Total Length: 392 words ( 1 double-spaced pages)
Total Sources: 1
Presumably, the reliability of the responses between a monitored study and an unmonitored study could be validated by consistent reportage from the peer and the incumbent. This method was also used to control for the study's overall validity: the study would be a more valid measure of counterproductive work actions and their relationship to work stressors if an outside source validated the incumbent's responses.
The study's authors still acknowledge a contradiction: self-reports may be inaccurate or self-serving, yet peer reports may overemphasize the importance of publically observed stressors. Interpersonal conflict is easier to recognize than daydreaming or covert productivity slowdowns, for example.But by soliciting peers and self-reported surveys and classifying different types of stressors, the study's authors hoped to control for such a bias through diversity of responses. Additionally, to reduce fear of reprisals, the surveys were submitted in a completely anonymous fashion, to ensure greater reliability between the surveys as administered in the workplace vs. An outside situation.
Works Cited
Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. (2007). Does your coworker know what you're doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(1),….....