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...
[ View Full Essay]