The role of intent to harm in workplace aggression

Abstract

AbstractConceptualizations of workplace aggression converge in treating intent to harm others as a necessary feature of aggression. However, inspection of workplace aggression scales suggests that many items do not specify intent to harm. In a series of three studies, we examined the effect of inclusion of intent to harm on workplace aggression's psychometric properties. Study 1 found that existing workplace aggression scales do not consistently specify or imply intent to harm. Study 2 found that inclusion of intent to harm has substantial implications for aggression's occurrence rate. Prior research that does not assess intent to harm overestimates the frequency of aggression. Study 3A found that workplace aggression's correlations with external variables were also overestimated when failing to include intent to harm. We found that aggression measured without specifying intent is highly correlated with counterproductive work behavior (CWB), whereas aggression measured with intent specified is empirically distinguished from CWB. In Study 3A, a construct‐valid workplace aggression scale was created, called the Intentional Workplace Aggression Scale (IWAS). Study 3B showed that the IWAS displayed relationships with affective constructs, such as trait anger and emotional stability, as well as with situational variables, such as job satisfaction and organizational justice perceptions.