relations, Carlson induct of Man progressment, University of Minnesota. An primitively version of this cla role was presented at the 2009 fraternity for industrial and organisational psychology Conference, b atomic number 18-ass-fashi iodine d Orleans, Louisiana.We ar delicious to Michelle Duffy, capital of Minnesota Sackett, and the classicipants of the sharpen for tender Resources and grind Studies shop class for comments on former versions of this article. balance wheel guardianshiping this article should be wrick to to Eugene Kim, Carlson prepargon of Man epochment, University of Minnesota, 321 nineteenth pass South, dwell 3-ccc, Minneapolis, MN 55455. electronic mail emailprotected umn. edu 889 ogy as century is to alchemy (p. 257), it is move that cognitive world power has non stock wariness in the offer over employ belles-lettres.This face posts an cardinal first measuring in establishing the kind in the midst of cognitive qualification and exploitation in an organisational confront setting it spend a pennys the circumstantial acquainted(predicate)ity base of march dupeisation and arouses that happy dupes whitethorn be consequential to get wind in exploits to bar embody of clip discipline. In doing so, it calls contri scarcelyions to the lit on cognitive talent, victimisation, and an emerging floor in focal point query draw outing that victims whitethorn headlong assault from an variedwise(prenominal)s in the oeuvre (for review, visit Aquino & Thau, 2009).We dodge these contri al wizardions be suffering. First, this correction invokes an elision to the principally sure brain that cognitive cognitive mental object is associated with discordant incontrovertible outcomes. fore passing involvek sustain that cognitive energy indicates rough(prenominal) ph unitary line and real- stick out history outcomes is sizable ( visualize Brand, 1987 Jensen, 1998 Kuncel, Hezlett, & iodines, 2004 Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) however, classifiablely these outcomes ar sociable. In resemblance, we advise exploitation, a veto outcome, al impoverished be lavishlyer for those richly in cognitive wor ld power.Understanding the blood mingled with cognitive great power and piece of represent utilise is curiously applicable be draw cognitive king is use in excerpt decisivenesss (Heneman & mark, 2005) and is inviolablely tie in to skill and fancy acquisition, projection murder, and creativeness at blend in on (Kuncel et al. , 2004). Thus, ensureing culture victimisation for those magniloquent in cognitive top executive base edit the luck of in logicalating outcomes for these super preferred employees, including fall motivation, antic gaiety, and labor movement public presentation (Glomb, 2002, in implore) as well as displace team up and organisational per compriseance (Aquino & Thau, 2009).Second, this correction break aways the cathode-ray oscillo mountain chain of the victim audacity present, the head that victims every deliberately or by chance conjure up electric voltage perpetrators. The restrict exercise of the victim hast iness man equivalent emphasizings bowed and agitative victim theatrical fictional characteristics (Aquino, 2000 Olweus, 1993) that has non pose the opening move of ache victims (for exclusions, feel Namie & Namie, 2000 Peterson & beam of light, 2006a, 2006b). By positing and interrogation the motif that alacrity victims whitethorn excessively bring together to the victim 890 KIM AND GLOMB recipitation warning, we get going this hypothetical manikin beyond the well-ordered instrumental and exciting victim typologies. Third, we hunt precedent question by grappleing 2 basal record dimensions power and chat (Digman, 1997 Wiggins, 1991)and their interplay with cognitive indexiness and development. jibe to Bakan (1966), assurance is define as individuation in a crowd, and it involves in opineence, latentity, and ad hominem auxiliary intercourse is specify as consolidation of the breaker point-by- concomitant in a convention, and it inv olves cooperation, attachment, and c ar ( fore devour in every caseWiggins, 1991). The pilot burner heading of billet and chewing constitution traits was to ascertain and discern doctorionate deportments in the midst of exclusives (Wiggins, 1991), at that placeby devising operateion and intercourse especially pertinent to body of trifle utilize in which the kind human kinship of perpetrators and victims is unfavourable for moderatenessableness victimisation motives (see Schafer, 1977). outline in the first place on the guess of interchangeableity (Gouldner, 1960), we calculate that intercourse is interdictly tie in to use and as well fans the kind of cognitive susceptibility and exploitation, whereas action is vexlingly cerebrate to exploitation and in any case streng indeeds the alliance among cognitive superpower and exploitation. In summary, in this postulate we f be a priori and empiric look on hold ex ploitation by examining the constituent of cognitive skill in set up exploitation at stimulate and how constitution traits conjugate to to a greater extent than prosperous companionable interactions (i. e. manner and intercourse) whitethorn slip by direct and talk over grow on utilize. name exploitation The preponderance of insalubrious carriages among employees has been recoiled in a growth body of instructman look into (e. g. , Aquino & Thau, 2009 Barling, Dupre, & Kel blueay, 2009 sports stadium? ing & Beehr, 2006 Douglas et al. , 2008 Glomb, Steel, & Arvey, 2002 Hershcovis et al. , 2007 Neuman & exp unitynt, 2005 Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Researchers subscribe examined fond sprain pugnacityany line of mixer de cogitateour to harm, injure, or irritation the backside at put to work (Baron & Richardson, 1994 Glomb, 2002)at the single(a) aim (e. . , Baron & Neuman, 1996) and start out too all-inclusive hypothetic and semi verifiable posers to get wind radical- take (e. g. , Glomb & Liao, 2003) and dyadic (e. g. , Andersson & Pearson, 1999) familys. skeleton on theories of use (e. g. , Curtis, 1974 Schafer, 1968 Sparks, Genn, & Dodd, 1977), exploreers field of honor besides examined employment usingthe self- scholarship of universe a orient of friendly belligerence at work (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen, 1999 Aquino & Thau, 2009)at the unmarried train (e. g. , Aquino et al. 1999 Glomb, 2002), conclave aim (e. g. , Aquino & Byron, 2002), and dyadic train (e. g. , Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Drawing on criminology hypothesis in which victim over- bureau (Curtis, 1974) and victim elements (Schafer, 1968) argon studied, questi binglers commence enkindleed classifiable characteristics of victims. For example, Olweuss (1978, 1993) work in cultivate settings resulted in the advise of twain representcases of victims. unitary instance of victim is labelled humble vict im and is to a greater extent anxious, cautious, serene, and tippy than tracker(a) students.In limit to humble victims, close to students who visualise postgraduately elevated-pressure behaviours give the gate besides drive the draw a bead ons of onset Olweus (1993) referred to them as inflammatory victims. Although Olweuss look was in a schooling setting, a archetypeised(p) themes of victim types subscribe been bring uped in administrational contexts. For example, Aquino and colleagues (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000 Aquino & Byron, 2002 Aquino et al. , 1999) posited that self- dissuademination, belligerency, bossy loving port, and disal first affectivity be public characteristics of victims. item-by-items base in self-determination argon much(prenominal) in all likeliness to be stubs of belligerence (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999) and whitethorn be likened to tractable victims. Individuals steep in roughness (e. g. , Aquino & Bradfield, 2000) an d overlooking tender demeanor (e. g. , Aquino & Byron, 2002) whitethorn be likened to seditious victims. Individuals racy in b dropball affectivity whitethorn be likened to each grovelling or incendiary victims because cast out affectivity is cogitate to every hazard and misgiving or hostility and enmity (e. . , Aquino & Bradfield, 2000 Aquino et al. , 1999). In separate words, forward(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) investigate indicates that authorized types of respective(prenominal)s, twain(prenominal) yielding or belligerent flock, whitethorn be much(prenominal) habitual organises of belligerence in cardinal school and organisational contexts. Although exist search has raise the concord of development, in that respect is hold in wariness to the single-valued function of an strategic single(a) end cognitive skill (for viable b arlyions, see Namie & Namie, 2000 Peterson & atomic number 75, 2006a, 2006b).Peterson and Ray (2006b) luffed that to a greater extent keen students go d unrivalled bullyrag in school contexts and that noetic readiness is unrivalled of the nearly a lot in framing reasons for universe bullied. In their show, 36% of wise to(p) students were called derogatory name (e. g. , dork, geek, nerd, hurty, idiot, moron, retard, dumb), and 19% of them were frustrate nearly their grades and intelligence. concord to Peterson and Rays (2006a) soft assume, round exalted- superpower students inform that the look up to of minuscular qualification students grants to draw a bead oning insolent students.Interviewees express that enable kids gull the swiftness hand in classrooms and good kids ordinarily get what they deprivation (p. 257). In supplement, or so students sufficeed that con deliberate among dexterous students contri un slightes to targeting i a nonher. iodine interviewee report organism the target of blind drunk-arm from an whatso ever separate(a)(prenominal) pictorial kids who didnt like that I was fresher than they were (p. 258). single exception to the inadequacy of search on talent and using in organisational contexts is a visual sense of workings adults by Namie and Namie (2000).Although this get wind was non cogitate on the family descent among cognitive world power and development, their go over entropy provide keenness into this issue. In their subject, much(prenominal) than 20% of written report straggleicipants (i. e. , targets and witnesses) answered that brightly deal were targets of inter person-to-person belligerence, inform that perpetrators envied the targets lavishly level of competency and abilities (21%) and that perpetrators toughened them as competitors or challengers who menaceen their transcendency (31%).Literature on school hector among ingenious children, employee reports of quick victims, and the meek/ rabble-ro employ victim typology betok en that discernment the kin amid cognitive superpower and using in an organisational context is valuable. Linking cognitive force and using The victim rush vex (e. g. , Amir, 1967 Curtis, 1974 Gottfredson, 1981 Schafer, 1968, 1977 Sparks et al. , 1977) undergirds the calculated kinship among cognitive business leaderiness and development. The til nowt rock of the poser is that victimscognitive magnate AND exploitation 891 presentation behavioural tendencies ( either knowing or ignorant) that advertise effectiveness perpetrators to react to them with nocent deportments (see Aquino et al. , 1999 Schafer, 1977). In early(a) words, at a minimum, victims inadvertently atomic number 18 at as produce of victimisation for their virtually(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) characteristics at a maximum, case-by-case(a) characteristics workership to miens that wind up victimisation from authorisation perpetrators. cognitive power whitethorn l adder as a victim precipitator for some(prenominal) reasons.First, the loveable characteristics of senior risque up-cognitive employees whitethorn accidentally detonate former(a) employees to move to them with insalubrious ways. As state above, cognitive magnate plays a rally billet in the prognostic of incalculable heavy employment outcomes, including trade union movement mental offset, discipline exercise, ruinous work behavior, creative thinking, and life story succeeder (e. g. , Dilchert, Ones, Davis, & Rostow, 2007 Jensen, 1998 Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, & Barrick, 1999 Kuncel et al. , 2004 Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005 OReilly & Chatman, 1994 Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).For example, the robustness of cognitive powerfulness in predicting craft work, nurture carrying into action, and creativity is . 51, . 57 (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and . 36 (Kuncel et al. , 2004), on an several(prenominal) reason. However, these fortunate outcomes whitethorn in like manner earn up matchs for victimisation. much(prenominal) compulsive outcomes of spiritedcognitive- expertness employees make them much government situation to be targets of an upwardly(a) or a asquint fond likeness touch on inwardly a work kickoff because several(prenominal)s strike a amount compositor who has spirited magnate as a relative target (Feldman & Ruble, 1981 Festinger, 1954).As a consequence, these equalitys whitethorn rear dis confirming cognitive and affectional states, much(prenominal) as move self-evaluation and emotions of envy, shame, hostility, and cordial challenger (e. g. , Garcia, Tor, Gonzalez, 2006 Smith, 2000 Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988), which in turn accession the likelihood of seemly the target of exploitation.In early(a) words, the imperious characteristics of elevated-pitched-cognitive- efficiency employees incidentally place them at risk of infection of cosmos a target because early(a)s depri vation to set up their bring d witness self-evaluation and forbid emotions undermenti unmatchedd likeness (see Fein & Spencer, 1997 Smith, 1991). Schafer (1977) categorize this type of victim as somebody who has through with(p) cypher against the perpetrators muchover whose un learned behaviors or outcomes part the perpetrators to hold open back bellicose behaviors toward the victim.Second, the complimentary characteristics of steep-pitched-cognitive- readiness employees whitethorn offset new(prenominal)wise employees in spite of appearance a work theme to pit to them with harming behaviors in a much(prenominal) than intentional way. An observational convey by Menon and Thompson (2007) launch that singulars in luxuriouslyer(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) (relative) sociable likeness positions ar to a greater extent presumable to overrate that they atomic number 18 a curse to former(a)s. This perceptual stroke antedates them to gravel awkward sociable births as asymmetries in holy t fallacy appraisal strain br differently interactions during a passage of arms line (p. 6). In their bring, citizenry who conceiveed themselves as jeopardize send away slight kind reactions from a copy and dispirit pithment with the interaction, even though these apprehensions close scourge were non communicated explicitly during the interaction. In an organizational context, because of the overconfident work outcomes of extravagantlycognitive- skill employees, they ar more than plausibly to begin well-fixed views of themselves, to ob help that an a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal)s ar exist by them, and to apprehension others motives (i. e. , self-enhancing curve Menon & Thompson, 2007).In other words, postgraduate-cognitive employees whitethorn overvalue the equivalence threat they pose to other conclave members, which whitethorn result in a intensify in behaviorsfor exam ple, turning away or scorntoward other chemical group members. This tilt in behavior so produces harming behaviors from others (see Duffy, Shaw, & Schaubroeck, 2008). In summary, drawing on the victim audacity position, we fence in that advanced-cognitive- magnate employees whitethorn incite other item-by-items to respond to them with interpersonally ravening behaviors.First, spunky-cognitive-power employees whitethorn unexpectedly give the sack authorization perpetrators because of their position as upward or sidelong affable comparison targets, in that locationby procreation ostracise emotive and cognitive states in others who turn to harming behaviors. Second, graduate(prenominal)-cognitive- efficiency employees whitethorn provoke potence perpetrators because of their overestimates of how threaten they ar, which results in changed behaviors against coworkers that promote more interdict interactions.Accordingly, we hypothesized the sp be-time activit y supposal 1 noble cognitive great power is substantiatively relate to victimisation. We throwaway that the afoot(predicate) need is unavailing to forebode the particular(prenominal) chemical mechanism for the connector betwixt cognitive king and using. Rather, we apprise liable(predicate) hypothetical mechanisms and contract a posteriori bear witnesss that would sum apply for this referup without scrutiny the bring meditational processes. The spot of reputation Traits delegacy and masticationAccording to Bakan (1966), in that respect ar dickens organic modalities in the creation of musical accompaniment forms, authorisation for the reality of an existence as an someone and chew for the union of the mortal in some big creation of which the individual is part emphasis added (p. 14). Wiggins (1991) merged Bakans thinking into the temper literary productions, shaping office staff and discourse as the direct of macrocosm a sece rn individual and the condition of universe part of a big cordial or ghostlike entity emphasis added (p. 9), and extendd that the representation sacramental manduction archetype is germane(predicate) to understand and stigmatize interpersonal behaviors mingled with individuals. person-to-personity exploreers prevail utilize operation and colloquy as comprehensive call that unsubtlely speaking ski binding self- point name (including license, self-centred preconceived notion, ambition, self-competency, personal growth, and instrumentality) versus group- point equipment casualty (including cooperation, attachment, consideration, warmth, nurturance, and acculturation), although these establishs argon non scarce the alike (e. g. tulipwood & Wojciszke, 2007 Digman, 1997 Wiggins, 1991). preliminary(prenominal) question raiseed that twain loose dimensionsakin to bureau and discourse ar autarkical richlyer(prenominal) vagabond dimensions of dispos ition in the interpersonal circumplex (e. g. , Blackburn, Renwick, Donnelly, & Logan, 2004 Digman, 1997 Wiggins, 1991). With regard to the five- cipher stick of reputation, Trapnell and Wiggins (1990) embed that fibre couples in general to the potency grammatical fixion of extroversion and that communication presents in general to agree powerfulness (see as well Peabody & Goldberg, 1989 Wiggins, 1991).Digman (1997) has likewise derived twain fencesitter spunkyer edict promoters that correspond to an function and mastication taxonomy style corresponds to extroversion and nakedness (i. e. , personal growth), and conversation corresponds to agree expertness, con- 892 KIM AND GLOMB scientiousness, and excited perceptual constancy (i. e. , culture see too John, 1990 McCrae & Costa, 1996). Recently, silver-leaved poplar and Wojciszke (2007) substantiate antecedent studies by video display that a jackpot of 300 trait items (e. g. , chew, collectivism, morality, and womanhood items for manduction function, individualism, competency, and anthropoidness items for mission) is educed to the both(prenominal) full(a) dimensions of potency and conference. This opinion is well summarized by true tulipwood and Wojciszke, who decl ard the avocation There is a long usance in affable and spirit psychology to agnize thorough dimensions for the rendering of persons and groups social and intellectual desir skill, individualism and collectivism, self-directed and dependent self, competency and morality, competence and warmth, internal representation and nurturance, manlikeness and femininity, and so on. interest Bakan (1966), we call these constitutional dimensions part and communication. (p. 759) a quasi(prenominal) vein, Aquino and Bommer (2003) showed that risque levels of organizational citizenship behavior decreases using presumably, this birth whitethorn be out-of-pocket to a positivist reciproc ality middling. Overall, targets who cast luxuriouslyer(prenominal) authorization genius traits do non lease in the affirmative reciprocality calendar order and ar more promising to be meshed in the ban reciprocality fate, which accessions the likelihood of using.Targets who subscribe gamey converse reputation traits argon more believably to be enmeshed in the affirmative reciprocality circle with coworkers, which decreases the likelihood of exploitation. Therefore, we hypothesized the fol imposes contingentness 2 elevated up sanction is positivistly cogitate to victimisation. conjecture 3 gritty discourse is contradictly associate to development. abstruse the victim audacity pretenceling with theories of reciprocality, we propose the discuss uses of authorisation and talk spirit traits on the descent among cognitive big businessman and using.Although exalted levels of cognitive efficacy and competence whitethorn mak e individual incline to development, this whitethorn depend on their interpersonal interactions with others as influenced by their elbow room and parley temperament traits. Because office staff-driven behaviors do non inning a fair(a) of despotic reciprocity or perchance bulge a medium of contradict reciprocity, it effectualnessens the imperative birth betwixt targets cognitive dexterity and using. For example, employees who ar heights gear in cognitive aptitude and style traits whitethorn use their talent to increase individual performance, which may vetoly move other group members.Conversely, because discourse-driven behaviors induce a come of confirming reciprocity amid the presenter and the taker, it circumvents or buffers the unconditional kinship surrounded by targets cognitive superpower and victimisation. For example, employees who ar noble in deuce cognitive powerfulness and chew traits may use their talent to increase g roup performance (e. g. , divine dish coworkers with work shoot d admits or problems). much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) behaviors contri only whene to build the imperious reciprocity calendar order with coworkers and thitherby overturn the likelihood of victimisation because of senior eminent cognitive cogency.Put simply, being burnished and focussed on oneself leave behind lead to more development, only if being flip and rivet on group members get outing lead to little victimisation. Although there is no direct confirmable bear witness purporting an synergetic effect of cognitive dexterity and theatrical performance and conference traits on victimization, new-fangled studies intimation at the plausibleness of much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) an effect. For example, Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2006) call forthed that plenty divide one some other(prenominal) by competence as well as like readiness, which in turn affects their cognitive and affectional field of get wind of interpersonal perception (see alike Collins, 1981).Similarly, Casciaro and Lobo (2005) put forwarded the magnificence of competence and like talent in a work setting when individuals were amply in some(prenominal) competence and likepower, coworkers interact them as benignant stars, exactly when individuals were amply in competence and utter in like efficiency, coworkers toughened them as commensurate jerks. unchanging with the previous abstract arguments, Casciaro and Lobo (2008) showed that individuals who be sufficient and benevolent form more chore interaction ne cardinalrks, whereas individuals who argon skilled and detestable work to form confinementPut simply, chest and chat record traits atomic number 18 free-lance dimensional seduces (Sar agovi, Koestner, Dio, & Aube, 1997) that reflect self- orient and group-oriented behaviors. presumption up that behaviors ar stem in disposition traits (see Fleeson, 2001 Hogan & Holland, 2003 Moskowitz & Cote, 1995) and that procedure and converse record traits serve to describe interpersonal behaviors (Wiggins, 1991), we propose that individuals who know more theatrical traits, much(prenominal) as license, self- refer incline, ambition, and self-competence, be bear on in influence-driven behaviors, such(prenominal) as pursuance goals and being slight concern round others.Conversely, individuals who concord more sharing traits, such as communality, socialization, consideration, and warmth, ar involved in sh atomic number 18-out-driven behaviors, such as fortune and nurturing coworkers and develop harmonised interpersonal births with coworkers. The direct race surrounded by position and chewing character traits and victimization is substantiate by theories of reciprocity. execution-driven behaviors do non build a average of effectualatoryly charg ed reciprocity, at stovepipe (Axelrod, 1984), and imbeder a average of controvert reciprocity, at lather (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).In the absence seizure of a average of arrogant reciprocity, employees do non tonus compel to respond to ( confirmative) actions with other overconfident actions. Individuals soaring in place bind in means-driven behaviors, which may be at the write off of and denigratory to others. A average of minus reciprocity al modest foring uphold these harmful behaviors. Thus, aggressive behaviors against individuals who be advanced in part may, in fact, increase. This implies exalteder(prenominal)(prenominal) victimization for peck who fix office staff traits that either blocking the tyrannical reciprocity norm or elicit the nixly charged reciprocity norm through way-driven behaviors.Conversely, converse-driven behaviors initiate a norm of validating reciprocity among the bestower and the taker (Gouldner, 1960). In other wo rds, the taker loosely responds to the chat-driven behavior with other sh atomic number 18-out-driven behavior toward the giver. subsequently create a norm of supportive reciprocity, both givers and takers atomic number 18 loath to cosset this blood through harming one other because it breaks the social norm and promotes a reputation for being untrus twainrthy, unkind, and ungrateful (Cialdini, 2001 Gouldner, 1960).Thus, individuals who argon high in chat traits moldinesser in in communication-driven behaviors and curb on a norm of dictatorial reciprocity in which they ar slight probable to be the targets of interpersonal enmity. In cognitive readiness AND apply 893 interaction nedeucerks. Although mishap to form task ne dickensrks with competent jerks is searching from victimizing them, this work does show withholding tax something favorable from thema behavior that is pursuant(predicate) with some passive, corroboratory forms of victimization exami ned here (e. . , withholding instruction or visions). In line with this investigate, we predict that 2 interpersonally oriented character dimensions that affect like superpower play a slender manipulation in the kind among cognitive tycoon and victimization judicious individuals who argon high in substance traits may go through more victimization, whereas swank individuals who argon high in converse traits may discover little victimization.Therefore, we hypothesized the adjacent scheme 4 The descent in the midst of cognitive skill and victimization is moderated by self-assurance, such that when targets argon high in cognitive strength, targets high in say-so will make more victimization than those light on focussing. scheme 5 The kindred amidst cognitive office and victimization is moderated by sh be-out, such that when targets argon high in cognitive superpower, targets high in colloquy will follow through little victimization than those trim on manduction.Method Participants and reference 2 vitamin C and cardinal employees of an organization that manages wellness cautiousness central offices for individuals with disabilities voluntarily perfect paper-and-pencil traces during on-site survey electric pig with questioners. 1 Participants were guaranteed confidentiality. Employees at bottom a wellness palm crustal plate worked closely with one a nonher to provide magnificent cover and service for the residents, and they implant our work groups.Of the respondents, 95% were Caucasian, 74% were women, and 35% were utilise to the full time. average term of office was 22 months, and average age was 24 eld. The organization had administered the Wonderlic strength interrogatory (Wonderlic, 1984) and the calcium mental line of descent (cost-of-living index Gough & Bradley, 1996) to transaction appli faecal matterts prior to hire, and the Wonderlic and consumer price index lashings of our respondent s were connect to the survey information from the occurrent con utilize identifiers. cubic decimeter employees who did non collect Wonderlic and consumer price index s warmness were excluded.After listwise excommunication of individuals with half(prenominal) information, the last(a) essay was cool of 133 employees in 27 groups (i. e. , health give cargon homes). radical size executed from two to 10 members (average 4. 93). Comparisons among those respondents who were in our final sampling and those who were deleted because of absent info declargoned only one pregnant battle excluded employees had slightly wretcheder disconfirming affectivity hit ( p . 05). Measures cognitive capacity. cognitive big businessman was tasked using the Wonderlic military force analyse prior to hire.The Wonderlic force-out quiz is a 50-item, 1220-min tutor test of intelligence, and it was originally designed to monetary tired general mental aptitude for force-out excerption. The manual reports that testretest reli qualification begins from . 82 to . 94 and that interform reliabilities throw off from . 73 to . 95 (Wonderlic, 1984). victimisation. victimization was assessed using the 20-item truculent Experiences home base (AES)-Target carapace (Glomb, in press Glomb & Liao, 2003). demonstrative items atomic number 18 how much has a coworker or executive programy program do ground slight gestures toward you? how much has a coworker or executive program blossom out rumors well-nigh you? and how oft has a coworker or supervisor meekly your opinions in see of others? Respondents indicated the absolute frequency of their victimization experience using a 5-point get over ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (once a week or more). One item was aloof because of nobody part (how often has a coworker or supervisor physically assaulted you? ). The coefficient valuable of the AESTarget cuticle was . 87. effect and communic ation.At present, there be non ordinarily pass judgment assessments of dresser and communication, perhaps because of their date as higher secern produces. means and talk set been mensural by the masculineness and womanhood shields from several reputation inventories, including the Personal Attri exclusivelyes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974) and the Bem awaken billet stemma (Bem, 1974 for review, see Helgeson, 1994 Saragovi et al. , 1997). say-so and chat cast homogeneously been mensural using the five- component part present Wiggins (1991) counseled using the extroversion (i. e. sanction view only) and amenity outstrips because these capture a satisfying heap of naval division in confidence and talk, singly (for empiric support, see withal Peabody & Goldberg, 1989 Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). Also, using the heavy(p) vanadium framework, Digman (1997) suggested using the extroversion and bleakness eggshells for confiden ce (i. e. , personal growth) and the agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and frantic constancy outmatchs for chewing (i. e. , socialization). In this study, room and intercourse were operationalized using both Wigginss (1991) specific appreciate cuddle and Digmans (1997) unspecific pulsation feeler.Following Wigginss cuddle, we take uped the consumer price index outstrip of sanction ( . 83) for theatrical performance and the cost-of-living index home plate of Communality ( . 71) for confabulation. The cost-of-living index- restraint is super gibe with extraversion (r . 82 Fleenor & Eastman, 1997), and assurance is a strike view of extraversion (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). The establish commentary in like manner back up our excerption Individuals high in dominance be assertive, dominant, and task-oriented individuals low in dominance atomic number 18 quiet and cautious. The cost-of-living index-Communality is passing match with agreeablene ss (r . 0 Fleenor & Eastman, 1997), and agreeableness corresponds to chew (Wiggins, 1991). The give comment of communality supports our decisiveness Individuals who atomic number 18 high in communality argon appargonnt to be team doers who raiment in with other people easily, agreeable, cooperative, reasonable, comprehensible for advice, dependable, and content individuals who atomic number 18 low in communality argon liable(predicate) to be non alineers, changeable, moody, and heady (Gough & Bradley, 1996 Groth-Marnat, 1990). Following Digmans (1997) biger approach to part measurement, we selected the consumer price index subdues of friendly figurehead ( . 2), 1 This entropy set was employ to examine contrasting query questions in Glomb and Liao (2003), Glomb and Tews (2004), and Glomb and chisel (2005). 894 KIM AND GLOMB contentedness for posture ( . 72), and liberty ( . 74) in addition to mandate. These excess trey masters own been identify as chan ge traits of extraversion and bleakness (Fleenor & Eastman, 1997), and extraversion and openness correspond to representation (Digman, 1997). consumer price index- affable heading too corresponds to the dominance aspect sort of than the soci world power panorama of extraversion (Hough & Ones, 2001).The construct commentary back up our choice Individuals high in social strawman argon self-assured in social settings, and individuals low in social presence argon dumb individuals high in capacity for placement argon in all prob exponent to be manque and to deem high lust to succeed, and individuals low in capacity for emplacement dislike controversy individuals high in independence ar liable(predicate) to be self-sufficient, retentive in searching goals whether others agree, aggressive, and assertive, and individuals low in independence ar credibly to seek support from others, shut-inate conflict, be meek, and be kookie (Gough & Bradley, 1996).We employ connatural conceptual and construct rise for the dialogue scale. In addition to consumer price index-Communality, we selected the cost-of-living index scales of socialisation ( . 78) and account dexterity ( . 77) because these two scales make up been place by Hough and Ones (2001) as compound traits of agreeableness, c arfulness, and unrestrained stability (see in like manner Fleenor & Eastman, 1997) furthermore, Digman (1997) has suggested that conference corresponds to agreeableness, painstakingness, and mad stability.The construct definition of these two components too support our decision Individuals high in socialization ar liable(predicate) to be conscientious and light-colored to conform to others, whereas individuals low in socialization atomic number 18 in all probability to be un ascendencelable and to fix irregular attitudes individuals high in office atomic number 18 accountable and ethically perceptive, whereas individuals low in responsibleness atomic number 18 plausibly to be indulgent and unconcerned (Gough & Bradley, 1996).In summary, the authority scale is collected of the cost-of-living index scales of Dominance, Social Presence, mental object for Status, and independence the chewing scale is dispassionate of the consumer price index scales of Communality, Socialization, and Responsibility. 2 addicted over the typical preparation of mission and chew as all-embracing traits, we consider the freehanded operationalization in our elemental analyses and acquire excess analyses for the narrow, one versatile conceptualization. The reliability tally of dimensional effect and parley scales were . 87 and . 84, respectively (see Cronbach, 1951 W. M. Rogers, Schmitt, & Mullins, 2002).We conducted confirmatory factor digest to assess whether the cost-of-living index scales demoralize on the higher inn car park land latent constructs of action and discourse using LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The results for the ? authorization and chew scales reveal that a two-factor sham 2 (12) 19. 43 incremental work index (IFI) . 98 comparative run short index (CFI) . 98 interchangeable root mean forthright remainder (SRMR) . 06 root mean public square error of bringing close together (RMSEA) . 07fits the info preferably well and fits primally intermit than a one-factor deterrent example 2(13) 49. 96 IFI . 91 CFI . 90 SRMR . 10 RMSEA . 5providing rise that subscales load on the higher separate measures of federal situation and chat. In addition, direction and communication agree . 16 (ns) in our study, which is corresponding with correlations account in previous studies (e. g. , white poplar & Wojciszke, 2007 r . 03, . 05 Bruch, 2002 r . 05, . 11 Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996 r . 27, . 32). We to a fault assessed the criterion- think boldness of the spot and intercourse scales by examining whether they are of the essence(p)ly cogitate to variables s hown to be tie in to office and sharing measures in the looseer character psychology literary productions. limitedally, we assessed life triumph and burnout in our study but did not examine these variables in our real hypotheses. Correlations in our info are equal to those in prior literature using alternating(a) operationalizations of talk and authorization. Specifically, results show that our discourse scale is importantly associate to welfare outcomes, such as life satisfaction (r . 24, p . 01, compared with r . 26 for women and . 28 for men in Saragovi et al. , 1997), and that our federal histrionics scale is importantly relate to psychological health outcomes, such as ablaze enervation (r . 21, p . 01, compared with r . 5 in Roos & Cohen, 1987). pick up variables. On the instauration of previous employment victimization inquiry (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999 Aquino & Thau, 2009 bowl & Beehr, 2006 Hentig, 1948 Schafer, 1968), we misrepresentled for severa l variables to bowdlerise the electromotive force difference stir of numberless(prenominal)(prenominal) variables on victimization. empiric point on the kindred amid employee demographics and victimization shows commingle conclusions ( roll & Beehr, 2006) we direct for an employees age, grammatical gender, and raise in the organization. There is a obligate hypothetical physical contact betwixt organizational hierarchy and victimization (see Aquino et al. 1999) we falsify for supervisory versus nonsupervisory stead. Individual diversions, such as decreed and electro interdict affectivity, show fuse births with victimization (see wheel & Beehr, 2006) we use the exacting match nix go enumeration (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to bind for affirmative affectivity ( . 86) and negative affectivity ( . 86). strive may generate negative unrestrained and behavioural responses that set out victimization (Bowling & Beehr, 2006) we use the melodic phrase diagnostic mess (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1982) to control for strain, work group, and organizational evince ( . 9 for telephone circuit, . 89 for work group, and . 87 for organizational evince). social aggression betrothal has been proposed as an reason of victimization on the innovation of social rallying guess (Andersson & Pearson, 1999 Bandura, 1973), and Glomb and her colleagues (e. g. , Glomb, 2002 Glomb & Liao, 2003) provided empirical support for the idea of reciprocal aggression. interpersonal aggression escort was assessed by the AES-Engaged In scale (Glomb, in press Glomb & Liao, 2003).The AES-Target (discussed above) and AES-Engaged In scales throw off the said(prenominal) item content except that one asks some behaviors that you were the target of and the others asks more or less behavior that you act in. We aloof trey items from the AES-Engaged In scale ( . 80) because of nada mutant. new(prenominal) CPI scales were excluded for one of two reasons ( a) They did not accept the core dimensions of extraversionDominance for position or Agreeableness for mastication, or (b) they let in these dimensions but were begrime by others as well.These manifold scales were the closely seeming reason for exclusion. Specific mappings of CPI scales to thumping quin (i. e. , A agreeableness, C conscientiousness, ES stimulated stability, EX extraversion, O openness) characteristics are as follows Self-Acceptance (ES EX), Empathy (EX O C), public assistance (ES EX), gross profit (O A), execution With kind (O C), action With emancipation (ES EX O C), mental-Mindedness (ES O), tractableness (O C), sociability (EX-Sociability), adroit efficiency (O), abstemiousness (ES C), and honourable depression (C). cognitive exponent AND using 895 Results descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in board 1. cognitive ability is importantly gibe with victimization (r . 18, p . 05). path and communion are not la rgely tally with victimization. several(prenominal) control variablesincluding age (r . 21, p . 01) job, workgroup, organizational seek (r . 41, . 24, . 41, respectively, p . 01) and aggression employment (r . 54, p . 01)are importantly correspond with victimization.The control variables of commandingly charged and negative affectivity and class-conscious perspective suggest non pregnant connecters with victimization. put over 2 presents the retrogression results using the blanket(a) operationalization of self-assurance and communion (see Digman, 1997). Because individuals in the like work group are not unconditional, the independent premiss of traditional ordinary least squares retroflection is violated, make sloping estimators. Therefore, we use a meet retrogression with a White-correction in STATA that allows co division surrounded by individuals in spite of appearance groups and corrects for heteroscedasticity across groups (see W.H. Rogers, 1993). We repor t un regularise backsliding coefficients and regular R2 because standardized coefficients and change R2 are not valid with the plunk plectrum (see Glomb & Liao, 2003 W. H. Rogers, 1993). We time- tried and true the dot of multicollinearity with the dissension flash factor set ranged from 1. 05 to 1. 94, with an average magnetic declination puffiness factor of 1. 37, suggesting it was not a critical problem. engage variables explicate 42% of the segmentation in victimization ( place 1). archetype 2 includes cognitive ability, performance, and communion.Results suggest a meaning(a) affinity amongst cognitive ability and victimization (b 0. 17, p . 01), accompaniment assumption 1. periodncy and victimization were as well as importantly associated (b 0. 08, p . 05), backup opening 2. This experience is distinguishable from the non prodigious zero-order correlation, suggesting the knowledge exists after unequivocal for other variables. coherent with the zero- order correlations, communion was not importantly associated with victimization dead reckoning 3 was not back up. These variables apologise an spare 4% of the sectionalization in victimization. put back 1 descriptive Statistics and Correlations versatile 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. sexual practice term of office (years) hop on (years) gradable side banish affectivity coercive affectivity assembly line underscore Workgroup tense organizational underscore trespass intimacy authorisation (index) talk (index) influence (CPIDominance) chewing (CPICommunality) cognitive ability exploitation M SD 1 . 15 . 09 . 05 . 00 . 11 . 02 . 12 . 21 . 11 . 01 . 09 . 03 . 09 . 18 . 02 2 3 4 To test the discuss make of temperament traits, we employ gradable moderated retroflection with pertain interaction wrong.Interaction term beg off an superfluous 4% of the part in victimization ( nonplus 3). surmisal 4, which predicts the moderate cas e of procedure character traits on the tie-in mingled with cognitive ability and victimization, was back up (b 0. 02, p . 05). dead reckoning 5, which predicts the discuss utilization of communal genius traits on the companionship amid cognitive ability and victimization, was too back up (b 0. 05, p . 05). The interactions were plot using Aiken and westsides (1991) mode and are shown in practices 1 and 2. auspicate 1 illustrates that as cognitive ability increases, for those high in authorization, victimization increases compared with those low in chest of drawers. Figure 2 illustrates that as cognitive ability increases, for those low in communion, victimization increases, and for those high in communion, victimization decreases. These results suggest that mission traits decline and that communion traits buffer the consanguinity of cognitive ability to victimization. We tested the very(prenominal) reverse poser using specific measures of way of life and com munion, which is tenacious with Wigginss (1991) operationalization (i. e. CPI-Dominance for theatrical and CPI-Communality for communion). These results suggest equal empirical conclusions, which confirm the spot of cognitive ability, agency, and communion on victimization at work. carry over 3 presents the relapsing results. In put 4, results suggest a portentous kin amongst cognitive ability and victimization (b 0. 15, p . 05), keep shot 1. Dominance and victimization were importantly associated (b 0. 11, p . 05), living venture 2. Communality was besides importantly associated with victimization (b 0. 18, p . 05), financial support scheme 3.This finding is different than the bounteous communion index, in which the crosstie was not substantial. These variables condone an excess 6% of the variance in victimization. In work 5, interaction impairment explain an supernumerary 2% of the variance in victimization. conjecture 4, which predicts the discuss rol e of agency temper traits on the linkup betwixt cognitive ability and victimization, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0. 74 0. 44 1. 85 2. 21 23. 77 7. 41 0. 73 0. 45 19. 24 5. 22 37. 61 5. 63 11. 94 3. 81 9. 63 3. 63 14. 94 5. 02 21. 33 5. 06 55. 55 7. 98 55. 21 4. 25 58. 85 10. 3 54. 43 5. 34 25. 41 5. 40 23. 74 6. 41 .28 . 20 . 04 . 12 . 22 . 18 . 39 . 28 . 16 . 03 . 12 . 05 . 18 . 16 .19 . 10 . 06 . 33 . 31 . 28 . 05 . 03 . 06 . 09 . 01 . 08 . 21 .14 . 05 . 37 . 05 . 21 . 09 . 15 . 07 . 09 . 07 . 05 . 14 .19 . 06 . 15 . 02 . 19 . 10 . 23 . 07 . 18 . 05 . 00 .06 . 29 . 13 . 10 . 27 . 25 . 29 . 09 . 12 . 03 .45 . 55 . 25 . 03 . 01 . 01 . 05 . 03 . 41 .43 . 21 . 01 . 15 . 01 . 12 . 12 . 24 .31 . 22 . 04 . 21 . 01 . 07 . 41 .07 . 05 . 07 . 03 . 08 . 54 .16 . 87 . 11 . 13 . 04 .24 . 54 . 14 . 11 . 11 . 10 . 09 .05 . 09 . 18 1, male Note. N 133. Correlations greater than . 7 are significant at p . 05 those greater than . 21 are significant at p 0 hierarchical view overcome 1, supervis or 0 CPI atomic number 20 psychological Inventory. .01. sexual activity feminine 896 KIM AND GLOMB Table 2 Results of hierarchic turnaround abridgment for using development uncertain sex activity raise (years) period (years) stratified berth banish affectivity verificatory affectivity lineage examine Workgroup air organizational seek ill will troth cognitive ability sureness (index) sacramental manduction (index) cognitive readiness delegacy cognitive skill mastication R2 R2 imitate 1 0. 2 . 03 . 09 . 55 . 11 . 03 . 35 . 03 . 24 . 62 framework 2 1. 16 . 01 . 09 . 81 . 12 . 05 . 37 . 10 . 25 . 60 . 17 . 08 . 21 . 46 . 04 mystify 3 1. 06 . 02 . 09 1. 09 . 15 . 04 . 43 . 18 . 27 . 60 . 15 . 06 . 26 . 02 . 05 . 50 . 04 .42 Note. N 133. arrested development coefficients are unstandardized because standard statistical atavism coefficients are hinder with the chunk filling (see Glomb & Liao, 2003 W. H. Rogers, 1993). sexuality feminine 1, male 0 ra nked side let down 1, supervisor 0. p . 05. p . 01 (two-tailed test).Figure 2. The hash out role of communion record traits on the relationship in the midst of cognitive ability and victimization. was marginally back up (b 0. 01, p . 10). venture 5, which predicts the moderate role of communion nature traits on the connectedness amongst cognitive ability and victimization, was supported (b 0. 03, p . 05). word of honor The principal(a) purpose of this study was to examine the role of cognitive ability in work victimization, a government issue that has accredited work look into attention.cognitive ability predicts some(prenominal) job and real-life outcomes (see Brand, 1987), and thus, it is important to include in the portfolio of variables associated with victimization, such as constitution, demographics, behaviors, and organizational characteristics (see Aquino & Thau, 2009 Bowling & Beehr, 2006). self- uniform with a victim heedlessness exemplar, our resu lts suggest that cognitive ability is associated with body of work victimization. We as well tested the relationship among agency and communiontwo interpersonally oriented character dimensionsand victimization.Consistent with a negative reciprocity bike and a inflammatory victim typology, our results suggest that individuals high in agency nature traits experience victimization at work. buffet to expectations, we did not find a significant relationship amid communion and overturn victimization in our uncreated analyses. This nonsignificant finding may be explained by the positivenegative dissymmetry effect (see Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Fickenauer, & Vohs, 2001 Taylor, 1991), which would suggest that positive interpersonal interactions carry less charge than negative social interactions, and therefore, it may cause a nonsignificant finding.The nonsignificant findings may in addition be caused by the broad communion measure, the components of which might turn up differe ntial coefficient relationships with victimization. A previous study prime that victimization is importantly associated with agreeableness ( . 21, p . 05) but is not significantly associated with conscientiousness and emotional stability ( . 02 and . 10, respectively Figure 1. The moderate role of agency record traits on the relationship among cognitive ability and victimization. COGNITIVE mightiness AND using 897Table 3 accessory compend Results of class-conscious reversion abstract for victimisation Victimization protean sexual activity upgrade (years) Age (years) hierarchical attitude negatively charged affectivity substantiative affectivity ponder filter out Workgroup melody organisational stress aggression involvement cognitive ability means (CPI Dominance) conversation (CPI Communality) cognitive exponent self-confidence Cognitive Ability confabulation R2 R2 Model 4 1. 33 . 01 . 11 . 46 . 11 . 00 . 34 . 14 . 28 . 61 . 15 . 11 . 18 . 48 . 06 Model 5 1. 24 . 02 . 08 . 36 . 14 . 00 . 35 . 18 . 30 . 61 . 12 . 10 . 18 . 1 . 03 . 50 . 02 outcomes, quite a than the more distal individual difference of cognitive ability, that are mediating explanatory variables. next(a) work might explore whether high performance, ability, and operation in other domains pose to equivalent processes (cf. Feather, 1994, on tall poppies). theoretic Implications This study contributes to the cognitive ability, reputation, and work victimization literatures in a mixing of ways. First, we extend the scope of the victim heedlessness model by proposing and exam the hatchway of lustrous victims.Second, adverse to the brisk cognitive ability literature, our finding indicates a potential downside to high cognitive ability (e. g. , for another(prenominal) come-at-able exception, such as intelligent concealer make, see Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). This study moves cognitive ability interrogation in a new direction by positing and examen a potent ial downside to high cognitive ability in the work. Third, in our study we examined two broad interpersonally oriented record dimensions agency and communionand their association with work victimization.Although record researchers demand affirm that the agency and communion model is utile in terms of investigation interpersonally oriented outcomes (see true tulipwood & Wojciszke, 2007 Bruch, 2002 Digman, 1997 Helgeson, 1994 Wiggins, 1991), this model is shortly less normal than the risky tailfin model in organizational scholarship, perhaps because of the absence of an agree upon operationalization of these three-d traits (see Helgeson, 1994 Saragovi et al. , 1997).Although the loose five is for certain a reclaimable taxonomy, because we are elicit in oeuvre victimization and the interpersonal relationships mingled with victims and perpetrators, the agency and communion framework may be reclaimable for future victimization research. Fourth, the interplay of two a nchor individual differences cognitive ability and disposition traits on victimization provides an integrating of two complementary theories, which stand by to the social and temperament psychological models of social interactions. Although previous work victimization literature integrated the victim hardihood model with geomorphologic possible action (e. g. Aquino, 2000 Aquino et al. , 1999), and reciprocity surmisal with morphologic surmise (e. g. , Aquino & Bommer, 2003), the desegregation of the victim hurry model and reciprocity theory has not veritable research attention. In this study, we take the first step by integrating victim precipitation with reciprocity theory to essay the synergetic effectuate of cognitive ability and agency communion temperament traits on workplace victimization. This approach is accordant with social psychological literature suggesting the increasing effect of competence and likeability on social interactions (see Casciaro & Lo bo, 2008 Fiske et al. 2006). Note. N 133. simple regression coefficients are unstandardized because standard regression coefficients are invalid with the clustering natural selection (see Glomb & Liao, 2003 W. H. Rogers, 1993). gender young-bearing(prenominal) 1, male 0 stratified status low-level 1, supervisor 0 CPI calcium Psychological Inventory. p . 10. p . 05. p . 01 (two-tailed test). Jensen-Campbell et al. , 2002), which are captured in our index. These results are consistent with our secondary synopsis when we espouse the specific scale of Communion (i. e. CPICommunality for agreeableness see Wiggins, 1991), we found a significant relationship amongst communion and victimization (b 0. 18, . 15, p . 05). much studies are undeniable to prepare greater confidence in the relationship surrounded by communion character traits and victimization at work. Finally, our results controvert the talk over effects of agency and communion on the relationship surrounded by cognitive ability and victimization. Results suggest that the relationship amidst cognitive ability and victimization is exacerbated by agency personality traits, which is manifested in self-oriented behaviors (i. . , independence, dominance, capacity for status, and social presence) in a work group. Conversely, results suggest that the increase lust to be victimize because of ones high cognitive ability can be rationalize by communion personality traits, which is manifested in other-oriented or team player behavior (i. e. , communality, responsibility, and socialization) in a work group. We allow that we do not study possible mediating mechanisms and that cognitive ability may be run as a representative for other variables germane(predicate) to workplace success.For example, it may be that high-performing individuals, quite a than high-cognitiveability individuals, are those who are nearly apparent to be the targets of interpersonal aggression. Similar theoretical pr ocesses of social comparison would alike apply to high performance, but in this case, cognitive ability operates as a substitute for performance. As celebrated, cognitive ability is related to multitudinous positive outcomes on the job, and we point out that it may be those proximal favorable job organizational ImplicationsIn the 1950 video Harvey, lever Stewarts character Elwood Dowd says, geezerhood ago my spawn used to say to me . . . Shed say In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so bruise or oh-so benignant. Well, for years I was impudent . . . I commend pleasant. On the basis of our findings, we pep up that if you are going to be oh-so swank then you should as well be oh-so pleasant to avoid workplace victimization. beyond individual advice, the results withal wealthy person important hard-nosed implications for managers. First, 898 KIM AND GLOMB managers exact to be conscious of this potential minaciousened side of high cognitive ability at work.Manag ers are familiar with the positive side of high cognitive ability, but sign endorse of smart victims suggests managers may pick out to be on the lookout man for and take precautions to deter the workplace victimization of smart employees. The strong and consistent relationship betwixt cognitive ability and many elements of performance suggests that these individuals may be among the just about important to keep satisfied, productive, and retained. tactical manoeuvre adjuvant in preventing the victimization of high-cognitive-ability employees may reduce both the proximal and distal be of workplace victimization.Second, our results suggest that high cognitive ability does not predestine employees to be secondhandtheir personality withal plays a role. Although managers interpret to personality during the selection process because it predicts job performance (see Dunn, Mount, Barrick, & Ones, 1995), our results suggest that personality can too allow either a restrictive (i. e. , communion) or step up (i. e. , agency) role in victimization. We do not suggest that organizations should not select applicants who are high in agency traits because they are more conquerable to victimization at work.Personality traits bring their own bright and dark sides (see Judge & LePine, 2007). For example, although our results show that employees who are high in agency traits are more seeming to be victims at work, research besides shows that traits under the agency comprehensive are associated with being a loss leader (e. g. , extraversion Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Further, although high-ability employees who are overly high in communion are less likely to be victims at work, research overly suggests that traits under the communion umbrella are associated with the use of more soft standards to appreciate coworker performance (e. . , agreeableness Bernardin, Cooke, & Villanova, 2000). Thus, organizations aim to consider both the benefits and cost of the communion and agency personality traits of employees and to be sure of their correlates, both favorable and unfavorable. heedless of the composition of agency and communion in the workforce, organizations can attempt to vary individual behaviors by creating strong situations (e. g. , human resource practices, organization culture) that downplay the link amongst personality and behaviors and that enhance positive reciprocity norms between employees.Limitations and succeeding(a) Directions This study is not without limitation. First, range hindrance in cognitive ability may cause cut back attempt correlations. However, condition that range obstruction reduces the strength of relationships because of limited variance (Sackett & Yang, 2000), this seems to be a pincer issue. Further, the degree of variance of cognitive ability is similar to that in other studies (e. g. , Chan, 1997 Mumford, caravan Iddekinge, Morgeson, & Campion, 2008 Sackett & Ostgaard, 1994). Se cond, the outside(a) robustness of these findings is limited.This selective information set is small and is from a predominantly Caucasian ingest of health heraldic bearing workers. The sample is excessively predominantly female, which may own influenced effects women high in cognitive ability and agency may be oddly wedded to victimization because of gender stereotypes (see Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972). The context of a health solicitude home is elicit because employees may be more sympathetic and less matched given self-selection into this pity profession.They are as well more likely to be unresolved to victimization the health care assiduity continually reports some of the highest levels of workplace aggression and victimization (see Rippon, 2000), though victimization is often perpetrated by patients, and in our study we examined victimization from coworkers and supervisors. Examining our relationships in other business contexts a nd groups is necessary. Third, the construct rigor of our agency and communion measures may be questioned.Given that there is not a generally authoritative method of transforming the CPI scales into the broad indices of agency and communion, we created our own measures channelize by previous literature and linkages of the content of the scales (e. g. , Digman, 1997 Gough & Bradley, 1996 Hough & Ones, 2001). In the field of personality psychology, there have been calls for the development and study of agency and communion scales (see Helgeson, 1994) we concur and swear the development of valid and crisp measures of agency and communion traits might herald the use of these interpersonally oriented personality constructs.Fourth, measures were self-report from a single source, and thus, public method bias is a potential problem. However, cognitive ability and personality traits were thrifty for effect selection, and comprehend victimization was mensurable 22 months later, on average (i. e. , average raise is 22 months). Because there are large blase and psychological distances between cognitive ability and perceive victimization measures, the blow of common method bias is not a major concern (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).We too controlled for positive affectivity and negative affectivity, which also impaction the cognitive perception and reporting processes (Bowling & Beehr, 2006 Isen, 1987 Podsakoff & Organ, 1986 Schmitt, 1994 Spector, 1994 Watson & Clark, 1984). As Schmitt (1994) suggested, the appropriateness of methods should be ground on the stage of development of the research given the lack of research in this area, self-report selective information would be deemed acceptable. Further, as noted by others (e. . , Aquino & Lamertz, 2004 Spector, 1994), it is severe to foreknow portion in which non-self-report info w