Table 5.

Hierarchical linear regression analyses: explained variance (Olkin–Pratt adjusted) in dependent variables by GMA (Step 1; method: Enter; CFT 20-R) and character strengths (Step 2; method: Enter; VIA-IS120 scales with partial correlation coefficients ≥0.25 in accordance with Table 4).

	Step 1: GMA	Step 2: Character strengths
Dependent variable	R2	ΔR2	Total R2
WRPS
Overall job performance	0.146	0.508	0.654
Individual-level performance	0.191	0.398	0.588
Individual task proficiency	0.126	0.489	0.615
Individual task adaptivity	0.161	0.362	0.523
Individual task proactivity	0.152	0.205	0.356
Team-level performance	0.134	0.507	0.641
Team member proficiency	0.111	0.532	0.643
Team member adaptivity	0.099	0.477	0.576
Team member proactivity	0.092	0.286	0.379
Organization-level performance	0.068	0.548	0.616
Organization member proficiency	0.042	0.510	0.552
Organization member adaptivity	0.054	0.454	0.508
Organization member proactivity	0.061	0.397	0.458
WDS
Overall deviant behavior at work	0.066	0.390	0.456
Interpersonal deviance	0.000	0.155ns	0.155
Organizational deviance	0.107	0.327	0.434

N = 169. All data were corrected for effects of sex and age before being entered into the regression analyses. GMA = general mental ability; CFT 20-R = Revised Culture Fair Intelligence Test Scale 2 (Weiß, 2006).

ΔR² = incrementally explained variance; p = significance level; WRPS = Work Role Performance Scale (Griffin et al., 2007); WDS = Workplace Deviance Scale (Bennett and Robinson, 2000). Only character strengths that showed a significant correlation (p < 0.0016) with the dimension of productive or counterproductive work behavior of interest were considered here.

^ns= ΔR² was not statistically significant.