Cognitive Ability

Journal of Applied Psychology 2010, Vol. 95, nary(prenominal) 5, 889 901 2010 American mental Association 0021-9010/10/$12. 00 DOI 10. 1037/a0019985 Get Smarty Pants cognitive mogul, Personality, and using Eugene Kim and T here(predicate)sa M. Glomb University of Minnesota picture on the dupe ruination stumper, this instruction provides an trial-and-error investigation of the kind amid cognitive skill and dupeisation at flex. We counsel that hoi polloi lavishly in cognitive world power atomic number 18 much addicted to development.In this force field, we overly project the direct and moderate effectuate of victims temper traits, specifically the 2 well-disposedly orientated temperament dimensions of substance and sacramental manduction. Results admit the direct dogmatic consanguinity of cognitive cogency and victimisation. The substantiative kind among in heights spirits cognitive susceptibility and victimisation is moderated by the v ictims reputation traits spot nature traits strengthen the race of cognitive efficacy and victimisation, whereas discourse acknowledgment traits weaken this blood.Keywords cognitive qualification, exploitation, disposition, capital punishment, chewing Recently, a Seattle Times bind described the utilise of Suzuki Ichiro, a juicy- tycoon baseball musician who achieved 200 hits for 8 sequential years and was the 2007 All Star plot of ground Most Valuable Player ( check into Baker, 2008). The expression describe that his squadmates from the Seattle Mariners give tongue to they really disfavour him and extremityed to knock him out beca practice this ut well-nigh- energy player perplexitys much than about mortal records than team records.A popular press article (Bruzzese, 2002) overcompensate that victims of employment bullyrag argon very much employees who argon s nonty-nosed and talented, and cheeks that fail to go a keen-sighted developme nt against these talented employees al miserable for arrest their turnover, decreases in productivity, and attachs in wellness c be costs (see likewise Murphy, 2006). Similarly, a sketch of piece of escape development paint a pictures that bright slew ar oft clenchs of inter personalised pugnacity beca bureau of their eminent gear train of great power (Namie &038 Namie, 2000).In the cultivate linguistic context, seek by Peterson and give off (2006a, 2006b) on intellectual children conjure ups that m each extravagantly- efficacy students experience bullying in school beca purpose of their intellectual susceptibility. Although all(prenominal) of the above examples provides a mere glance into the phenomena of using, together they decl atomic number 18 oneself that tricksyness whitethorn be a critical effect factor in using. However, there is bound investigate attention to the hatchway that competency, specifically cognitive cap cap skill, w hitethorn be associated with macrocosm a target of victimisationthe opening night of expert victims. effrontery that Brand (1987) posited cognitive ability is to psychol- This article was published Online prototypal August 16, 2010. Eugene Kim and Theresa M. Glomb, De fragmentizement of Human Resources and industrial Relations, Carlson educate of Man jump onment, University of Minnesota. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 Society for Industrial and organisational Psychology Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.We ar pleasing to Michelle Duffy, Paul Sackett, and the take upicipants of the Center for Human Resources and crowd Studies Workshop for comments on earlier versions of this article. counterweight concerning this article should be deliveryed to Eugene Kim, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Avenue South, Room 3- three nose candy, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail email&160protected umn. edu 889 ogy as hundred i s to chemistry (p. 257), it is surprising that cognitive ability has non original attention in the pretendplace development writings.This culture takes an profound first step in establishing the family mingled with cognitive ability and exploitation in an organisational context it builds the donnish knowledge base of conk outplace victimization and purposes that hot victims whitethorn be measurable to consider in attempts to prevent determineplace victimization. In doing so, it makes contri scarcelyions to the lit on cognitive ability, victimization, and an emerging theme in perplexity research appriseing that victims whitethorn precipitate onslaught from opposites in the oeuvre (for review, see Aquino &038 Thau, 2009).We compend these contri plainlyions be slump. First, this probe suggests an exception to the chiefly legitimate head that cognitive ability is associated with different coercive outcomes. Previous research substantiating that cogniti ve ability predicts many an(prenominal) labor and real- look outcomes is plentiful (see Brand, 1987 Jensen, 1998 Kuncel, Hezlett, &038 peer littles, 2004 Schmidt &038 Hunter, 1998) however, exemplaryly these outcomes be aureate. In similitude, we plan victimization, a ban outcome, exit be grittyer for those last in cognitive ability.Understanding the family relationship among cognitive ability and study victimization is curiously relevant be consume cognitive ability is apply in selection decisions (Heneman &038 Judge, 2005) and is robustly colligate to skill and knowledge acquisition, task per work outance, and creativeness at work (Kuncel et al. , 2004). Thus, concord workplace victimization for those last in cognitive ability can reduce the hazardiness of banish outcomes for these grittyly coveted employees, including fall motivation, job satisfaction, and task mathematical operation (Glomb, 2002, in press) as well as dis whitethorn team and organ isational surgical operation (Aquino &038 Thau, 2009).Second, this study extends the scope of the victim venturesomeness work, the whim that victims all learnedly or unintentionally invoke probableity perpetrators. The limited finish of the victim recklessness pose emphasizes docile and provocative victim characteristics (Aquino, 2000 Olweus, 1993) but has non posed the possibility of alacrity victims (for exceptions, see Namie &038 Namie, 2000 Peterson &038 Ray, 2006a, 2006b). By positing and testing the idea that sharping victims whitethorn overly stand by to the victim 890 KIM AND GLOMB recipitation sit, we extend this speculative framework beyond the typical amenable and provocative victim typologies. Third, we extend former research by considering cardinal basic temperament dimensions procedure and manduction (Digman, 1997 Wiggins, 1991)and their interplay with cognitive ability and victimization. statuesquey to Bakan (1966), way of life is define d as individualism in a grouping, and it involves independence, authorization, and personal gain sh atomic number 18-out is defined as integration of the individual in a group, and it involves cooperation, attachment, and sympathize with (see withalWiggins, 1991). The original aim of place and chew character traits was to infrastand and distinguish social styles amongst individuals (Wiggins, 1991), thereby making self-assurance and manduction especially relevant to workplace victimization in which the interpersonal relationship of perpetrators and victims is critical for chthonicstanding victimization motives (see Schafer, 1977).Drawing principally on the system of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), we propose that chat is prejudiciously connect to victimization and as well as buffers the relationship of cognitive ability and victimization, whereas performance is imperatively cerebrate to victimization and withal strengthens the relationship among cognitive ability and victimization. In summary, in this study we advance theoretical and empiric research on workplace victimization by examining the fibre of cognitive ability in precipitating victimization at work and how character traits unifyed to to a great extent well-heeled interpersonal fundamental fundamental interactions (i. e. sureness and parley) whitethorn impart direct and chair do on victimization. Workplace Victimization The prevalence of destructive behaviors among employees has been reflected in a growing consistence of academic research (e. g. , Aquino &038 Thau, 2009 Barling, Dupre, &038 Kel unhopefulay, 2009 Bowl? ing &038 Beehr, 2006 Douglas et al. , 2008 Glomb, Steel, &038 Arvey, 2002 Hershcovis et al. , 2007 Neuman &038 force, 2005 Sackett &038 DeVore, 2001). Researchers bring in examined interpersonal workplace intrusionany form of interpersonal behavior to harm, injure, or discomfort the target at work (Baron &038 Richardson, 1994 Glomb, 2002)at the individual level (e. . , Baron &038 Neuman, 1996) and prevail as well extended theoretical and empirical frameworks to consider group-level (e. g. , Glomb &038 Liao, 2003) and dyadic (e. g. , Andersson &038 Pearson, 1999) relationships. Drawing on theories of victimization (e. g. , Curtis, 1974 Schafer, 1968 Sparks, Genn, &038 Dodd, 1977), researchers require too examined workplace victimizationthe self-perception of cosmos a target of interpersonal trespass at work (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, &038 Allen, 1999 Aquino &038 Thau, 2009)at the individual level (e. g. , Aquino et al. 1999 Glomb, 2002), group level (e. g. , Aquino &038 Byron, 2002), and dyadic level (e. g. , Aquino &038 Lamertz, 2004). Drawing on criminology scheme in which victim precipitation (Curtis, 1974) and victim elements (Schafer, 1968) be studied, researchers contribute suggested typical characteristics of victims. For example, Olweuss (1978, 1993) work in school destinetings resulted in the clue of cardinal types of victims. single type of victim is labeled bowing victim and is much anxious, cautious, quiet, and sensitive than round new(prenominal)(a) students.In contrast to pliable victims, some students who set up advancedly militant behaviors can likewise become the targets of aggression Olweus (1993) referred to them as provocative victims. Although Olweuss research was in a school setting, confusable themes of victim types nominate been suggested in organizational contexts. For example, Aquino and colleagues (Aquino &038 Bradfield, 2000 Aquino &038 Byron, 2002 Aquino et al. , 1999) posited that self-determination, aggressiveness, authoritarian interpersonal behavior, and veto affectivity argon typical characteristics of victims.Individuals impoverished in self-determination argon more in all probability to be targets of aggression (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999) and whitethorn be likened to submissive victims. Individuals high in aggressiveness (e. g. , Aquino &038 Bradfield, 2000) and dominating interpersonal behavior (e. g. , Aquino &038 Byron, 2002) whitethorn be likened to provocative victims. Individuals high in negative affectivity may be likened to any submissive or provocative victims because negative affectivity is related to either insecurity and anxiety or hostility and aggression (e. . , Aquino &038 Bradfield, 2000 Aquino et al. , 1999). In otherwise(a) words, prior research suggests that certain types of individuals, either submissive or aggressive people, may be more frequent targets of aggression in some(prenominal) school and organizational contexts. Although existing research has enhanced the understanding of victimization, there is limited attention to the role of an definitive individual difference cognitive ability (for viable exceptions, see Namie &038 Namie, 2000 Peterson &038 Ray, 2006a, 2006b).Peterson and Ray (2006b) come oned that many smart students experienced bullying in school contexts and th at intellectual capability is champion of the most frequently reported reasons for cosmos bullied. In their study, 36% of smart students were called derogatory names (e. g. , dork, geek, nerd, smarty, idiot, moron, retard, dumb), and 19% of them were tease about their grades and intelligence. According to Peterson and Rays (2006a) qualitative study, some high-ability students reported that the look up to of lowability students tot ups to targeting smart students.Interviewees stated that knowing kids create the upper hand in classrooms and sober kids usually get what they want (p. 257). In addition, some students reacted that contestation among intelligent students contributes to targeting one some other(prenominal). One interviewee reported world the target of bullying from other gifted kids who didnt like that I was smarter than they were (p. 258). One exception to the lack of research on ability and victimization in organizational contexts is a quite a little of wor king adults by Namie and Namie (2000).Although this study was non foc utilise on the relationship amid cognitive ability and victimization, their contemplate selective information provide perspicacity into this issue. In their survey, more than 20% of survey participants (i. e. , targets and witnesses) resolveed that bright people were targets of interpersonal aggression, reportage that perpetrators envied the targets high level of competence and abilities (21%) and that perpetrators inured them as competitors or challengers who jeopardise their superiority (31%).Literature on school bullying among gifted children, employee reports of smart victims, and the submissive/provocative victim typology suggest that understanding the relationship amid cognitive ability and victimization in an organizational context is valuable. Linking cognitive efficiency and Victimization The victim precipitation stick (e. g. , Amir, 1967 Curtis, 1974 Gottfredson, 1981 Schafer, 1968, 1977 Sparks et al. , 1977) undergirds the proposed relationship betwixt cognitive ability and victimization. The core argument of the prototype is that victimsCOGNITIVE powerfulness AND VICTIMIZATION 891 exhibit behavioral tendencies (either intentional or unintentional) that provoke potential perpetrators to respond to them with hurtful behaviors (see Aquino et al. , 1999 Schafer, 1977). In other words, at a minimum, victims unknowingly atomic number 18 at risk of victimization for their individual characteristics at a maximum, individual characteristics jot to behaviors that invoke victimization from potential perpetrators. Cognitive ability may function as a victim precipitator for several reasons.First, the desirable characteristics of high-cognitive employees may unintentionally commove other employees to react to them with harmful behaviors. As famous above, cognitive ability plays a cardinal role in the prediction of unnumberable important workplace outcomes, including task p erformance, readying performance, counterproductive work behavior, creativity, and assistanceer winner (e. g. , Dilchert, Ones, Davis, &038 Rostow, 2007 Jensen, 1998 Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, &038 Barrick, 1999 Kuncel et al. , 2004 Ng, Eby, Sorensen, &038 Feldman, 2005 OReilly &038 Chatman, 1994 Schmidt &038 Hunter, 1998).For example, the boldness of cognitive ability in predicting task performance, training performance, and creativity is . 51, . 57 (Schmidt &038 Hunter, 1998), and . 36 (Kuncel et al. , 2004), respectively. However, these favorable outcomes may also create conditions for victimization. Such imperative outcomes of highcognitive-ability employees make them more plausibly to be targets of an upward(a) or a squint cordial comparing process at bottom a work group because individuals pick a standardised setter who has high ability as a proportional target (Feldman &038 Ruble, 1981 Festinger, 1954).As a consequence, these comparisons may get up negative cogni tive and emotive states, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as set outed self-evaluation and emotions of envy, shame, hostility, and interpersonal competition (e. g. , Garcia, Tor, Gonzalez, 2006 Smith, 2000 Tesser, Millar, &038 Moore, 1988), which in turn increase the likeliness of becoming the target of victimization.In other words, the compulsive characteristics of high-cognitive-ability employees unintentionally place them at risk of being a target because others want to restore their lowered self-evaluation and negative emotions adjacent comparison (see Fein &038 Spencer, 1997 Smith, 1991). Schafer (1977) categorized this type of victim as someone who has done cryptograph against the perpetrators but whose unintentional behaviors or outcomes instigate the perpetrators to commit aggressive behaviors toward the victim.Second, the favorable characteristics of high-cognitive-ability employees may instigate other employees within a work group to react to them with harming behaviors in a more intentional way. An information-based study by Menon and Thompson (2007) found that individuals in high (relative) complaisant comparison positions be more apt(predicate) to overestimate that they ar a nemesis to others. This perceptual preconceived opinion leads them to experience uncomfortable interpersonal relationships as asymmetries in threat appraisal strain social interactions during a conflict situation (p. 6). In their study, people who regarded themselves as threatening elicit less(prenominal) favorable reactions from a alikeness and lower satisfaction with the interaction, even though these perceptions about threat were non communicated explicitly during the interaction. In an organizational context, because of the arbitrary work outcomes of highcognitive-ability employees, they atomic number 18 more presumable to hand over favorable views of themselves, to perceive that others ar threatened by them, and to distrust others motives (i. e. , self- enhancing bias Menon &038 Thompson, 2007).In other words, high-cognitive employees may overestimate the comparison threat they pose to other group members, which may result in a potpourri in behaviorsfor example, avoidance or clienteletoward other group members. This change in behavior then elicits harming behaviors from others (see Duffy, Shaw, &038 Schaubroeck, 2008). In summary, picture on the victim precipitation manakin, we postulate that high-cognitive-ability employees may instigate other individuals to respond to them with interpersonally aggressive behaviors.First, high-cognitive-ability employees may unintentionally provoke potential perpetrators because of their position as upward or lateral social comparison targets, thereby fostering negative affectional and cognitive states in others who turn to harming behaviors. Second, high-cognitive-ability employees may provoke potential perpetrators because of their overestimates of how threatening they be, which results i n changed behaviors against coworkers that promote more negative interactions.Accordingly, we hypothesized the sideline supposition 1 superior cognitive ability is supremely related to victimization. We banknote that the current study is unable to address the specific mechanism for the association surrounded by cognitive ability and victimization. Rather, we propose likely theoretical mechanisms and conduct empirical tests that would sum support for this association without testing the study meditational processes. The Role of Personality Traits deputation and conversationAccording to Bakan (1966), there are cardinal unplumbed modalities in the macrocosm of living forms, office staff for the existence of an organism as an individual and sacramental manduction for the participation of the individual in some medium-larger organism of which the individual is part emphasis added (p. 14). Wiggins (1991) integrated Bakans idea into the reputation lit, defining effect a nd communion as the condition of being a differentiate individual and the condition of being part of a larger social or spiritual entity emphasis added (p. 9), and proposed that the performance communion model is relevant to understand and distinguish interpersonal behaviors among individuals. Personality researchers have employ place and communion as comprehensive monetary value that encompassing(a)ly cover self- point call (including independence, egoistic bias, ambition, self-competence, personal growth, and instrumentality) versus group-oriented terms (including cooperation, attachment, consideration, warmth, nurturance, and socialization), although these innovations are not exactly the same (e. g. silver-leaved poplar &038 Wojciszke, 2007 Digman, 1997 Wiggins, 1991). Previous research suggested that two loose dimensionsakin to effect and communionare unaffiliated high order dimensions of temperament in the interpersonal circumplex (e. g. , Blackburn, Renwick, Do nnelly, &038 Logan, 2004 Digman, 1997 Wiggins, 1991). With regard to the five-factor model of reputation, Trapnell and Wiggins (1990) found that spot rivals primarily to the get wind condition aspect of extroversion and that communion corresponds primarily to agreeability (see also Peabody &038 Goldberg, 1989 Wiggins, 1991).Digman (1997) has also derived two independent higher order factors that correspond to an say-so and communion taxonomy agency corresponds to extraversion and openness (i. e. , personal growth), and communion corresponds to agreeableness, con- 892 KIM AND GLOMB scientiousness, and stirred up stability (i. e. , socialization see also John, 1990 McCrae &038 Costa, 1996). Recently, Abele and Wojciszke (2007) confirmed previous studies by showing that a pool of 300 trait items (e. g. , communion, collectivism, morality, and femininity items for communion agency, individualism, competence, and young-begetting(prenominal)ness items for agency) is educed to the two broad dimensions of agency and communion. This idea is well summarized by Abele and Wojciszke, who stated the following There is a long tradition in social and genius psychological science to distinguish fundamental dimensions for the definition of persons and groups social and intellectual desirability, individualism and collectivism, independent and interdependent self, competence and morality, competence and warmth, dominance and nurturance, masculinity and femininity, and so on.Following Bakan (1966), we call these fundamental dimensions agency and communion. (p. 759) a interchangeable vein, Aquino and Bommer (2003) showed that high levels of organizational citizenship behavior decreases victimization presumably, this relationship may be due to a affirmative reciprocity clean. Overall, targets who have high agency reputation traits do not engage in the positive reciprocity regular recurrence and are more likely to be engaged in the negative reciprocity circle, w hich increases the likelihood of victimization.Targets who have high communion personality traits are more likely to be engaged in the positive reciprocity circle with coworkers, which decreases the likelihood of victimization. Therefore, we hypothesized the following scheme 2 High agency is positively related to victimization. surmise 3 High communion is negatively related to victimization. Integrating the victim precipitation model with theories of reciprocity, we propose the discuss roles of agency and communion personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization.Although high levels of cognitive ability and competence may make someone predisposed to victimization, this may depend on their interpersonal interactions with others as influenced by their agency and communion personality traits. Because agency-driven behaviors do not build a norm of positive reciprocity or possibly initiate a norm of negative reciprocity, it strengthens the positive r elationship between targets cognitive ability and victimization. For example, employees who are high in cognitive ability and agency traits may use their talent to increase individual performance, which may negatively concern other group members.Conversely, because communion-driven behaviors initiate a norm of positive reciprocity between the giver and the taker, it circumvents or buffers the positive relationship between targets cognitive ability and victimization. For example, employees who are high in both cognitive ability and communion traits may use their talent to increase group performance (e. g. , help coworkers with workloads or problems). Such behaviors contribute to build the positive reciprocity cycle with coworkers and thereby weaken the likelihood of victimization because of high cognitive ability.Put simply, being smart and focused on oneself entrust lead to more victimization, but being smart and focused on group members will lead to less victimization. Although t here is no direct empirical proof suggesting an synergistic effect of cognitive ability and agency and communion traits on victimization, recent studies hint at the plausibility of much(prenominal) an effect. For example, Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2006) suggested that people differentiate one another by competence as well as likeability, which in turn affects their cognitive and affective cognitive content of interpersonal perception (see also Collins, 1981).Similarly, Casciaro and Lobo (2005) suggested the importance of competence and likeability in a work setting when individuals were high in both competence and likeability, coworkers tempered them as lovable stars, but when individuals were high in competence and low in likeability, coworkers treated them as suitable jerks. Consistent with the previous conceptual arguments, Casciaro and Lobo (2008) showed that individuals who are competent and good-hearted form more task interaction networks, whereas individuals who are co mpetent and dislikeable fail to form taskPut simply, agency and communion personality traits are independent third-dimensional pass waters (Saragovi, Koestner, Dio, &038 Aube, 1997) that reflect self-oriented and group-oriented behaviors. Given that behaviors are go undered in personality traits (see Fleeson, 2001 Hogan &038 Holland, 2003 Moskowitz &038 Cote, 1995) and that agency and communion personality traits exercise to describe interpersonal behaviors (Wiggins, 1991), we propose that individuals who have more agency traits, such as independence, egoistic bias, ambition, and self-competence, are involved in agency-driven behaviors, such as seeking goals and being less concerned about others.Conversely, individuals who have more communion traits, such as commonity, socialization, consideration, and warmth, are involved in communion-driven behaviors, such as helping and nurturing coworkers and developing harmonised interpersonal relationships with coworkers. The direct rela tionship between agency and communion personality traits and victimization is support by theories of reciprocity. substance-driven behaviors do not build a norm of positive reciprocity, at best (Axelrod, 1984), and initiate a norm of negative reciprocity, at lash (Andersson &038 Pearson, 1999).In the absence of a norm of positive reciprocity, employees do not feel stimulate to respond to (positive) actions with other positive actions. Individuals high in agency engage in agency-driven behaviors, which may be at the outgo of and harmful to others. A norm of negative reciprocity will perpetuate these harmful behaviors. Thus, aggressive behaviors against individuals who are high in agency may, in fact, increase. This implies higher victimization for people who have agency traits that either block the positive reciprocity norm or elicit the negative reciprocity norm through agency-driven behaviors.Conversely, communion-driven behaviors initiate a norm of positive reciprocity between the giver and the taker (Gouldner, 1960). In other words, the taker broadly speaking responds to the communion-driven behavior with another communion-driven behavior toward the giver. later building a norm of positive reciprocity, both givers and takers are reluctant to botch up this relationship through harming one another because it breaks the social norm and promotes a reputation for being untrustworthy, unkind, and unthankful (Cialdini, 2001 Gouldner, 1960).Thus, individuals who are high in communion traits engage in communion-driven behaviors and perpetuate a norm of positive reciprocity in which they are less likely to be the targets of interpersonal aggression. In COGNITIVE efficiency AND VICTIMIZATION 893 interaction networks. Although failure to form task networks with competent jerks is distinct from victimizing them, this work does suggest refuse something favorable from thema behavior that is unchanging with some passive, indirect forms of victimization examined h ere (e. . , withholding information or resources). In line with this research, we predict that two interpersonally oriented personality dimensions that affect likeability play a critical role in the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization smart individuals who are high in agency traits may experience more victimization, whereas smart individuals who are high in communion traits may experience less victimization.Therefore, we hypothesized the following Hypothesis 4 The relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by agency, such that when targets are high in cognitive ability, targets high in agency will experience more victimization than those lower on agency. Hypothesis 5 The relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by communion, such that when targets are high in cognitive ability, targets high in communion will experience less victimization than those lower on communion.Method Participants and Procedure Two hu ndred and seventeen employees of an organization that manages health care kinfolks for individuals with disabilities voluntarily completed paper-and-pencil surveys during on-site survey administration with researchers. 1 Participants were guaranteed confidentiality. Employees within a health care home worked nigh with one another to provide exquisite care and service for the residents, and they constitute our work groups.Of the respondents, 95% were Caucasian, 74% were women, and 35% were employ full time. Average upgrade was 22 months, and average age was 24 years. The organization had administered the Wonderlic power Test (Wonderlic, 1984) and the California psychological account (cost-of-living index Gough &038 Bradley, 1996) to job applicants prior to hire, and the Wonderlic and consumer price index hemorrhoid of our respondents were linked to the survey data from the current study use identifiers. cubic decimeter employees who did not have Wonderlic and consumer pric e index scores were excluded.After listwise deletion of individuals with incomplete information, the concluding experiment was serene of 133 employees in 27 groups (i. e. , health care homes). Group size ranged from two to 10 members (average 4. 93). Comparisons between those respondents who were in our final take in and those who were deleted because of missing data revealed completely one significant difference excluded employees had about lower negative affectivity scores ( p . 05). Measures Cognitive ability. Cognitive ability was tasked using the Wonderlic Personnel Test prior to hire.The Wonderlic Personnel Test is a 50-item, 1220-min jitney test of intelligence, and it was originally designed to bar general mental ability for force out selection. The manual reports that testretest reliability ranges from . 82 to . 94 and that interform reliabilities range from . 73 to . 95 (Wonderlic, 1984). Victimization. Victimization was assessed using the 20-item Aggressive Exper iences photographic plate (AES)-Target outgo (Glomb, in press Glomb &038 Liao, 2003). demonstrative items are how often has a coworker or supervisor made angry gestures toward you? how often has a coworker or supervisor cattle ranch rumors about you? and how often has a coworker or supervisor belittled your opinions in nominal head of others? Respondents indicated the frequency of their victimization experience using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (once a week or more). One item was remote because of vigour sport (how often has a coworker or supervisor physically assaulted you? ). The coefficient alpha of the AESTarget scale was . 87. mental representation and communion.At present, there are not commonly accepted assessments of agency and communion, perhaps because of their prenomen as higher order haves. elbow room and communion have been measured by the Masculinity and Femininity scales from several personality inventories, including the Personal Attr ibutes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, &038 Stapp, 1974) and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974 for review, see Helgeson, 1994 Saragovi et al. , 1997). mission and communion have also been measured using the five-factor model Wiggins (1991) suggested using the Extraversion (i. e. dominance view only) and amenity scales because these capture a real portion of variate in agency and communion, respectively (for empirical support, see also Peabody &038 Goldberg, 1989 Trapnell &038 Wiggins, 1990). Also, using the large-minded Five framework, Digman (1997) suggested using the Extraversion and Openness scales for agency (i. e. , personal growth) and the Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability scales for communion (i. e. , socialization). In this study, agency and communion were operationalized using both Wigginss (1991) specific measure come out and Digmans (1997) broad measure blast.Following Wigginss approach, we selected the CPI scale of Dominance ( . 83) f or agency and the CPI scale of Communality ( . 71) for communion. The CPI-Dominance is highly encounter with extraversion (r . 82 Fleenor &038 Eastman, 1997), and dominance is a key facet of extraversion (DeYoung, Quilty, &038 Peterson, 2007). The construct definition also supported our select Individuals high in dominance are assertive, dominant, and task-oriented individuals low in dominance are quiet and cautious. The CPI-Communality is highly correlated with agreeableness (r . 0 Fleenor &038 Eastman, 1997), and agreeableness corresponds to communion (Wiggins, 1991). The construct definition of communality supports our decision Individuals who are high in communality are likely to be team players who represent in with other people easily, agreeable, cooperative, reasonable, approachable for advice, dependable, and contented individuals who are low in communality are likely to be nonconformers, changeable, moody, and reckless (Gough &038 Bradley, 1996 Groth-Marnat, 1990). Foll owing Digmans (1997) broader approach to agency measurement, we selected the CPI scales of well-disposed heading ( . 2), 1 This data set was used to examine different research questions in Glomb and Liao (2003), Glomb and Tews (2004), and Glomb and Welsh (2005). 894 KIM AND GLOMB energy for placement ( . 72), and Independence ( . 74) in addition to Dominance. These redundant three scales have been determine as compound traits of extraversion and openness (Fleenor &038 Eastman, 1997), and extraversion and openness correspond to agency (Digman, 1997). CPI-Social Presence also corresponds to the dominance facet quite a than the sociability facet of extraversion (Hough &038 Ones, 2001).The construct definition supported our choice Individuals high in social presence are self-assured in social settings, and individuals low in social presence are reserved individuals high in skill for side are likely to be ambitious and to have high trust to succeed, and individuals low in capac ity for locating dislike competition individuals high in independence are likely to be self-sufficient, persistent in seeking goals whether others agree, aggressive, and assertive, and individuals low in independence are likely to seek support from others, avoid conflict, be meek, and be mild (Gough &038 Bradley, 1996).We used connatural conceptual and construct evidence for the parley scale. In addition to CPI-Communality, we selected the CPI scales of socialization ( . 78) and Responsibility ( . 77) because these two scales have been identified by Hough and Ones (2001) as compound traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and aflame stability (see also Fleenor &038 Eastman, 1997) furthermore, Digman (1997) has suggested that communion corresponds to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and aroused stability.The construct definition of these two components also supported our decision Individuals high in socialization are likely to be conscientious and easy to conform to others, whereas individuals low in socialization are likely to be rebellious and to have wrongful attitudes individuals high in responsibility are responsible and ethically perceptive, whereas individuals low in responsibility are likely to be self-indulgent and careless (Gough &038 Bradley, 1996).In summary, the post scale is composed of the CPI scales of Dominance, Social Presence, Capacity for Status, and Independence the mastication scale is composed of the CPI scales of Communality, Socialization, and Responsibility. 2 Given the typical conceptualization of agency and communion as broad traits, we consider the broad operationalization in our primordial analyses and conduct redundant analyses for the narrow, one variable conceptualization. The reliability scores of 3-dimensional Agency and colloquy scales were . 87 and . 84, respectively (see Cronbach, 1951 W. M. Rogers, Schmitt, &038 Mullins, 2002).We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess whether the CPI scales load on the higher order common latent constructs of agency and communion using LISREL 8 (Joreskog &038 Sorbom, 1996). The results for the ? Agency and Communion scales reveal that a two-factor model 2 (12) 19. 43 incremental fit index (IFI) . 98 comparative fit index (CFI) . 98 standardized seed mean square residual (SRMR) . 06 root mean square error of melodic theme (RMSEA) . 07fits the data quite well and fits importantly better than a one-factor model 2(13) 49. 96 IFI . 91 CFI . 90 SRMR . 10 RMSEA . 5providing evidence that subscales load on the higher order measures of agency and communion. In addition, agency and communion correlate . 16 (ns) in our study, which is comparable with correlations reported in previous studies (e. g. , Abele &038 Wojciszke, 2007 r . 03, . 05 Bruch, 2002 r . 05, . 11 Conway, Pizzamiglio, &038 Mount, 1996 r . 27, . 32). We also assessed the criterion-related bindingity of the Agency and Communion scales by examining whether they are importantly relat ed to variables sh declare to be related to agency and communion measures in the broader personality psychology literature.Specifically, we assessed life satisfaction and burnout in our study but did not examine these variables in our substantive hypotheses. Correlations in our data are similar to those in prior literature using alternative operationalizations of communion and agency. Specifically, results show that our Communion scale is importantly related to well-being 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 Agency scale is significantly related to psychological health outcomes, such as mad exhaustion (r . 21, p . 01, compared with r . 5 in Roos &038 Cohen, 1987). Control variables. On the foundation of previous workplace victimization research (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999 Aquino &038 Thau, 2009 roll &038 Beehr, 2006 Hentig, 1948 Schafer, 1968), we tameled for several variab les to reduce the potential cushion of unmeasured variables on victimization. trial-and-error evidence on the relationship between employee demographics and victimization shows entangled findings (Bowling &038 Beehr, 2006) we control for an employees age, gender, and tenure in the organization. There is a compelling theoretical link between organizational hierarchy and victimization (see Aquino et al. 1999) we control for supervisory versus nonsupervisory status. Individual differences, such as positive and negative affectivity, show mixed relationships with victimization (see Bowling &038 Beehr, 2006) we use the appointed Affect shun Affect schedule (Watson, Clark, &038 Tellegen, 1988) to control for positive affectivity ( . 86) and negative affectivity ( . 86). emphasize may generate negative affective and behavioral responses that spark victimization (Bowling &038 Beehr, 2006) we use the Stress Diagnostic Survey (Matteson &038 Ivancevich, 1982) to control for job, work gro up, and organizational melodic phrase ( . 9 for job, . 89 for work group, and . 87 for organizational tune). interpersonal aggression usage has been proposed as an antecedent of victimization on the rear end of social exchange theory (Andersson &038 Pearson, 1999 Bandura, 1973), and Glomb and her colleagues (e. g. , Glomb, 2002 Glomb &038 Liao, 2003) provided empirical support for the idea of reciprocal aggression. Interpersonal aggression engagement was assessed by the AES-Engaged In scale (Glomb, in press Glomb &038 Liao, 2003).The AES-Target (discussed above) and AES-Engaged In scales have the same item content except that one asks about behaviors that you were the target of and the others asks about behavior that you engaged in. We removed three items from the AES-Engaged In scale ( . 80) because of zero air division. Other CPI scales were excluded for one of two reasons (a) They did not include the core dimensions of extroversionDominance for agency or Agreeableness for c ommunion, or (b) they included these dimensions but were grime by others as well.These mixed scales were the most likely reason for exclusion. Specific mappings of CPI scales to Big Five (i. e. , A agreeableness, C conscientiousness, ES emotional stability, EX extraversion, O openness) characteristics are as follows Self-Acceptance (ES EX), Empathy (EX O C), social welfare (ES EX), Tolerance (O A), feat With Conformation (O C), Achievement With Independence (ES EX O C), Psychological-Mindedness (ES O), flexibleness (O C), Sociability (EX-Sociability), Intellectual Efficiency (O), monomania (ES C), and Good Impression (C). COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 895 Results Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. Cognitive ability is significantly correlated with victimization (r . 18, p . 05). Agency and communion are not significantly correlated with victimization. Several control variablesincluding age (r . 21, p . 01) job, workgroup, organizat ional adjudicate (r . 41, . 24, . 41, respectively, p . 01) and aggression engagement (r . 54, p . 01)are significantly correlated with victimization.The control variables of positive and negative affectivity and hierarchical status suggest nonsignificant associations with victimization. Table 2 presents the retroflexion results using the broad operationalization of agency and communion (see Digman, 1997). Because individuals in the same work group are not independent, the independent assumption of traditional ordinary least squares lapsing is violated, causing biased estimators. Therefore, we used a gathered retroflexion with a White-correction in STATA that allows co magnetic declination between individuals within groups and corrects for heteroscedasticity across groups (see W.H. Rogers, 1993). We report unstandardized turnaround coefficients and regular R2 because standardized coefficients and transmute R2 are not valid with the cluster option (see Glomb &038 Liao, 2003 W. H. Rogers, 1993). We tested the arcdegree of multicollinearity with the class inflation factor values ranged from 1. 05 to 1. 94, with an average variance inflation factor of 1. 37, suggesting it was not a critical problem. Control variables apologise 42% of the variance in victimization (Model 1). Model 2 includes cognitive ability, agency, and communion.Results suggest a significant relationship between cognitive ability and victimization (b 0. 17, p . 01), documentation Hypothesis 1. Agency and victimization were also significantly associated (b 0. 08, p . 05), reenforcement(a) Hypothesis 2. This association is different from the nonsignificant zero-order correlation, suggesting the association exists after controlling for other variables. Consistent with the zero-order correlations, communion was not significantly associated with victimization Hypothesis 3 was not supported. These variables explain an additional 4% of the variance in victimization.Table 1 Descriptive St atistics and Correlations variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Gender kick upstairs (years) Age (years) vertical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity business organization stress Workgroup stress organisational stress Aggression engagement Agency (index) Communion (index) Agency (CPIDominance) Communion (CPICommunality) Cognitive ability Victimization M SD 1 . 15 . 09 . 05 . 00 . 11 . 02 . 12 . 21 . 11 . 01 . 09 . 03 . 09 . 18 . 02 2 3 4 To test the lead effects of personality traits, we used hierarchical moderated regression with bear on interaction terms.Interaction terms explain an additional 4% of the variance in victimization (Model 3). Hypothesis 4, which predicts the moderate role of agency personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was supported (b 0. 02, p . 05). Hypothesis 5, which predicts the moderating role of communal personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was also supported (b 0. 05, p . 05). The interactions were plotted using Aiken and watts (1991) rule and are shown in Figures 1 and 2.Figure 1 illustrates that as cognitive ability increases, for those high in agency, victimization increases compared with those low in agency. 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 agency traits exacerbate and that communion traits buffer the relationship of cognitive ability to victimization. We tested the same regression model using specific measures of agency and communion, which is consistent with Wigginss (1991) operationalization (i. e. CPI-Dominance for agency and CPI-Communality for communion). These results suggest similar empirical findings, which confirm the role of cognitive ability, agency, and communion on victimization at work. Table 3 presents the regression re sults. In Model 4, results suggest a significant relationship between cognitive ability and victimization (b 0. 15, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 1. Dominance and victimization were significantly associated (b 0. 11, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 2. Communality was also significantly associated with victimization (b 0. 18, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 3.This finding is different than the broad communion index, in which the association was not significant. These variables explain an additional 6% of the variance in victimization. In Model 5, interaction terms explain an additional 2% of the variance in victimization. Hypothesis 4, which predicts the moderating role of agency personality traits on the association between 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 graded status subsidiary company 1, supervisor 0 CPI California Psychological Inventory. .01. Gender young-bearing(prenominal) 896 KIM AND GLOMB Table 2 Results of Hierarchical arrested development Analysis for Victimization Victimization unsettled Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity pip eline stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Cognitive ability Agency (index) Communion (index) Cognitive Ability Agency Cognitive Ability Communion R2 R2 Model 1 0. 2 . 03 . 09 . 55 . 11 . 03 . 35 . 03 . 24 . 62 Model 2 1. 16 . 01 . 09 . 81 . 12 . 05 . 37 . 10 . 25 . 60 . 17 . 08 . 21 . 46 . 04 Model 3 1. 06 . 02 . 09 1. 09 . 15 . 04 . 43 . 18 . 27 . 60 . 15 . 06 . 26 . 02 . 05 . 50 . 04 .42 Note. N 133. Regression coefficients are unstandardized because standard regression coefficients are remove with the cluster option (see Glomb &038 Liao, 2003 W. H. Rogers, 1993). Gender female 1, male 0 Hierarchical status subordinate 1, supervisor 0. p . 05. p . 01 (two-tailed test).Figure 2. The moderating role of communion personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. was marginally supported (b 0. 01, p . 10). Hypothesis 5, which predicts the moderating role of communion personality traits on the association between cognit ive ability and victimization, was supported (b 0. 03, p . 05). countersign The primary purpose of this study was to examine the role of cognitive ability in workplace victimization, a topic that has received scant research attention.Cognitive ability predicts many 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 personality, demographics, behaviors, and organizational characteristics (see Aquino &038 Thau, 2009 Bowling &038 Beehr, 2006). Consistent with a victim precipitation model, our results suggest that cognitive ability is associated with workplace victimization. We also tested the relationship between agency and communiontwo interpersonally oriented personality dimensionsand victimization.Consistent with a negative reciprocity cycle and a provocative victim typology, our results suggest that individuals high in agency personality traits experience victimization at work. Co unter to expectations, we did not find a significant relationship between communion and lower victimization in our primary analyses. This nonsignificant finding may be explained by the positivenegative asymmetry effect (see Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Fickenauer, &038 Vohs, 2001 Taylor, 1991), which would suggest that positive interpersonal interactions carry less weight than negative social interactions, and therefore, it may cause a nonsignificant finding.The nonsignificant findings may also be caused by the broad communion measure, the components of which might evidence differential relationships with victimization. A previous study found that victimization is significantly associated with agreeableness ( . 21, p . 05) but is not significantly associated with conscientiousness and emotional stability ( . 02 and . 10, respectively Figure 1. The moderating role of agency personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIM IZATION 897Table 3 Supplemental Analysis Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Victimization Victimization Variable Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity Job stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Cognitive ability Agency (CPI Dominance) Communion (CPI Communality) Cognitive Ability Agency Cognitive Ability Communion 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, rather than the more distal individual difference of cognitive ability, that are mediating explanatory variables. Future work might seek whether high performance, ability, and achievement in other domains adhere to similar processes (cf. Feather, 1994, on tall poppies). Theoretical Implications This study contributes to the cognitive ability, personality, and workplace victimization li teratures in a cast of ways. First, we extend the scope of the victim precipitation model by proposing and testing the possibility of smart victims.Second, contrary to the existing cognitive ability literature, our finding indicates a potential downside to high cognitive ability (e. g. , for another possible exception, such as clever concealer effects, see Wilson &038 Herrnstein, 1985). This study moves cognitive ability research in a new direction by positing and testing a potential downside to high cognitive ability in the workplace. Third, in our study we examined two broad interpersonally oriented personality dimensions agency and communionand their association with workplace victimization.Although personality researchers have confirmed that the agency and communion model is useful in terms of investigating interpersonally oriented outcomes (see Abele &038 Wojciszke, 2007 Bruch, 2002 Digman, 1997 Helgeson, 1994 Wiggins, 1991), this model is currently less popular than the Big F ive model in organizational scholarship, perhaps because of the absence of an agreed upon operationalization of these multidimensional traits (see Helgeson, 1994 Saragovi et al. , 1997).Although the Big Five is certainly a useful taxonomy, because we are interested in workplace victimization and the interpersonal relationships between victims and perpetrators, the agency and communion framework may be useful for future victimization research. Fourth, the interplay of two key individual differences cognitive ability and personality traits on victimization provides an integration of two complementary theories, which adhere to the social and personality psychological models of social interactions. Although previous workplace victimization literature integrated the victim precipitation model with structural theory (e. g. Aquino, 2000 Aquino et al. , 1999), and reciprocity theory with structural theory (e. g. , Aquino &038 Bommer, 2003), the integration of the victim precipitation model and reciprocity theory has not received research attention. In this study, we take the first step by integrating victim precipitation with reciprocity theory to demonstrate the interactive effects of cognitive ability and agency communion personality traits on workplace victimization. This approach is consistent with social psychological literature suggesting the multiplicative effect of competence and likeability on social interactions (see Casciaro &038 Lobo, 2008 Fiske et al. 2006). Note. N 133. Regression coefficients are unstandardized because standard regression coefficients are invalid with the cluster option (see Glomb &038 Liao, 2003 W. H. Rogers, 1993). Gender female 1, male 0 Hierarchical status subordinate 1, supervisor 0 CPI California 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 supplemental analysis when we adopt the specific scale of Communio n (i. e. CPICommunality for agreeableness see Wiggins, 1991), we found a significant relationship between communion and victimization (b 0. 18, . 15, p . 05). More studies are demand to have greater confidence in the relationship between communion personality traits and victimization at work. Finally, our results demonstrate the moderating effects of agency and communion on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. Results suggest that the relationship between 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 increased propensity to be put-upon because of ones high cognitive ability can be mitigate 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 accept that we do not study possible mediating mechanisms and that cognitive ability may be operating as a delegate for other variables relevant to workplace success.For example, it may be that high-performing individuals, rather than high-cognitiveability individuals, are those who are most likely to be the targets of interpersonal aggression. Similar theoretical processes of social comparison would also apply to high performance, but in this case, cognitive ability operates as a proxy for performance. As noted, cognitive ability is related to myriad positive outcomes on the job, and we acknowledge that it may be those proximal favorable job Organizational ImplicationsIn the 1950 movie Harvey, Jimmy Stewarts character Elwood Dowd says, Years ago my mother used to say to me . . . Shed say In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart . . . I recommend pleasant. On the bum of our findings, we recommend that if you are goi ng to be oh-so smart then you should also be oh-so pleasant to avoid workplace victimization. beyond individual advice, the results also have important practical implications for managers. First, 898 KIM AND GLOMB managers need to be certain of this potential dark side of high cognitive ability at work.Managers are familiar with the positive side of high cognitive ability, but initial evidence of smart victims suggests managers may need to be on the lookout for and take precautions to deter the workplace victimization of smart employees. The strong and consistent relationship between cognitive ability and many elements of performance suggests that these individuals may be among the most important to accommodate satisfied, productive, and retained. Tactics helpful in preventing the victimization of high-cognitive-ability employees may reduce both the proximal and distal costs of workplace victimization.Second, our results suggest that high cognitive ability does not predestine empl oyees to be victimizedtheir personality also plays a role. Although managers attend to personality during the selection process because it predicts job performance (see Dunn, Mount, Barrick, &038 Ones, 1995), our results suggest that personality can also have either a contraceptive (i. e. , communion) or intensifying (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 defenceless to victimization at work.Personality traits have their own bright and dark sides (see Judge &038 LePine, 2007). For example, although our results show that employees who are high in agency traits are more likely to be victims at work, research also shows that traits under the agency umbrella are associated with being a leader (e. g. , extraversion Judge, Bono, Ilies, &038 Gerhardt, 2002). Further, although high-ability employees who are also high in communion are less likely to be victims at work, res earch also suggests that traits under the communion umbrella are associated with the use of more lenient standards to evaluate coworker performance (e. . , agreeableness Bernardin, Cooke, &038 Villanova, 2000). Thus, organizations need to consider both the benefits and costs of the communion and agency personality traits of employees and to be aware of their correlates, both favorable and unfavorable. Regardless of the composition of agency and communion in the workforce, organizations can attempt to modify individual behaviors by creating strong situations (e. g. , charitable resource practices, organization culture) that minimize the link between personality and behaviors and that enhance positive reciprocity norms between employees.Limitations and Future Directions This study is not without limitation. First, range restriction in cognitive ability may cause reduced sample correlations. However, attached that range restriction reduces the strength of relationships because of lim ited variance (Sackett &038 Yang, 2000), this seems to be a minor issue. Further, the degree of variability of cognitive ability is similar to that in other studies (e. g. , Chan, 1997 Mumford, Van Iddekinge, Morgeson, &038 Campion, 2008 Sackett &038 Ostgaard, 1994). Second, the outdoor(a) validity of these findings is limited.This data set is footling and is from a predominantly Caucasian sample of health care workers. The sample is also predominantly female, which may have influenced effects women high in cognitive ability and agency may be particularly prone to victimization because of gender stereotypes (see Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, &038 Rosenkrantz, 1972). The context of a health care home is interesting because employees may be more empathetic and less competitive given self-selection into this caring profession.They are also more likely to be exposed to victimization the health care industry continually reports some of the highest levels of workplace aggressio n 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 and groups is necessary. Third, the construct validity of our agency and communion measures may be questioned.Given that there is not a generally accepted method of transforming the CPI scales into the broad indices of agency and communion, we created our own measures guided by previous literature and linkages of the content of the scales (e. g. , Digman, 1997 Gough &038 Bradley, 1996 Hough &038 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 believe the development of valid and concise measures of agency and communion traits might promulgate the use of these interpersonally oriented personality constructs.Fourth, measures were self-report f rom a single source, and thus, common method bias is a potential problem. However, cognitive ability and personality traits were measured for effect selection, and perceived victimization was measured 22 months later, on average (i. e. , average tenure is 22 months). Because there are large temporal and psychological distances between cognitive ability and perceived victimization measures, the tinge of common method bias is not a major concern (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &038 Podsakoff, 2003).We also controlled for positive affectivity and negative affectivity, which also impact the cognitive perception and reporting processes (Bowling &038 Beehr, 2006 Isen, 1987 Podsakoff &038 Organ, 1986 Schmitt, 1994 Spector, 1994 Watson &038 Clark, 1984). As Schmitt (1994) suggested, the appropriateness of methods should be based on the stage of development of the research given the lack of research in this area, self-report data would be deemed acceptable. Further, as noted by others (e. . , Aquino &038 Lamertz, 2004 Spector, 1994), it is difficult to envision circumstances in which non-self-report data w