The three more typical ways of assessing CWB are self-report questionnaires, other informants, and archival data. Most studies use self-report questionnaires where people inform on their own behaviors. In fewer cases, other informants (e.g., co-workers, supervisors) report on the employees’ CWB behaviors. These two types of measures can be termed as judgment-based tools. Berry et al. (2012) carried out a meta-analysis in which they compared self-reports and other reports to measure CWB and found that both methods are adequate for measuring CWB.

Self-report and other-report methods show, however, some limitations. Self-reports may be biased by social desirability if the informant wants to give a more positive image of him/herself. On the one hand, counterproductive behaviors are by their nature loaded with negative connotations, consequently self-reports of CWB might be biased. On the other hand, employees may underdeclare the extent to which they engage in counterproductive behaviors because they may involve penalties or punishments (Berry et al., 2012; Fox et al., 2007). Another limitation of self-reports might be common method bias, which happens when self-reports of CWB are answered together with self-reports of other relevant variables (e.g., personality inventories) that use the same rating system. This may lead to an artificial inflation of the relationships between variables.

Regarding the use of other informants, on the one hand, the main limitation is that, as a matter of fact, because they are deviant behaviors, it is more difficult for other people to have the opportunity to observe them as the employees that commit these behaviors will try to hide them. On the other hand, informing about counterproductive behaviors by third parties might have negative consequences to the informant if they are employees, which in turn may make it less likely that employees will report these behaviors when requested to answer these questionnaires (Fox et al., 2007).

The use of archival or objective data is even less common. For example, organizational registers have been used to measure withdrawal behavior, especially absenteeism and turnover (Rotundo & Spector. 2017). However, Fox et al. (2007, p. 43) indicated that “The CWB community is now at the point that more objective, or nonincumbent, measures are needed to further our understanding of the phenomenon.”

In this sense, the limitations of self-report measures can be overcome if, instead of using samples of current employees and co-workers, the samples consist of CWB convicted employees. In other words, if the participants are employees that were found guilty of a CWB felony, and because of this they do not need to hide their CWB, then self-reports can be an acceptable tool for measuring CWB, as they typically show good internal consistency coefficients.

Since the nineteen nineties, the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality has been the most empirically supported model for the examination of the relationships between personality dimensions and occupational criteria (e.g., job performance). The FFM conceptualizes the personality domain as consisting of five broad factors (the “Big Five”), relatively independent from each other, and hierarchically organized (Costa & McCrae, 1992; DeYoung et al., 2013; Goldberg, 1990, 1992; Salgado & De Fruyt, 2005). This model has also served as a taxonomy for the classification of different personality scales and inventories. There are alternative approaches for the conceptualization of personality (e.g., the HEXACO model), but currently the FFM is the most widely accepted approach to the structure of the personality traits. Although the Big Five factors have received a variety of labels over the years, the most common are emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Many primary studies and several meta-analyses have been carried out on the relationship between the Big Five and counterproductive behaviors at work. Salgado (2002) conducted a meta-analysis using as criteria absenteeism, accident rate, turnover, and deviant behavior (including actual theft, disciplinary problems, substance abuse, property damage, organizational rule breaking, and other irresponsible behaviors). The findings showed that conscientiousness and agreeableness were valid predictors of the deviant behaviors (-.26 and -.20 respectively). Dalal (2005) conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between CWB and conscientiousness and the results showed an operational validity of -.38. A meta-analysis by Berry et al. (2007) using the distinction between interpersonal CWB and organizational CWB found similar correlations for emotional stability (-.24 and-.18 for interpersonal and organizational CWB, respectively), openness to experience (-.09 and -.03), and extraversion (.02 and -.07). The results showed relevant differences in the other two personality factors. Conscientiousness correlated -.23 with interpersonal CWB and -.33 with organizational CWB; agreeableness correlated -.46 and -.24 with interpersonal and organizational CWB, respectively. The authors compared their results with Salgado’s (2002) findings and considered that the differences might be due to the levels at which each meta-analysis measured deviance. That is, Berry et al. (2007) used aggregate measures of ID and OD, while Salgado (2002) used narrower behavioral measures (absenteeism, accident rate, turnover, and deviant behavior). In summary, research addressing this question has showed unambiguously that some of the Big Five personality dimensions have substantial relationships with counterproductive behaviors. The strongest relationship is for conscientiousness. Agreeableness and emotional stability are also related with CWB. In all these studies, the measure of CWB was self-reported questionnaires. For their part, Berry et al. (2012), using other-reports (supervisors or co-workers) to measure CWB, found correlations coefficients of -.04, .03, -.10, -.18, and -.15 for emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, respectively.

Traditional personality models, such as the Big Five, have long been recognized as key predictors of job performance (Salgado, 2002). However, the increasing attention towards counterproductive work behaviors has led to a growing interest in examining the impact of dark personality traits as a complement to the traditional Big Five model for capturing these malevolent characteristics. Dark personality, as a malevolent personality profile focused on the pursuit of self-interest, shares the common characteristics of three main personality compounds: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. Individuals with these traits share a tendency to be callous, selfish, dishonest, self-promoting, and manipulative in their interpersonal relationships (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). However, these three personality compounds are not equivalent. Paulhus (2014) reports that, although these personalities share high scores on callousness, only the narcissism and psychopathy compounds are high in impulsivity and grandiosity. In addition, of these characteristics only psychopathy is associated with criminality.

Empirical evidence has shown different relationships of these three traits with the dimensions of the Big Five model. The study by Muris et al. (2017) indicates that dark personality is the opposite of agreeableness, finding inverse relationships of this dimension with Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. The same authors found that conscientiousness was negatively associated with Machiavellianism and psychopathy but not with narcissism. Neuroticism was only negatively related to psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Extraversion has been positively associated to psychopathy through the impulsivity and constant need for stimulation component of this trait, but Machiavellianism has not shown significant relationships (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Openness was positively related to narcissism (Mathieu, 2021).

Research would be expected to consistently highlight a positive correlation between the three dark personality traits and negative workplace outcomes, given the tendency of these individuals to use deception, lying, money, popularity, and social status to elevate themselves and gain power and control over others in an organizational context (Mathieu, 2021). However, empirical evidence on the relationship between dark personality and negative workplace outcomes is far from conclusive, as previous analyses on this topic that simultaneously compare the effects of the Big Five and Dark Triad traits report several results that do not make it clear which personality traits more strongly predict negative workplace outcomes (Ellen et al., 2021; Miao et al., 2023; O’Boyle et al., 2012).

O’Boyle et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis attempted to clarify the relationships of dark personality with performance, finding that the three elements of the Dark Triad were positively associated with CWB and explain 28% of the variance of workplace deviance measures. These results were replicated by the findings of the meta-analysis by Miao et al. (2023), which showed the incremental validity of the dark personality model (ρ = .412) over the Big Five model (ρ = -.176) and the HEXACO model (ρ = -.221) for the prediction of negative workplace outcomes. Nevertheless, Ellen et al. (2021) highlighted Machiavellianism and psychopathy as the most important predictors of negative workplace outcomes, while Grijalva and Newman (2014) indicate that narcissism is the dominant predictor of negative workplace outcomes among the dark triad personality elements. Recent research seems to indicate that it is primarily psychopathy that predicts counterproductive behavior at workplace (Bingül & Göncü-Köse, 2024; Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2025).

Accordingly, it seems reasonable to investigate the relationships between both the dark and the Five Factor models of personality for the prediction of counterproductive work behavior, especially since previous studies have analysed these relationships mainly in samples of employees. These findings, although relevant, cannot be directly generalized to other types of samples, such as felons. Given that the factors that influence behavior in work settings may not be the same as in incarceration contexts, it is crucial to explore how these traits manifest themselves in for example individuals incarcerated for economic crimes.

A large number of self-report measures exist to assess both the overall presence of the dark personality (Moshagen et al., 2020) and each of its three separate factors. Questionnaires may vary in terms of their length, reliability and validity, as well as their usefulness in different samples (e.g., employees, and felons). Therefore, when conducting dark personality research it is important to carefully choose the questionnaires to be used. The usually longer, more traditional questionnaires such as the NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988) for the assessment of narcissism, the MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) for the assessment of Machiavellianism, or the SRP (Hare, 1985) for the assessment of psychopathy should be used if the study design does not have serious time constraints, and are appropriate to the nature of the samples (e.g., clinical or forensic samples). If the study uses large, organizational samples or samples of felons, then short measures composed of items assessing all three factors may be a reasonable substitute for longer questionnaires (Smith et al., 1983). The results found so far on the relationships of the dark triad to counterproductive work behavior have used short scales such as the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010) or the Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2013) to assess at a subclinical range the presence of these traits in normal populations. Thus, an interesting contribution of this study would be to analyse the relationships that each of the traits that compose the dark triad have with counterproductive work behavior, using samples of convicted felons and extensive questionnaires for this purpose.

Research has shown that moral disengagement (MD) provides incremental validity to the model that uses only measures of dark personality traits for the prediction of workplace deviance (Egan et al., 2015). Bandura et al. (1996) proposed the concept of MD to refer to the cognitive processes involved in justifying, rationalising and maintaining deviant behaviors in the workplace. According to Bandura (1996) MD develops gradually, beginning with the formulation of simple excuses and progressing to the establishment of firmly held beliefs (Navas et al., 2021a). This process ultimately leads to individual disinhibition, which, in turn, heightens the risk of (re)offending in an organizational context (Petruccelli et al., 2017a). For this reason, the study of MD has been approached from two perspectives (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2025): as a state and as a trait. As a state, it involves the process of reconstructing moral judgments related to a specific behavior (Bandura, 2016). As a trait, it refers to the individual predisposition to morally disengage, influenced by characteristics such as low scores in agreeableness, low empathy, and guilt, which increase the likelihood of immoral behaviors in an organizational context (Newman et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2019). In fact, MD has been viewed by some authors as a dispositional feature that makes up part of the dark core personality (D factor; Bertl et al., 2017; Moshagen et al., 2020; Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016).

Previous studies using the Big Five model have suggested that a low level of agreeableness is the main contributor to MD (Rengifo & Laham, 2022), although MD has also been negatively associated to openness and conscientiousness (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2025). Complementarily, the study by Egan et al. (2015) showed that the influence of agreeableness on MD is reduced when the three Dark Triad traits are introduced. In other words, although low scores in agreeableness could initially have an impact on the propensity for MD, the presence of traits like psychopathy and Machiavellianism seems to significantly attenuate this relationship. Furthermore, the study indicated that MD is predicted by the presence of psychopathy and Machiavellianism, highlighting how certain personality traits can predispose individuals to more frequently justify immoral behaviors in an organizational context.

However, the relationship of MD with the various factors of (dark and five-factor model) personality in the workplace has not yet been examined in samples of felons incarcerated for economic crime (Ogunfowora et al., 2022). The predisposition to morally disengage has been associated with a dark personality profile in incarcerated adults for predicting other criminal typologies, such as gender-based violence and sexual aggression (Navas et al., 2021b; Petruccelli et al., 2017b). Therefore, the examination of dark and light personality configurations with MD stands out as a central theme in the study of individual differences in general and especially in the workplace (Fernandez-del-Río et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2023).

To the authors knowledge, few studies have examined the relationship between the five-factor model of personality, the dark personality and the propensity for MD in prison settings, specifically in populations incarcerated for economic crime, nor their impact on counterproductive work behavior. This gap in the literature is particularly relevant, given that previous research has highlighted the influence of these personality traits on behavior in various work contexts considering only samples of employees (Mathieu, 2021; O’Boyle et al., 2012). Consequently, the main purpose of this study is to analyse how these personality traits may affect the propensity for counterproductive behaviors in a prison setting, thus providing a novel perspective on the behavior of individuals deprived of liberty and contributing to the understanding of these relationships in different contexts.

The sample of the current study was composed of 118 men perpetrators of economic crime. Initially, the sample comprised 134 men selected through non probabilistic sampling methods. Intentional sampling was used, as participants were required to have basic literacy skills and to have been convicted of specific crimes. Participants missing more than 5% of the data in all study variables were excluded (Schafer, 1999), as were participants who scored above the 75^th percentile or below the 25^th percentile in the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Short Form Scale (Gutiérrez et al., 2016) for evaluating simulation or concealment.

The sample of economic crime offenders comprised 118 men from prisons in Spain. These participants were convicted of economic crimes and their ages ranged from 22 to 74 (M = 43.81, SD = 10.75). Prison psychology teams provided the following demographic information and reported the following types of economic crime. According to the legal typology of crime in Spain¹, 42% were convicted of theft, 34% were convicted of fraud, and the remaining percentage were individuals deprived of liberty for crimes such as social security fraud (2%), tax fraud (6%), extortion (5%), property usurpation (1%), embezzlement (3%), and money laundering (7%). As regards the analysis of recidivism in economic crime, 39.2% reported being repeat offenders in the same type of crime while 48.5% reported being first time offenders. The remaining percentage preferred not to answer this question. However, no statistically significant differences among these participants regarding the presence of previous records or recidivism for similar crimes were found. Also, taking into account the analysis of criminal records for types of crime other than economic crime, 54.6% reported having a criminal record for other types of crime while 36.2% reported no criminal record. The remaining percentage preferred not to answer this question.

Regarding other sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, participants self-reported their socioeconomic status as follows: 42.3% as low, 26.2% as lower-middle, 15.4% as middle, 5.4% as upper-middle, and 10.8% as high. Concerning the level of education, according to participant self-reports, 30% had primary education, 39% had secondary education, 14.1% had vocational training, and 16.9% had higher/university education. Finally, in relation to their nationality, the participants indicated that 83.8% were Spanish, and the remaining percentage was of other nationalities.

First, the researchers contacted the heads of 12 prisons in Spain to request participation. All these prisons obtained permission from the Spanish Department of Penitentiary Administration, but only eight agreed to participate. Next, without offering a reward, each prison’s psychologist or social worker invited incarcerated men convicted of economic crime to voluntarily participate. Only participants who displayed basic literacy skills were not affected by psychopathological clinical history and participated in the standard prison activities were considered for inclusion in the study. For the assessment, a questionnaire was collectively administered in classrooms provided by the penitentiary institutions. The sessions were supervised by the prison’s psychological team and the researcher to offer support to the participants in case of doubts or the need for clarifications.

This research was approved by the ethics committee (Ref. USC15/2023).

Descriptive and reliability analyses were carried out and the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test the normality of the data. Kruskal-Wallis analyses were carried out to analyse whether there were differences in the scores of the variables studied according to the criminal typology of the sample. Associations between variables were tested for by exploring univariate correlations with associated constructs. Hierarchical regressions were tested by exploring the predictive validity of personality and moral disengagement with counterproductive behaviors. All measures showed reliability statistics > .70 or were marginally below that, with the exception of narcissism, whose reliability of .57. This last value can be is due to the fact that narcissism is a multidimensional construct and internal consistency estimates of reliability are typically affected for this characteristic (Hinton et al., 2014). Normality tests tested whether the distribution of data was suitable for parametric statistics.

Measures of the Big Five personality dimensions are frequently used to make hiring decisions due to their remarkable validity for predicting job performance (particularly, task and citizenship performance). This is especially the case of quasi-ipsative forced-choice (QIFC) personality inventories (Salgado, 2017; Salgado & Tauriz, 2014), which are also very robust against faking (Martinez & Salgado, 2021; Martínez et al., 2022; Salgado & Lado, 2018). Due to the multidimensional nature of job performance, mainly consisting of four dimensions (i.e., task, citizenship, innovative and counterproductive performance), the incorporation of dark personality and moral disengagement assessment in selection processes can be a useful recommendation to predict and prevent counterproductive behaviors that negatively affect the organization. Through psychometric tools, structured interviews, or gamified based assessment (Ramos-Villagrasa & Fernández-del-Río, 2023), organizations can identify traits associated with the dark triad, such as psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism, which are often linked to manipulative behaviors, lack of empathy and ethically questionable decision making. These personality traits can predict destructive team attitudes, generate interpersonal conflict and foster unethical work practices. Furthermore, the results of this study highlight the importance of assessing moral disengagement in the organizational context, as it involves cognitive mechanisms that justify unethical behavior. Thus, it is possible to identify individuals who, despite having an apparently appropriate personality, may distort their perception of right and wrong based on personal interests. Incorporating these factors into selection processes allows organizations to adopt more informed decisions, avoiding the hiring of individuals who, due to their lack of ethics or tendency to manipulate, may generate counterproductive behaviors such as sabotage, misinformation, absenteeism or non-compliance with rules.

Likewise, the findings of this study can be useful for designing training and development programs focused on conflict management and teambuilding, promoting the reconfiguration of attitudes towards ethics, cooperation and respect within the company. The cognitive mechanisms involved in moral disengagement are more flexible and susceptible to change than certain personality characteristics, so organizations have a greater opportunity to intervene in a preventive manner. Promoting self-regulation and ethical decision-making in training will contribute to strengthening the organizational culture, improving the workplace climate and reducing the risk of counterproductive behaviors in the long-term.

There are limitations to this research, as in any study, which should be addressed.

First, the sample size was small, which may limit the generalizability of the results. This is a common limitation in research using samples of felons with officially recorded and punished economic crime given the difficult accessibility of such samples. We consider that, despite the small sample size, our research was significant, deepening the relationship between dark personality and moral disengagement found in previous studies (Egan et al., 2015) with samples of employees. Additionally, it can be highlighted that individuals who have committed economic crimes are not inherently different from those in the general population. Including the comparison of economic crime felons and employees in future research could help reduce the dehumanizing perceptions that often arise from stereotypes, while also exploring the relationships between dark personality traits and moral disengagement in both samples. Future research could explore how the relationships of dark personality and moral disengagement play out in both samples.

Second, a cross-sectional study design was used, so causal relationships could not be tested and may generate substantially biased estimates compared to analyses from longitudinal research (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). The results of this manuscript only show the interdependence of the variables assessed at a specific point in time. Therefore, future research should use longitudinal designs to clarify whether moral disengagement affects psychopathy or whether psychopathy affects moral disengagement.

Third, the current sample included felons from Spain, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts. Cultural differences in criminal codes and behaviors officially punished in the workplace may influence how employees perceive and respond to organizational politics, intragroup conflict, support, and power. Therefore, it is possible that the observed profiles may not reflect the experiences of felons from other cultural contexts. Thus, subsequent research could compare economic crime felons, but with diverse cultural backgrounds.

This study’s contributions lie in its exploration of the CWB and its relationships with the Big Five personality dimensions, dark personality traits, and moral disengagement. By incorporating a multi-method approach to assessing these factors (e.g., Berry et al., 2012), we find that dark personality traits, especially psychopathy, are strongly related to moral disengagement, which in turn predicts unethical behaviors in the workplace. Our study supports previous research on the role of personality in shaping workplace behavior and provides valuable insights for managers and HR professionals seeking to mitigate CWB. We suggest that, rather than focusing solely on personality traits, organizations can benefit from addressing cognitive mechanisms like moral disengagement through tailored interventions in training programs. This approach could help create a more ethical and productive work environment. Further research should explore how these dynamics manifest in diverse cultural contexts and extend the findings to a wider range of industries and employee profiles.