Conscientiousness and Agreeableness as Moderators of the Relationship Between Neuroticism and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A constructive replication Nathan A. Bowling*, Gary N. Burns*, Susan M. Stewart** and Melissa L. Gruys*** *313F Fawcett Hall, Department of Psychology, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, USA. Nathan.bowling@wright.edu **Department of Management, Western Illinois University, Moline, Illinois, USA ***Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA Several previous studies examining the predictors of counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) have found positive relationships for neuroticism and negative relationships for conscientiousness and agreeableness. We extend this research by examining whether em- ployee personality traits interact with each other to influence CWBs. Because conscientious- ness and agreeableness may suppress one’s tendency to engage in CWBs, we hypothesized that the neuroticism–CWB relationship will be weaker among workers who are high in either conscientiousness or agreeableness than among workers who are low in these traits. Data from three independent samples provide support for these hypothesized moderator effects. 1. Introduction C ounterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) include a variety of actions intended to harm one’s organization or people within one’s organization, such as stealing from one’s employer or coworkers, intentionally withholding effort, harassing others, missing work without permission, and talking negatively about one’s employer to organiza- tional outsiders (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector et al., 2006). Many recent studies have distinguished between CWBs that are primarily intended to harm the organization as a whole (CWB-Os; e.g., stealing organizational property) and CWBs that are primarily intended to harm individuals within the organiza- tion (CWB-Is; e.g., stealing the property of a coworker; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Dalal, 2005; Hershcovis et al ., 2007). Collectively, the various forms of CWBs take a major toll on organizations and their employees. Employee theft, for example, costs US companies several hundred billion dollars annually (Camara & Schneider, 1994; Greenberg, 1990, 1997) and the combined financial losses associated with all forms of CWBs are enormous (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). In addition to their financial effects, CWBs can have a significant negative effect on the well-being of employees. Being the target of coworker-perpetrated abuse and violence, for example, has negative effects on the psycho- logical and physical well-being of targets (Barling, Dupre, & Kelloway, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006). In an effort to understand the causes and ultimately help reduce or eliminate the occurrence of CWBs, a growing body of research has examined the potential predictors of CWBs (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Hershcovis et al ., 2007; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). In addition to examining situational predictors (e.g., job attitudes, work stressors), much of this research has also examined personality traits as predictor variables (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Salgado, 2002). The objective of the current research is to build upon prior research focusing on the role of personality by examining whether personality traits interact with each other to influence CWBs. Specifically, we predict that the well-established positive relationship between neuroticism and CWBs (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Hershcovis et al ., 2007) will be moderated by conscientiousness and & 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011