The role of intent to harm in workplace aggression

Conceptualizations 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. In applied contexts, workplace aggression is a valued criterion that has an array of negative consequences for workers. Research converges in defining "intent to harm" others as a necessary feature of workplace aggression. Workplace aggression scales do not sufficiently capture intent to harm. Consequently, past research has overestimated aggression's base rate and external correlates. A new, construct-valid scale is created that can be used as a criterion measure in applied settings for assessing aggressive workplace experiences and designing selection interventions to address aggression.