See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7453313

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship

Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior

Article  in  Journal of Applied Psychology · December 2005

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
760 23,470

1 author:

Reeshad Sam Dalal

George Mason University
61 PUBLICATIONS   3,607 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Reeshad Sam Dalal on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 90, No. 6, 1241–1255 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship

Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Reeshad S. Dalal
Purdue University

Job performance is increasingly being seen to encompass constructs such as organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). To clarify the OCB–CWB relationship,
a meta-analysis was conducted. Results indicate a modest negative relationship (␳ ⫽ ⫺0.32). The
relationship strength did not increase appreciably when the target of the behavior (the organization vs.
other employees) was the same. Moreover, OCB and CWB exhibited somewhat distinct patterns of
relationships with antecedents. The OCB–CWB relationship was moderated by the source of the ratings,
the presence of antithetical items, and the type of response options. An employee-centric perspective is
proposed whereby both OCB and CWB are perceived as adaptive behavior. Implications for organiza-
tions are discussed.

Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, meta-analysis, deviant

behavior, job performance

Job performance is so important to industrial– organizational
(I/O) psychology that it is often simply referred to as “the crite-
rion.” The traditional view restricts the performance space to what
Borman and Motowidlo (1997) call task performance—that is,
“the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities
that contribute to the organization’s technical core” (p. 99). Al-
though it has long been recognized that job performance is mul-
tidimensional (Austin & Villanova, 1992; Schmidt & Kaplan,
1971), only more recently has the research literature (e.g., Borman
& Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Campbell, 1990; Organ & Paine, 1999)
acknowledged the role of employee work behaviors that fall out-
side the rubric of task performance. Borman and Motowidlo
(1997) have reasoned that such behaviors are important because
they “shape the organizational, social, and psychological context
that serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes” (p.
100). Some researchers (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Sackett, 2002;
Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) have suggested that there are three
broad performance domains: task performance, organizational cit-
This research was funded by the Center for Human Resources Manage-
ment, University of Illinois; the Seymour Sudman Dissertation Award from
the Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois; and the Field
Research Fund of the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Division, Uni-
versity of Illinois.
This article is based on a portion of Reeshad S. Dalal’s doctoral
dissertation at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Some of the
analyses were also presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, April 2004.
I thank Tatana Olson for helping to code the primary studies. Charles
Hulin and Carra Sims very kindly commented on drafts of this article. I am
also grateful to Marcus Credé, Michael Bashshur, and the many other
researchers who willingly shared their theses and unpublished data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reeshad
S. Dalal, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703
Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47097. E-mail: rsdalal@psych.purdue.edu
izenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior
(CWB).
There has been much interest in the relationship between the
latter two domains (Bennett & Robinson, 2002; Bennett &
Stamper, 2001; Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Fisher & Locke, 1992; Fox,
Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2003; Hunt, 1996; Jermier, Knights,
& Nord, 1994; Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002;
Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Organ & Paine, 1999;
Puffer, 1987; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Sackett, Berry, Wiemann,
& Laczo, 2005; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector & Fox, 2002).
A priori, however, empirical findings on the OCB–CWB relation-
ship do not present a united picture. Some studies (e.g., Bennett &
Stamper, 2001; Sackett & DeVore, 2001) have indicated strong
OCB–CWB relationships, whereas others (e.g., Dunlop & Lee,
2004; Kelloway et al., 2002; Sackett et al., 2005) have found
weaker relationships.
The present research uses meta-analysis to (a) estimate the
strength of the relationship between OCB and CWB (at both the
global and facet levels), (b) estimate these constructs’ relationships
with a common set of antecedents, and (c) determine whether the
magnitude of the OCB–CWB relationship is moderated by other
variables. Several lines of theory and empirical research are pre-
sented, some of which argue for a strong negative OCB–CWB
relationship and others for a weaker relationship.
Construct Definitions
Inspired by some of the classic early research in I/O psychology
(e.g., Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1966), OCB was originally
defined as intentional employee behavior that is discretionary and
typically not recognized or rewarded but that nonetheless improves
the functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988; Schnake, 1991).
More recently, however, it has been acknowledged that OCB may
be recognized and rewarded during performance appraisals (Or-
gan, 1997). CWB, on the other hand, is defined as intentional
employee behavior that is harmful to the legitimate interests of an

1241
1242
organization (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Martinko, Gundlach, &
Douglas, 2002; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; see also Bennett &
Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger,
1997). From a definitional perspective, therefore, OCB and CWB
could be considered opposites in the sense that the former benefits
the organization, whereas the latter harms it. Similar definitional
notions of behavior exist in the social–personality psychology
domains. As Batson and Powell (2003) stated, “The word proso-
cial does not appear in most dictionaries; it was created by social
scientists as an antonym for antisocial” (p. 463).
Despite the aforementioned variance in empirical results, there-
fore, on the basis of construct definitions one might expect that
employees who typically engage in OCB will tend not to engage in
CWB—that is, that there exists a strong negative relationship
between OCB and CWB. However, several additional issues need
to be considered. Specifically, (a) there are different categories of
OCB and CWB, (b) there are several reasons why an employee
might engage in OCB and CWB, and (c) the OCB–CWB relation-
ship is likely to be moderated by several variables.
Dimensionality
Organ and colleagues (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) reported
two dimensions of OCB, namely an interpersonal dimension
(OCB-I) and an organizational dimension (OCB-O). This taxon-
omy was formulated on the basis of the target of the behaviors:
individual employees or the organization as a whole, respectively.
Examples include volunteering to help a coworker (OCB-I) and
praising the organization to outsiders (OCB-O). Although more
elaborate taxonomies of OCB have subsequently been developed
(e.g., Coleman & Borman, 2000; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1994), Organ and Paine (1999) argued that the orig-
inal two-factor OCB model is the most stable and tends to underlie
the more complex models.
On the CWB side, Robinson and Bennett (1995) made a similar
distinction between the interpersonally directed and organization-
ally directed aspects of what they called workplace deviance.
Examples include gossiping about coworkers (CWB-I) and taking
overly long breaks (CWB-O). The interpersonally directed versus
organizationally directed distinction was also observed by Bennett
and Robinson (2000) and Gruys and Sackett (2003, Study 2). In
contrast, additional dimensions (e.g., Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Rob-
inson & Bennett, 1995) have not been widely replicated.
Both OCB and CWB, therefore, can be separated into behavior
that is directed toward other employees and behavior directed
toward the organization as a whole. Further support for this prop-
osition comes from Bennett and Stamper’s (2001) Q-sort and
multidimensional scaling analyses of both positive and negative
discretionary work behaviors. These authors found that OCB and
CWB were opposite poles of one dimension; the other dimension
pertained to the target of the behavior.
Bennett and Stamper’s (2001) results suggest that OCB-I and
CWB-I represent behaviors designed to help and harm other em-
ployees, respectively (see also, in this regard, Kelloway et al.,
2002). There should, consequently, be a strong negative relation-
ship between OCB-I and CWB-I. Moreover, OCB-O represents
behaviors designed to surpass required levels, whereas CWB-O
represents employees behaving in ways they should not and/or
failing to meet minimum requirements (Bennett & Robinson,
DALAL
2002; Kelloway et al., 2002). Heckert and Heckert (2002) argued
for a continuum, consisting of conforming acts in the middle, acts
that violate norms (CWB-O) on one end, and acts that surpass
normative expectations (OCB-O) on the other (see also Jermier et
al., 1994). On the basis of construct definitions, therefore, OCB-O
and CWB-O should be strongly negatively related.
Although one might expect strong relationships between OCB-I
and CWB-I and between OCB-O and CWB-O, it may not be as
meaningful to examine the relationship between OCB-I and
CWB-O or between OCB-O and CWB-I. In addition to comparing
OCB and CWB, these latter relationships involve behaviors di-
rected toward different targets. As an example, it is easier to
interpret the relationship between behaviors designed to help oth-
ers and those designed to harm others than it is to interpret the
relationship between behaviors designed to help others and those
designed to flout organizational regulations concerning work re-
quirements. A finer grained analysis is provided by examining
OCB and CWB directed toward the same target.
However, the precise importance of the targets of behavior has
not yet been conclusively established. Although, as mentioned
previously, both the OCB and CWB literatures make the distinc-
tion between interpersonally directed and organizationally directed
behavior, there is also some evidence that global OCB and CWB
constructs are meaningful. For example, a recent OCB meta-
analysis (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002) concluded that research-
ers have not done enough to justify separating the general or global
dimension of OCB into more specific dimensions. On the CWB
side, Lee and Allen (2002) found that CWB-I and CWB-O factors
could not be empirically distinguished. Further, as Sackett (2002)
stated, “It appears reasonable to think in terms of an overall
counterproductivity construct” (p. 8). Marcus, Schuler, Quell, and
Hümpfner (2002) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) have also de-
scribed a global CWB factor.
It may well be that a hierarchical structure, with interpersonal
and organizational behaviors both loading on a general factor, best
describes CWB (Marcus, et al., 2002; Sackett, 2002; Sackett &
DeVore, 2001) and OCB. For this reason, the present meta-
analysis assesses OCB–CWB relationships at both the global and
facet levels. Therefore, the following research questions were
investigated:
Research Question 1: What is the magnitude of the relationship
between OCB and CWB?
Research Question 2: What is the magnitude of the relationship
between OCB and CWB directed toward the same target? Moreover,
is this relationship substantially stronger than the one between OCB
and CWB directed toward different targets?
Antecedents
The relationship between OCB and CWB can also be inferred
by these constructs’ relationships with external variables. If OCB
and CWB are very strongly related to each other, their relation-
ships with antecedents should be of similar magnitude or, failing
that, should at least exhibit similar patterns (Hunter & Gerbing,
1982).
Of particular interest is the fact that the sets of antecedents
identified by the OCB and CWB literatures are very similar. The
antecedents discussed next include those mentioned as shared
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS
antecedents by Bennett and Stamper (2001)—that is, job satisfac-
tion, perceptions of organizational justice, positive affectivity, and
negative affectivity. In addition, conscientiousness and organiza-
tional commitment are included because they too have featured
fairly prominently in both OCB and CWB literatures.
Job Attitudes and Organizational Justice
Social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the theory of
psychological contracts (e.g., Rousseau, 1989), and the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) have been used as explanatory mech-
anisms for the relationship between OCB and CWB on the one
hand and organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organiza-
tional commitment on the other. These theories predict that em-
ployees respond to working conditions that are satisfying and to
workplace processes, outcomes, and interactions that are fair by
behaving in ways that benefit the organization and/or other em-
ployees (i.e., OCB) and by exhibiting commitment to the organi-
zation. In contrast, according to the theories, employees retaliate
against dissatisfying conditions and unjust workplaces by engag-
ing in behavior that harms the organization and/or other employees
(i.e., CWB) and by a lack of organizational commitment.
The social exchange, psychological contract, and reciprocity
perspectives are reflected in much of the literature examining the
relationship between antecedents and OCB or CWB. In their
chapter on CWB, Sackett and DeVore (2001) wrote, “There is a
certain poetry in behaving badly in response to some perceived
injustice” (p. 160). Hollinger (1986) discussed a social bonding
model and showed that organizational commitment (or lack
thereof) predicted amount of CWB. With regard to job satisfaction,
Hanisch and Hulin (1990) defined employee withdrawal (work
withdrawal can be conceptualized as a subset of CWB-O) as a “set
of behaviors dissatisfied individuals enact to avoid the work situ-
ation” (p. 63).
Likewise, Organ’s (1977) conceptualization of OCB was largely
shaped by his belief that satisfaction was a strong predictor of em-
ployee performance despite consistent findings of weak satisfaction–
performance relationships. Specifically, Organ stated that employee
job satisfaction might indeed predict employee actions that were
excluded from researchers’ notions of performance but that nonethe-
less improved the functioning of organizations (i.e., OCB). Organi-
zational commitment has also been included as an important predictor
of OCB (Becker, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; although see
Williams & Anderson, 1991). Finally, Greenberg (1993) has stated
that the relationship between organizational justice and OCB has
preoccupied philosophers for centuries.
To summarize, then, one should expect OCB and CWB to be
related, in opposite directions, to the constructs of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and organizational justice. With re-
gard to the latter, however, Organ and Paine (1999) speculated that
the (in)justice–CWB relationship may be much stronger than the
justice–OCB relationship. That is, perceived injustice will defi-
nitely prompt CWB; in contrast, perceptions of high levels of
justice may or may not prompt OCB. Yet meta-analytic research
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Por-
ter, & Ng, 2001) suggests that the difference between justice–
CWB and justice–OCB relationships is probably slight.
1243
Conscientiousness
A meta-analysis by Organ and Ryan (1995) found that consci-
entiousness was the best personality predictor of OCB. Similarly,
Sackett and DeVore (2001), after reviewing “meta-analytic evi-
dence from the integrity test literature, the Big 5 literature, and the
literature on the prediction of military performance” (p. 156),
concluded that the strongest relationships between personality and
CWB were exhibited by conscientiousness or its facets. Of partic-
ular interest is the fact that the meta-analytic findings from Organ
and Ryan (1995) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) suggest that the
conscientiousness–OCB and conscientiousness–CWB relation-
ships do not differ greatly in magnitude (although see LePine et al.,
2002). One would accordingly expect that conscientious people
will typically engage in OCB, whereas unconscientious people will
typically engage in CWB.
Positive and Negative Affect
Spector and Fox (2002) argued that affect is associated with
general physiological arousal and induces “action tendencies” (p.
5) that engender behavior via the formulation of behavioral inten-
tions and/or the initiation of readiness to act. Spector and Fox
asserted that the behavior may take the form of either constructive
action (corresponding to OCB) or destructive action (correspond-
ing to CWB). Although the relationship between affect and be-
havior is rather complex (Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988; Carl-
son & Miller, 1987), there is some evidence that CWB is designed
to ameliorate negative affect (NA; Spector & Fox, 2002), whereas
OCB is designed to maintain positive affect (PA; Carlson et al.,
1988; George & Brief, 1992).
In general, Spector and Fox (2002) predicted strong PA–OCB
and NA–CWB relationships. In fact, their model posits PA as the
proximal cause of OCB and NA as the proximal cause of CWB.
Extrapolating from the model, one could argue that people scoring
high on PA would typically engage in OCB but that those scoring
low on PA may or may not engage in CWB. Similarly, it could be
argued that those scoring high on NA would typically engage in
CWB but that those scoring low on NA may or may not engage in
OCB. However, Spector and Fox did not completely discount the
possibility of nontrivial PA–CWB and NA–OCB relationships.
Conclusion
Thus, the same constructs have been identified as antecedents by
both the OCB and CWB research literatures. Yet there is insuffi-
cient information to indicate whether similar patterns across ante-
cedent relationships can be observed for OCB and CWB. Although
the relationships of the aforementioned antecedents with OCB
have all been estimated by previous meta-analyses, on the CWB
side only relationships with justice and conscientiousness have
previously been assessed. The present study (partially) rectifies
this lacuna so that antecedent– behavior relationships for OCB and
CWB can be compared.
Research Question 3: Do OCB and CWB exhibit similar patterns of
relationships with antecedents?
Potential Moderator Variables
There is reason to believe that the relationship between OCB
and CWB will be moderated by several variables. Four potential
1244 DALAL
moderators are examined here: source of ratings, inclusion of
antithetical items, format of response options, and education level
of rater. This is by no means an exhaustive list of moderators; as
discussed later, other potentially important moderators could not
be assessed because of lack of variance in the primary studies.
Source of Ratings
Sackett et al. (2005; see also Sackett, 2002) have recently
conjectured that OCB–CWB relationships may be much smaller
when self-reports are used than when supervisor reports are used.
They reasoned—as did Spector and Fox (2002)—that although
some interpersonally directed CWBs may be easily observable by
others, most CWBs are intended by the perpetrators to be private
and, hence, unobservable. It therefore follows that supervisors
have little basis for judging many CWBs. These authors have, in
fact, made similar arguments with regard to some forms of OCB
(see also Schnake, 1991). Sackett et al. have therefore proposed
that supervisors will make judgments about employee CWBs (and
perhaps some OCBs too) on the basis of their general impressions
of the employees, an instance of halo error. Thus, a supervisor is
likely to assign an employee consistent scores on OCB or CWB—
that is, high OCB and low CWB scores if the supervisor has a good
impression of the employee and vice versa in the case of a bad
impression. This will inflate OCB–CWB relationships.
It is therefore hypothesized that the OCB–CWB relationship
will be moderated by the source of the ratings. Specifically,
relationships should be more strongly negative when the behaviors
are rated by supervisors than when they are rated by the job
incumbents themselves (i.e., self-ratings).
Inclusion of Antithetical Items
As Socrates recounts in Plato’s Symposium (360 BC/2001),
what is not beautiful need not be ugly and what is not good need
not be bad. That is, negation (the addition of not) does not
necessarily imply the lexical opposite (hereafter referred to as the
antithesis). The distinction between these two forms is well estab-
lished in the disciplines of philosophy and linguistics/pragmatics
(Jordan, 1998). It therefore cannot be said that an employee fails to
meet minimum required standards merely because he or she does
not exceed requirements. Put differently, the absence of OCB is
not identical to the presence of CWB (or vice versa).
This issue becomes important during the construction of OCB
and CWB inventories. Although some researchers (Fox et al.,
2003; Schnake, 1991) have suggested that the practice of including
any dysfunctional behaviors (that are subsequently reverse-scored)
in OCB scales is undesirable, and others (Organ & Paine, 1999)
have indicated their awareness of this issue (although they appear
not to have taken a conclusive stand either way), many existing
OCB inventories (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fet-
ter, 1990; Smith et al., 1983) do contain examples of dysfunctional
behavior. In contrast, the inclusion of examples of functional
behavior in CWB inventories does not appear to have been as
prevalent, although it has occurred occasionally (e.g., Marcus et
al., 2002; Morris, 2001).
Dysfunctional behaviors in OCB inventories (e.g., “consumes a
lot of time complaining about trivial matters,” “always finds fault
with what the organization is doing”; Podsakoff et al., 1990) are
very similar to CWBs. Equally, functional behaviors in CWB
inventories (e.g., “volunteer[s] to finish a project for a coworker
who is sick”; Morris, 2001) are very similar to OCBs. It is
therefore hypothesized that the magnitude of the OCB–CWB
relationship is moderated by the presence versus absence of anti-
thetical items within measures of OCB and CWB. Specifically, the
magnitude of the OCB–CWB correlation should be stronger (neg-
ative) when such practices are adopted than when they are not.
Format of Response Options
Even if OCB and CWB are, in fact, very strongly negatively
related, the strength of this relationship may appear to be lower in
certain circumstances. Consider the case in which OCB and CWB
are so strongly negatively related that they may be considered
opposite poles of a single latent factor of discretionary work
behavior. The correlation matrix in this case should exhibit only
strong relationships: The relationship between two OCB items or
between two CWB items will be strongly positive, whereas the
relationship between an OCB item and a CWB item will be
strongly negative.
However, these strong OCB–CWB relationships should not be
observed if the data conform to an unfolding model as opposed to
the traditional dominance model (Spector, Van Katwyk, Brannick,
& Chen, 1997; van Schuur & Kiers, 1994). The dominance model
assumes that relationships between observed and latent variables
are linear or at least monotonic, whereas the unfolding model
assumes quadratic or at least single-peaked relationships (Coombs,
1975; Davison, 1977). The difference can be illustrated by con-
sidering a continuous latent factor on which the locations of both
items and respondents are mapped. The dominance model assumes
that a respondent typically will not endorse those positively
worded items (or reverse-scored negatively worded items) that
have a more positive standing on the latent variable than he or she
does. In contrast, the unfolding model assumes that a respondent
typically will not endorse those items that have a more positive or
a more negative standing on the latent variable than he or she
does—that is, the respondent typically will not endorse items that
are distant, in either direction, from his or her position.1
If the data conform to an unfolding model, the correlation matrix
(after ordering items from severe CWB to severe OCB) will
exhibit a simplex form: Correlations between items occupying
adjacent positions on the latent factor will be high, whereas those
between items on opposite poles of the latent factor will be close
to zero or, at best, weakly negative (van Schuur & Kiers, 1994).
The relationship between two OCB items or between two CWB
items will therefore be strongly positive, but the relationship
between an OCB item and a CWB item will be trivial. In other
words, the OCB–CWB relationship is likely to be stronger (neg-
ative) when the underlying data structure conforms to the tradi-
1
Consider, for instance, the item “Did as much work as was expected of
me.” Dominance models assume that people will not endorse this item if
they have done less work than was expected of them. In contrast, unfolding
models recognize that people will not endorse the item either if they have
done less work than was expected of them or if they have done more work
than was expected of them. As a consequence, the latter category of people,
who would be on the high end of the latent factor under an unfolding
model, would be (mis)classified as being on the low end of the latent factor
under a dominance model.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS
tional dominance model than when it conforms to the unfolding
model.
The unfolding model has been posited to underlie attitudinal and
personality data. Such a model is most likely to operate when
respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or
disagree that they would engage in particular OCBs and CWBs or
when they are asked about the extent to which these behaviors are
characteristic or uncharacteristic of them. In contrast, the tradi-
tional dominance model is likely to remain appropriate when
participants report the frequencies of having engaged in particular
OCBs and CWBs. Therefore, it is predicted that the OCB–CWB
relationship will be moderated by the type of response options. In
particular, a stronger negative relationship is hypothesized for
behavioral frequency response options than for agreement–
disagreement or characteristic– uncharacteristic response options.
Additional support for this proposition comes from the affect
literature. Some evidence indicates that the use of frequency for-
mats requires respondents to make logical and empirical connec-
tions between PA and NA, thereby increasing the strength of the
(negative) relationship between them (Warr, Barter, & Brown-
bridge, 1983).
Education Level of Rater
The magnitude of OCB–CWB relationships may be influenced
by the education level of the rater. Stone, Stone, and Gueutal
(1990) observed that most developers and users of questionnaires
in I/O psychology have not been unduly concerned about whether
respondents can comprehend questionnaire items and instructions,
despite one third of the current U.S. workforce currently being
functionally illiterate. Moreover, research in the field of education
(e.g., Mathewson, 1984) has found that special pedagogical tools
are needed in the schools to aid in the recognition and understand-
ing of opposites and the ability to draw correct inferences from
them. In general, therefore, the ability to detect opposites is likely
to vary as a function of amount of education received (but see
Cordery & Sevastos, 1993). Conceptual or definitional opposition
(e.g., going above and beyond vs. not doing enough), of the kind
potentially exhibited by OCB versus CWB, may be especially hard
to detect. Therefore, provided that the source of OCB and CWB
ratings is the same, it is predicted that the rater’s education level
will moderate the OCB–CWB relationship. In particular, the rela-
tionship is hypothesized to be more strongly negative in studies
with more highly educated respondents than in studies with less
highly educated respondents.
Moderation Hypotheses: The relationship between OCB and CWB
will be stronger (in the negative direction) (a) when the source of
ratings is the supervisor rather than the job incumbent him- or herself,
(b) when the citizenship and counterproductive behavior measures
contain antithetical items than when they do not, (c) when response
options pertain to behavioral frequency than when they pertain to the
degree of agreement or the extent to which they are characteristic of
the ratee, and (d) when respondents are more highly educated than
when they are less highly educated.
Method
Literature Search
PsycINFO searches, using a variety of keywords, were conducted. In
addition, manual searches were carried out in the Journal of Applied
1245
Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology,
Human Performance, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes from 1995 (publication year of the Robinson and Bennett study
on workplace deviance) onward. Reference sections of located primary
studies and previous meta-analyses of relevance (Cohen-Charash & Spec-
tor, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; LePine et al., 2002; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Riketta, 2002; Salgado, 2002) were
also perused for citations of relevance. Finally, an e-mail requesting
unpublished manuscripts was sent to the Academy of Management’s
Research Methods Network.
Inclusion Criteria
Only those studies were included that involved work behavior that was
intentional and (at least potentially) discretionary. Inclusion also required
either (a) explicit mention of OCB or closely related constructs (e.g.,
organizational spontaneity) and CWB or closely related constructs (e.g.,
workplace deviance behavior) or (b) behavior measures that facilitated the
creation of composites approximating these constructs. However, it was
also necessary for the behavior constructs to be identifiable as either
beneficial (OCB) or harmful (CWB) to the legitimate interests of the
organization or its employees. Note that these procedures resulted in the
exclusion of two projects cited in Sackett and DeVore (2001) as examples
of the relationship between OCB and CWB.2
With regard to the facet analyses, furthermore, inclusion required the
behavior constructs to be targeted primarily at the organization as a whole
(organizational) or employees therein (interpersonal). Finally, because
satisfaction with any one facet of the job (e.g., coworkers) alone is a
deficient measure of overall job satisfaction, satisfaction– behavior rela-
tionships were only included in the present analyses if the satisfaction
measure was either global or included more than one facet of satisfaction
(so that a satisfaction composite could be calculated); in this regard, the
present research follows Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patten (2001). It
should be noted that the exclusion of a particular facet measure of behavior
or a particular measure of satisfaction did not automatically necessitate the
omission of the entire study from the meta-analysis.
2
In these two studies—Project A (Campbell, 1990; McHenry, Hough,
Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990) and Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and
Ones (1999)—Sackett and DeVore’s (2001) determination of which di-
mensions constitute OCB versus CWB is not the only plausible one. All the
dimensions, in fact, could be considered instances of either OCB or CWB:
Employees could go beyond what is expected on a given dimension (OCB)
or they could do less than what is required (CWB). For instance, although
Sackett and DeVore classified the Project A dimension of effort and
leadership as OCB, they themselves (p. 146) have classified examples of
behavior pertaining to effort as CWB. (Moreover, Robinson & Bennett,
1995, have classified examples of both effort and leadership as CWB.)
Because of the lack of completely defensible criteria on which to partition
lower order constructs into OCB versus CWB, the present research does
not include the Project A and Viswesvaran et al. studies in the list of
primary studies. Other studies (e.g., Day & Silverman, 1989; Love &
O’Hara, 1987) were excluded for the same reason. An altogether different
issue pertains to the third study cited by Sackett and DeVore (i.e., Hunt,
1996). The OCB composite Sackett and DeVore constructed from this
study excludes Hunt’s schedule flexibility as a component. Yet Hunt
himself (p. 75) included schedule flexibility in OCB. The uncorrected
correlation obtained in the present study between OCB and CWB com-
posites was therefore – 0.61 (as opposed to Sackett & DeVore’s estimate of
– 0.67). In addition, although Hunt’s overall sample size was indeed more
than 18,000 (as Sackett & DeVore mentioned), the sample sizes he used to
estimate correlations had a mean of about 4,000.
1246 DALAL

Results of Searches and Application of Inclusion Criteria
Forty-nine independent samples were identified from 38 studies. Two
raters separately coded the samples. The first rater has a PhD in I/O
psychology. The second rater was, at the time of coding, a 5th-year
graduate student in I/O psychology (she has subsequently received her
PhD). Both coders were familiar with the OCB and CWB research litera-
tures. The overall agreement level between coders was 96.8%. However,
the most important judgments were those that related to coding behavior
measures into the six construct categories (OCB, CWB, OCB-I, OCB-O,
CWB-I, and CWB-O); agreement for only these judgments was therefore
calculated separately and was found to be 94.1%. All disagreements were
resolved using a subsequent joint inspection.
Of the 49 samples, 15 were from published articles; the remaining were
from conference presentations and posters, unpublished dissertations, mas-
ter’s theses, honors’ theses, and data sets. The overall sample size was
16,721 (median across samples ⫽ 169). Not all relationships of interest
could be assessed in every sample; the analysis-level sample size therefore
differs. As can be seen in Table 1, the collection of samples was fairly
representative across respondent gender, age, level of education, job ex-
perience, and job type. Moreover, although the samples were predomi-
nantly Caucasian and were collected predominantly in the United States,
exploratory moderator analyses revealed no racial or national differences in
the OCB–CWB relationship.
Procedure
The theory of composites and the requisite formulae (Ghiselli, Camp-
bell, & Zedeck, 1981) were used to create composites, estimate the reli-
ability of composites, and estimate the correlation between two composites
(or the special case of a correlation between a composite and a single
external variable). The use of composites was necessary when global
measures of OCB, CWB, or presumed antecedents thereof were con-
structed from lower order dimensions provided in the primary studies.
Meta-analytic procedures specified by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) were
used to correct correlations for unreliability and to account for the effects
of sampling error on the variance of the correlations. When possible,
correction for unreliability was performed locally (i.e., at the level of the
individual sample). When a reliability estimate was not provided for a
measure in an individual primary sample, however, the correction was
accomplished using the mean reliability from the reliability distribution
generated from the primary samples.
The accuracy of the meta-analytic effect size estimate was examined by
means of 90% confidence intervals. Homogeneity of effect sizes was

Table 1
Demographic and Other Characteristics of Primary Sample Respondents

Description or percentage of primary

Characteristic samples with characteristic

Gender
⬎70% women 26.5%
⬎70% men 10.2%
No preponderance of either gender 53.1%
Age (years)
M of primary sample means 37.60
SD of primary sample means 7.99
Ethnicity
⬎70% Caucasian employees 51.0%
⬎70% non-Caucasian employees 4.1%
No preponderance of any ethnicity 12.2%
Level of education (highest level
attained)
⬍70% high school completion 0.0%
⬎70% high school completion 16.3%
⬎70% junior college or technical
school completion 28.6%
⬎70% college completion 16.3%
⬎70% postgraduate degree completion 2.0%
Country in which surveyeda
United States 77.5%
Canada and South Africa 4.1% each
Australia, Austria, Germany, Lebanon,
Mexico, Turkey, and an unspecified
Pacific Rim country 2.0% each
Job experience (years)
M of primary sample means 9.22
SD of primary sample means 5.42
Job type/title (representative selection) Clerical and secretarial staff; computer scientist/information
technologist; crafts employee; educator (teacher/
professor); employed student; foreman/supervisor;
maintenance staff; manager/administrator; mail processor;
military; nurse; professional; protective professions
employee; restaurant employee; vehicle operator

Note. Percentages may sum to less than 100% because of missing data (samples for which information was not
provided).
a
Not all respondents were nationals of the country in which they were surveyed. In the Lebanese sample, for
instance, some respondents were nationals of other Arab countries and yet others were Americans.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1247

assessed using 90% credibility intervals followed by Hunter and Schmidt’s
(1990) z tests for moderation. A confidence interval, constructed around
the uncorrected sample-size-weighted mean effect size using the standard
error of uncorrected effect sizes, indicates the extent to which sampling
error influences the estimate of the population effect size (Whitener, 1990).
In contrast, a credibility interval, constructed around the corrected sample-
size-weighted mean effect size using the standard deviation of corrected
effect sizes, addresses the issue of whether the studies in the meta-analysis
are more appropriately viewed as components of one or of several sub-
populations (Whitener, 1990). A confidence interval that contains zero
implies that the mean (uncorrected) effect size is not significantly different
from zero. A large credibility interval implies that the mean (corrected)
effect size is actually an estimate of the average of several subpopulation
parameters (Whitener, 1990) and that moderator analysis is required.
Table 3
Meta-Analytic Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior
k N Mean r Mean ␳ SDr SD␳ 90% CI 90% CrI
49 16,721 ⫺0.27 ⫺0.32 0.27 0.34 (⫺0.39, ⫺0.15) (⫺0.89, 0.24)
Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N ⫽
total number of individuals in the k samples; mean r ⫽ mean of uncor-
rected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); mean ␳ ⫽ mean of
corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); SDr ⫽ standard
deviation of uncorrected correlations; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of cor-
rected correlations; 90% CI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% confidence
interval; 90% CrI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% credibility interval.

Results
Reliability of Work Behavior
Table 2 presents sample-size-weighted mean reliabilities for
OCB and CWB at the global and facet levels. These means were
imputed for studies that failed to provide the necessary local
reliability information. The sample-size-weighted mean reliabili-
ties (Cronbach’s alphas) for OCB and CWB were 0.79 and 0.77,
respectively.
Relationship Between Global Constructs
Results of the meta-analysis conducted to establish the relation-
ship between the global OCB and CWB constructs are provided in
Table 3. The sample-size-weighted mean correlation between
OCB and CWB was ⫺0.27. After correcting for unreliability in
both OCB and CWB, the sample-size-weighted mean correlation
was ⫺0.32. The 90% confidence interval, based on the uncorrected
correlations, indicated that the relationship was significantly dif-
ferent from zero. The finding of a nontrivial negative relationship
was strengthened by the results of Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990)
version of the file drawer analysis. The analysis revealed that
approximately 110 additional samples with effect sizes of exactly
0.00 would be needed to reduce the magnitude of the corrected
relationship to the trivial level of ⫺0.10 (chosen because it would
imply that OCB and CWB explain only 1% of the variance in each
other). Nonetheless, the other bound (⫺0.39) of the confidence
interval indicates that OCB and CWB were not strongly related
either.
Table 2
Reliability Estimates for Work Behavior Constructs
Construct k N Reliability
OCB 47 16,455
OCB-I 24 5,864
OCB-O 23 5,607
CWB 49 16,721
CWB-I 20 4,136
CWB-O 27 6,357
Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which reliability information was pro-
vided; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Reliability ⫽
mean of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) estimates, weighted by sample size
(N ); OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; CWB ⫽ counterproduc-
tive work behavior; I ⫽ interpersonal; O ⫽ organizational.
The presence of a wide credibility interval suggests that there
were circumstances in which the obtained relationship was stron-
ger than the overall mean and other circumstances in which it was
weaker. Later I report on variables that moderate the OCB–CWB
relationship. First, however, it is necessary to discuss the meta-
analytic relationship between the components of OCB and CWB.
Relationships Between Facets
In addition to the relationship between global OCB and global
CWB, the relationships between components of OCB and CWB
were examined. As mentioned previously, this level of comparison
is important to ensure that behavioral constructs with similar
content are being compared.
Table 4 displays the meta-analytic correlations. The following
conclusions can be drawn: (a) OCB–CWB relationships at the
facet level were not strong; (b) OCB–CWB relationships within
target–referent (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-I, and OCB-O and CWB-O)
were not substantially stronger than OCB–CWB relationships be-
tween targets or referents (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-O, and OCB-O
and CWB-I), and (c) OCB–OCB and CWB–CWB relationships
between targets or referents (i.e., OCB-I and OCB-O, and CWB-I
and CWB-O) were substantially stronger than OCB–CWB rela-
tionships within target–referent (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-I, and
OCB-O and CWB-O).
These results therefore demonstrate that the relationship be-
tween OCB and CWB, at the facet level, is modestly negative. The
results also indicate that the OCB versus CWB distinction is more
important than that between interpersonally directed versus orga-
nizationally directed behavior. In other words, the target–referent
of behavior may not be as important as often believed; the previous
examination of the global-level OCB–CWB relationship is, there-
fore, meaningful and warranted.
Antecedents of OCB and CWB
0.79
0.73 If OCB and CWB are strongly related to each other, they should
0.74 have similar patterns of relationships with presumed antecedents.
0.77
0.68 Job attitudes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment),
0.77 perceptions of organizational justice, and certain dispositional
variables (conscientiousness and trait affect) have been identified
in the research literature as antecedents of both OCB and CWB.
Meta-analytic relationships of these variables with OCB and CWB
are displayed in Table 5. This table contains results from previ-
ously published meta-analyses (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;
1248 DALAL

Table 4
Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix for Behavior Facets

Construct OCB-I OCB-O CWB-I CWB-O

OCB-I 0.73
OCB-O 0.64 (0.49)a 0.74
CWB-I ⫺0.11 (⫺0.11)b ⫺0.17 (⫺0.13)c 0.68
CWB-O ⫺0.16 (⫺0.14)d ⫺0.33 (⫺0.27)e 0.70 (0.52)f 0.77

Note. Correlations are weighted by sample size (N). Those outside parentheses are correlations corrected for
unreliability (i.e., mean ␳); those in parentheses are uncorrected correlations (i.e., mean r). Values on the
diagonal (in italics) are internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas). k ⫽ number of samples in which
relationship was estimated; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r ⫽ mean of uncorrected
correlations, weighted by sample size (N); Mean ␳ ⫽ mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size
(N); SDr ⫽ standard deviation of uncorrected correlations; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of corrected correlations;
90% CI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% confidence interval; 90% CrI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90%
credibility interval; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; CWB ⫽ counterproductive work behavior; I ⫽
interpersonal; O ⫽ organizational.
a
k ⫽ 22, N ⫽ 4,800, SDr ⫽ 0.15, SD␳ ⫽ 0.18, 90% CI ⫽ (0.36, 0.62), 90% CrI ⫽ (0.34, 0.94).
b
k ⫽ 19, N ⫽ 3,962, SDr ⫽ 0.25, SD␳ ⫽ 0.36, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.30, 0.08), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.71, 0.08).
c
k ⫽ 19, N ⫽ 3,962, SDr ⫽ 0.18, SD␳ ⫽ 0.26, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.29, 0.03), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.60, 0.26).
d
k ⫽ 21, N ⫽ 4,526, SDr ⫽ 0.25, SD␳ ⫽ 0.32, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.31, 0.04), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.70, 0.37).
e
k ⫽ 20, N ⫽ 4,269, SDr ⫽ 0.21, SD␳ ⫽ 0.25, 90% CI ⫽ (⫺0.43, ⫺0.10), 90% CrI ⫽ (⫺0.74, 0.09).
f
k ⫽ 20, N ⫽ 4,136, SDr ⫽ 0.15, SD␳ ⫽ 0.26, 90% CI ⫽ (0.38, 0.66), 90% CrI ⫽ (0.27, 1.00).

Colquitt et al., 2001; LePine et al., 2002; Meyer et al., 2002; Organ
& Ryan, 1995; Riketta, 2002; Salgado, 2002) that have examined
one or more of these relationships (refer to the Appendix for
further details). The table also contains meta-analytic results from
the primary studies examined in this study; these results, however,
are not comprehensive because they are limited to studies that
examined the OCB–CWB relationship.3
As can be seen from Table 5, the analyses from the present set
of primary studies represent the only CWB meta-analyses avail-
able for four of the six antecedents examined. On the OCB side, in
contrast, there exists at least one previous meta-analysis for each
antecedent. The comparisons presented here focus on the ranges of
results obtained using the sets of meta-analyses; when possible,
results are presented both with and without the results from the
present set of primary studies. Antecedent-behavior results based
on only one meta-analysis (usually, the present—noncomprehen-
sive—analysis) are presented in subsequent text with “an approx-
imately equal to” (⬇) sign to emphasize their provisional nature.
Note that the OCB versus CWB comparisons pertain to the mag-
nitude, rather than the direction, of their antecedent relationships.
The first antecedents examined are organizational justice and
conscientiousness, for which previous CWB meta-analyses (in
addition to the previous OCB meta-analyses) have been conducted.
There does not appear to be much difference in organizational
justice’s relationship with CWB (␳ range ⫽ ⫺0.25 to ⫺0.36
including the present results and ⫺0.33 to ⫺0.36 without them)
and its relationship with OCB (␳ range ⫽ 0.20 to 0.34 including
the present results and 0.23 to 0.34 without them). The relation-
ships of conscientiousness with CWB (␳ range ⫽ ⫺0.26 to ⫺0.38
including the present results and ␳ ⬇ ⫺0.26 without them) and
with OCB (␳ range ⫽ 0.23 to 0.30 including the present results and
0.23 to 0.29 without them) likewise appear comparable.
Conclusions pertaining to the remaining antecedents should be
regarded as tentative because the only standards of comparison on
the CWB side are the present (noncomprehensive) analyses. Job
satisfaction’s relationship with CWB (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.37) appears to be
stronger than its relationship with OCB (␳ ranges from 0.16 to 0.28
including the present results and from 0.24 to 0.28 without them).
Organizational commitment, too, appears to be slightly more
strongly related to CWB (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.36) than to OCB (␳ ranges from
0.20 to 0.32 both with and without the present results). The
discrepancy appears larger for NA: Its relationship with CWB
(␳ ⬇ 0.41) seems to be much stronger than its relationship with
OCB (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.10 both with and without the present results). This
finding supports Spector and Fox’s (2002) contention that NA is
more strongly related to CWB than to OCB.
Vis-à-vis PA, however, the situation is less clear. A fairly
substantial discrepancy in the obtained PA–OCB results was ob-
served between Organ and Ryan’s (1995) results and the present
results (␳ for Organ and Ryan ⫽ 0.12; ␳ for present results ⫽
0.34).4 The true relationship may be intermediate: On the basis of
five studies (N ⫽ 985) conducted after Organ and Ryan’s meta-
analysis, Borman, Penner, Allen, and Motowidlo (2001) reported
an uncorrected PA–OCB relationship of 0.18, which, when cor-
rected using unreliability estimates from the present set of studies,
yields ␳ ⫽ 0.23. The wide range of PA-OCB relationship estimates
renders comparison with the PA-CWB relationship (␳ ⬇ ⫺0.34)
difficult. Regardless of which of the aforementioned PA-OCB
estimates is considered, however, the results appear not to support
Spector and Fox’s (2002) contention that PA is more strongly
related to OCB than to CWB.
A preliminary conclusion can therefore be reached: Antecedent–
CWB relationships are generally a little stronger than antecedent–
OCB relationships, but the extent of discrepancy varies somewhat
3
It should be noted that there is very little overlap of primary studies
between the present results and the previous meta-analyses because the
latter predate most of the primary studies used in the present analyses.
4
Note that two of Organ and Ryan’s (1995) studies (i.e., about one third
of their total number of studies for this analysis) technically measured
extroversion rather than PA.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1249

Table 5
Meta-Analytic Results for the Presumed Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior

OCB CWB

Antecedent Meta-analysis k N Mean r Mean ␳ k N Mean r Mean ␳

Job satisfaction LePine et al. (2002) 72 7,100 0.20 0.24 — — — —

Organ and Ryan (1995) 9 2,845 0.23 0.28 — — — —
Present study 25 6,106 0.12 0.16 25 6,106 ⫺0.29 ⫺0.37
Organizational commitment LePine et al. (2002) 54 5,133 0.17 0.20 — — — —
Organ and Ryan (1995) 4 1,614 0.18 0.23 — — — —
Meyer et al. (2002) 22 6,277 0.26 0.32 — — — —
Riketta (2002) 42 10,747 0.19 0.25 — — — —
Present study 22 5,582 0.22 0.28 22 5,582 ⫺0.28 ⫺0.36
Organizational justice LePine et al. (2002) 40 1,975 0.20 0.23 — — — —
Organ and Ryan (1995) 17 2,969 0.24 0.28 — — — —
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) 7 1,758 0.27 0.34 3 597 ⫺0.28 ⫺0.36
Colquitt et al. (2001) 8 1,972 0.25 0.27 18 4,720 ⫺0.30 ⫺0.33
Present study 10 1,997 0.15 0.20 11 2,130 ⫺0.18 ⫺0.25
Conscientiousness LePine et al. (2002) 15 848 0.19 0.23 — — — —
Organ and Ryan (1995) 10 1,979 0.22 0.29 — — — —
Salgado (2002) — — — — 13 6,276 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.26
Present study 10 3,280 0.23 0.30 10 3,280 ⫺0.29 ⫺0.38
Positive affect Organ and Ryan (1995) 6 976 0.10 0.12 — — — —
Present study 23 4,425 0.28 0.34 23 4,425 ⫺0.28 ⫺0.34
Negative affect Organ and Ryan (1995) 5 993 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.10 — — — —
Present study 23 4,101 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.10 23 4,101 0.34 0.41

Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r ⫽ mean of uncorrected
correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); Mean ␳ ⫽ mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship
behavior; CWB ⫽ counterproductive work behavior. Dashes indicate relationships not assessed by the meta-analysis in question. Present study analyses
are restricted to primary studies that examined the OCB–CWB relationship (i.e., they are not exhaustive antecedent-behavior meta-analyses). Further details
concerning the other meta-analyses are provided in the Appendix.

across antecedents. In other words, not only the magnitudes but
also the patterns of antecedent– behavior relationships for OCB
versus CWB appear to differ.
Moderator Analyses
Four moderators of the OCB–CWB relationship had been hy-
pothesized. According to the hypotheses, the OCB–CWB relation-
ship would be stronger (in the negative direction) when raters were
supervisors or were highly educated, response options pertained to
behavioral frequencies, and measures contained antithetical items.
The search for moderators was empirically justified by a wide
credibility interval for the OCB–CWB relationship. Table 6 dis-
plays the results of the moderator analyses.
As hypothesized, the relationship strength differed as a function
of the source of the ratings: Supervisor ratings yielded a much
stronger relationship than did incumbent (self) ratings. The OCB–
CWB relationship was also stronger, as expected, when measures
contained antithetical items. Furthermore, the relationship was
influenced by the format of response options; the moderation
effect, however, was in the direction opposite to that hypothesized.
That is, the OCB–CWB relationship was stronger when response
options were of the agreement– disagreement or characteristic–
uncharacteristic variety than when they were of the behavioral
frequency variety. Finally, the extent to which the rater was
educated had little effect on the OCB–CWB relationship.
However, the (potential) moderator variables were themselves
intercorrelated; thus, the effects of different moderators may have
been confounded. In addition, the dichotomization of modera-
tors—necessary for testing moderation according to Hunter and
Schmidt’s (1990) method—resulted in a loss of information. This
may have been problematic, especially in the case of the
education-level variable, because the cut score selected was some-
what arbitrary. Consequently, Hedges and Olkin’s (1985; Lipsey
& Wilson, 2001) modified weighted least squares (WLS) multiple
regression approach was also used. This approach examines the
effect of each moderator while controlling for the effects of other
moderators; it also does not require dichotomization of modera-
tors. Another difference is that this method operates on correla-
tions uncorrected for artifacts (such as unreliability). Despite these
differences, the WLS regression analysis confirmed that the source
of ratings, the presence or absence of antithetical items, and the
nature of response options were important moderators of the
OCB–CWB relationship, whereas the level of education of the
rater was unimportant.
Discussion
Both citizenship and counterproductive behavior are taking their
rightful places at the table of job performance. It is, therefore,
necessary to examine the extent to which these two constructs are
related to each other. The present meta-analytic research estimated
the true OCB–CWB relationship at both the global and facet levels
and assessed moderators of this relationship. It also examined the
relationships of these two constructs with a common core of
presumed antecedents.
1250 DALAL

Table 6
Results of Moderator Analyses

Moderator k N Mean r Mean ␳ 90% CI 90% CrI z

Source of ratings
Supervisor 6 4,944 ⫺0.60 ⫺0.71 (⫺0.80, ⫺0.39) (⫺0.93, ⫺0.49) 8.89*
Job incumbent (self) 40 11,348 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.15 (⫺0.25, 0.00) (⫺0.65, 0.34)
Antithetical items included in at least one
behavior measure?
Yes 5 4,634 ⫺0.54 ⫺0.66 (⫺0.90, ⫺0.19) (⫺1.00, ⫺0.17) 3.43*
No 42 11,821 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.19 (⫺0.29, ⫺0.02) (⫺0.76, 0.38)
Format of response options
Behavioral frequency 38 13,702 ⫺0.23 ⫺0.27 (⫺0.37, ⫺0.10) (⫺0.80, 0.26) ⫺6.39*
Agreement–disagreementa 5 1,470 ⫺0.55 ⫺0.68 (⫺0.71, ⫺0.39) (⫺0.83, ⫺0.52)
Rater educational level
College or more 9 1,767 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.10 (⫺0.35, 0.20) (⫺0.61, 0.42) 0.07
High school or less 8 1,623 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.06 (⫺0.36, 0.23) (⫺0.59, 0.47)

Note. k ⫽ number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N ⫽ total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r ⫽ mean of uncorrected
correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); Mean ␳ ⫽ mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); 90% CI ⫽ lower and upper limits of
90% confidence interval; 90% CrI ⫽ lower and upper limits of 90% credibility interval; z ⫽ Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) z statistic for moderation (z ⬎
0 indicates that the means were in the hypothesized direction; z ⬍ 0 indicates that the means were in the direction opposite to that hypothesized).
a
Includes “uncharacteristic– characteristic (of me)” response options.
* p ⬍ .05, two-tailed.

OCB–CWB Relationship
Based on studies involving 16,721 participants, the typical re-
lationship between OCB and CWB was modestly negative. The
relationships between an OCB facet and a CWB facet were also in
the low to modestly negative range. The strength of facet relation-
ships did not increase appreciably when OCB and CWB facets
under consideration were directed toward the same target
(referent).
Antecedent Analyses
There was also some evidence of differences in magnitude and
pattern across antecedent relationships. Antecedent–CWB rela-
tionships were generally stronger than antecedent–OCB relation-
ships; the extent of this discrepancy, however, appeared to vary
across antecedents. Unfortunately, this conclusion was tempered
by the fact that, for most antecedents, the CWB meta-analytic
results used here were not comprehensive. For this reason (and, in
general, to further explicate CWB’s nomological network), there is
a pressing need for future meta-analytic research on the anteced-
ents of CWB. The antecedents investigated in the present research
were theoretically important and also the most frequently re-
searched within the CWB realm; however, additional demographic
(e.g., gender and age), personality (e.g., agreeableness), and ap-
praisal (e.g., stress and leader support) antecedents should also be
examined. The relationships of these additional constructs with
CWB could then be compared with their relationships with OCB.
Finally, it would be interesting to determine whether the modera-
tors of antecedent– behavior relationships are the same for both
OCB and CWB.
Moderator Analyses
In any meta-analysis, the overall relationship between focal
constructs provides at best an incomplete picture when the pres-
ence of moderator variables has been demonstrated. Four (poten-
tial) moderators were examined here. The finding that supervisor
ratings yielded stronger relationships than self-ratings was ex-
pected, as was the finding that the correlation between the mea-
sures was higher when antithetical items were included within
measures. The (non)finding with regard to the rater’s level of
education was also important: It indicated that the estimated rela-
tionship was generalizable across raters with varying levels of
educational attainment. But what can be said about the stronger
observed correlations for agreement– disagreement (or
characteristic– uncharacteristic) response options than for behav-
ioral frequency response options, an effect opposite to that hypoth-
esized? As suggested earlier, the use of agreement– disagreement
or uncharacteristic– characteristic response formats probably does
not result in the measurement of behavior at all. What may instead
be elicited are—in the terminology of Ajzen’s (1991) theory of
planned behavior—attitudes toward behaviors or behavioral inten-
tions (the latter was explicitly true in one primary study). Because
situational factors, or perceptions thereof, act as constraining or
promoting agents, behaviors may not be as consistent as the
attitudes toward them or the intentions to perform them (Hanisch,
Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998).5 Future research should examine this
possibility further.
In the case of (dis)agreement/(un)characteristic response op-
tions, antithetical items within measures of OCB and CWB, or
supervisor ratings of behavior, the (corrected) OCB–CWB corre-
lation was about ⫺0.70. However, these cases probably do not
represent instances of good practice. With regard to response
5
In the same vein, it may be the case that analysis of perceived similarity
(e.g., the work of Bennett & Stamper, 2001, who found that OCB and
CWB were opposite poles of a latent factor) does not always yield results
similar to those obtained by analysis of behavioral frequency. A similar
argument, albeit in a somewhat different context, was advanced by Gruys
and Sackett (2003).
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS
options, it is more desirable to elicit reports of behavioral frequen-
cies than reports about attitudes toward the behaviors or behavioral
intentions. Moreover, antithetical items within OCB and CWB
measures artificially raise the OCB–CWB relationship. Finally,
supervisor ratings of CWB are likely to be subject to halo error;
consequently, the OCB–CWB relationship is likely to be inflated
in such cases. In fact, although insufficient primary studies that
used different-source ratings were available for the present meta-
analysis to test this proposition, same-source ratings in general
(regardless of who the source is) are likely to yield relationships
that are inflated to an extent. For example, self-ratings may them-
selves yield a somewhat inflated OCB–CWB relationship as a
result of socially desirable responding (Sackett, 2002). If this is, in
fact, the case, the true OCB–CWB relationship would be even
lower than the presently obtained estimate for self-ratings (mean
␳ ⫽ ⫺0.15).
Additionally, because all the primary studies used between-
persons cross-sectional data, the present meta-analysis was unable
to examine one potentially very important moderator of the OCB–
CWB relationship—namely, the level of analysis. Between-
persons cross-sectional approaches attempt to answer the question
of whether people who engage in large amounts of OCB over a
certain time interval (e.g., the last 6 months) are also capable of
engaging in large amounts of CWB over that same interval. A
potentially even more interesting question, however, and one that
truly gets at the heart of the OCB–CWB relationship, is whether a
given person is capable of engaging in both OCB and CWB
simultaneously or even within a very small time interval. So, for
example, is it possible for an employee to act in a very helpful
manner toward a coworker and then, almost immediately, to will-
fully behave in a manner detrimental to that same coworker? In
other words, if—as some (e.g., Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) have
suggested—OCB and CWB exhibit significant temporal within-
person variation, it may be possible for an employee to engage in
large amounts of both OCB and CWB over a period of time, even
if he or she cannot or will not engage in both simultaneously. This
issue should be assessed using experience sampling methods (also
known as ecological momentary assessments) that track OCB and
CWB over time within persons.
Levels-of-analysis issues aside, however, the present findings
bear important implications for psychological theory and practice.
Implications for Theory and Practice
Constructs that are very strongly negatively related to each other
(approaching ␳ ⫽ ⫺1.00) and that exhibit very similar patterns of
relationships with external variables may be considered opposite
poles of the same latent factor. The present findings suggest that,
at the person level at least, such is not the case with regard to OCB
and CWB. These constructs were found to be relatively distinct
factors in their own right. The findings are congruent with some
past theorizing and empirical results. Kelloway et al. (2002) found
that the OCB–CWB relationship was low even after a “wording
direction method factor” was fitted (to account for the fact that all
OCB items in that study included only functional behavior,
whereas all CWB items included only dysfunctional behavior). As
Rotundo and Sackett (2002) and others (e.g., Sackett, 2002;
Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) have suggested, employee perfor-
1251
mance may be a function of three broad classes of behavior: task
performance, OCB, and CWB.
Yet how can behaviors that harm the organization or its em-
ployees not be in quantitative opposition to behaviors that benefit
the organization or its employees? One answer requires research-
ers to focus not on the target of the behaviors (the organization or
other employees in the organization) but on their source (the
individual employee exhibiting the behaviors). Not only OCB but
also CWB could then be defined as sets of adaptive behavioral
responses (e.g., Hulin, 1991) or at least as responses that the
employee may perceive at the time as being adaptive.
Such a definition would lead to the prediction— consistent with
the hedonism assumption in the mood regulation literature (Larsen,
2000; Tice & Wallace, 2000) and in philosophy (Bentham,
1789)—that both OCB and CWB are geared toward the same goal:
achieving a good mood or a high level of satisfaction in the future.
Some existing research provides hints that this may be the case.
Bushman, Baumeister, and Phillips (2001), for instance, demon-
strated using a series of studies that people often engage in ag-
gressive behavior to improve their own affective states (see also
Spector & Fox, 2002). Moreover, given that both leisure time after
work and officially sanctioned work breaks are important sources
of recovery from physical, cognitive, and emotional strain and are
crucial in increasing work engagement and proactive behavior
(e.g., Boucsein & Thum, 1996; Sonnentag, 2003), occasional
unauthorized work breaks (usually conceptualized as a form of
CWB–O; see Hanisch & Hulin, 1990) may well be motivated by
the desire to obtain similar benefits. Finally, Gomà-I-Freixanet
(2001) reported that people who typically engage in large amounts
of either prosocial or antisocial behavior score high on the Sensa-
tion Seeking scale; a person may therefore seek out sensation
sometimes through OCB and at other times through CWB (see also
Riemer, 1981).
It is also worthwhile to consider some implications of the
findings for organizational practice. The findings suggest, for
instance, that the successful elimination of high-CWB employees
during the applicant screening process may not, in and of itself,
simultaneously achieve the successful selection of high-OCB em-
ployees. In the same vein, an organizational intervention designed
to facilitate OCB may not simultaneously deter CWB.
Moreover, OCB and CWB may need to be evaluated separately
during performance appraisals. For example, rather than evaluat-
ing employees along a continuum ranging from often harming
coworkers to often helping them, it may be necessary to evaluate
the frequency with which the employee harms coworkers sepa-
rately from the frequency with which he or she helps them. In this
way, one could assess whether the employee (a) frequently helps
others but also frequently harms them, (b) does not help others but
does not harm them either, (c) frequently helps others and rarely
harms them, or (d) frequently harms others and rarely helps them.
Yet, as Sackett and DeVore (2001) recommend, for some pur-
poses it may be useful to create an OCB–CWB composite; this can
be done even if OCB and CWB are not that highly related. One
major purpose of constructing a composite (Schmidt & Kaplan,
1971) consisting of OCB and CWB—and, indeed, task perfor-
mance as well—would be to assess the employee’s overall contri-
bution to the organization.
1252 DALAL
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis and provided one or more independent primary samples.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 –211.
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836 – 874.
*Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust
punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 37, 299 –322.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
*Bashshur, M. R. (2003). [Lebanese and Austrian teachers’ work expe-
riences surveys]. Unpublished raw data.
Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior.
In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), T. Millon, & M. J. Lerner (Vol. Eds.),
Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology (pp.
463– 484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinc-
tions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232–244.
*Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2002). The past, present and future of
workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational be-
havior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bennett, R. J., & Stamper, C. L. (2001). Corporate citizenship and
deviancy: A study of work behavior. In C. Galbraith & M. Ryan (Eds.),
International research in the business disciplines: Strategies and organi-
zations in transition (pp. 265–284). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principals of morals and
legislation. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
*Boh, L., & Hulin, C. L. (2003, May). Role conflict, job attitudes and
job behaviors: Gender differences among military personnel. Poster pre-
sented at the annual Undergraduate Psychology Honors Science Fair,
Champaign, IL.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt &
W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection (pp. 71–98). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and
contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
Human Performance, 10, 99 –109.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001).
Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9, 52– 69.
Boucsein, W., & Thum, M. (1996). Multivariate psychophysiological
analysis of stress-strain processes under different break schedules during
computer work. In J. Fahrenberg & M. Myrtek (Eds.), Ambulatory assess-
ment: Computer-assisted psychological and psychophysiological methods
in monitoring and field studies (pp. 305–313). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe &
Huber.
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people
aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation oppor-
tunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 81, 17–32.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping
behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 211–229.
Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (1987). Explanation of the relation between
negative mood and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 91–108.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in
organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 86, 278 –321.
Coleman, V. L., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying
structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 10, 25– 44.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y.
(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–
445.
Coombs, C. H. (1975). A note on the relation between the vector model
and the unfolding model for preferences. Psychometrika, 40, 115–116.
Cordery, J. L., & Sevastos, P. S. (1993). Responses to the original and
revised Job Diagnostic Survey: Is education a factor in responses to
negatively worded items? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 141–143.
*Credé, M. (2002). [South African teachers’ work experiences surveys].
Unpublished raw data.
*Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The
relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors,
attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159 –180.
*Dalal, R. S., & Hulin, C. L. (2002). [Illinois job satisfaction and work
experiences surveys]. Unpublished raw data.
Davison, M. L. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for
attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometrika, 42, 523–548.
Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance:
Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25–36.
*Donovan, M. A. (1999). Cognitive, affective, and satisfaction variables
as predictors of organizational behaviors: A structural equation modeling
examination of alternative models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
*Drimmer, L. B. (1998). Job stress: An investigation of professional and
organizational commitment as moderators and relationships to organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and misbehavior. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.
*Dunlop, P., & Lee, K. (2004, April). Organizational citizenship behav-
ior and workplace deviant behavior: Are they distinct? Paper presented at
the 19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Chicago.
*Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades,
L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.
Fisher, C. D., & Locke, E. A. (1992). The new look in job satisfaction
research and theory. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job
satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their
performance (pp. 165–194). New York: Lexington Books.
*Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2003, April). An
empirical study of voluntary work behavior (VWB): Do parallel frame-
works underlie counterproductive work behavior and organizational citi-
zenship behavior? Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A
conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity rela-
tionship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310 –329.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement
theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Gomà-i-Freixanet, M. (2001). Prosocial and antisocial aspects of per-
sonality in women: A replication study. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 30, 1401–1411.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary state-
ment. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS
Greenberg, J. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship: A commen-
tary on the state of the science. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 6, 249 –256.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality
of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11, 30 – 41.
*Haaland, S. A. (2001). Understanding organizational citizenship and
counterproductive work behaviors: Examining interactions utilizing an
organizational versus interpersonal categorization strategy. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor).
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Retirement as a voluntary
organizational withdrawal behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37,
60 –78.
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance
of individuals’ repertoires of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness of
studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 19, 463– 480.
*Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of
multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance.
Human Performance, 11, 305–319.
Heckert, A., & Heckert, D. M. (2002). A new typology of deviance:
Integrating normative and reactivist definitions of deviance. Deviant Be-
havior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 449 – 479.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and
employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53–75.
Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in orga-
nizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of indus-
trial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 445–507). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
*Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the
dimensions of entry-level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychology,
49, 51– 83.
Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement,
second-order factor analysis, and causal models. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 267–
320). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. (1994). Resistance and power
in organizations. London: Routledge.
Jordan, M. P. (1998). The power of negation in English: Text, context
and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 705–752.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The
job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantita-
tive review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations.
New York: Wiley.
*Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-
reported counterproductive behaviors and organizational citizenship be-
haviors: Separate but related constructs. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 10, 143–151.
*Laczo, R. M. (1999). Organizational withdrawal and organizational
citizenship behavior: A comparison of volunteer workers to paid employ-
ees. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames.
*Laczo, R. M. (2002). An examination of the dimensionality of non-task
performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis.
Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psycholog-
ical Inquiry, 11, 129 –141.
*Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and
workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 131–142.
1253
*Lehman, W. E. K., & Simpson, D. D. (1992). Employee substance use
and on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 309 –321.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and
dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52– 65.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Love, K. G., & O’Hara, K. (1987). Predicting job performance of youth
trainees under a job training partnership act program (JTPA): Criterion
validation of a behavior-based measure of work maturity. Personnel Psy-
chology, 40, 323–340.
*Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Hümpfner, G. (2002). Measuring
counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German self-
report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
10, 18 –35.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an
integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal
reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
10, 36 –50.
Mathewson, G. C. (1984). Teaching forms of negation in reading and
reasoning. Reading Teacher, 37, 354 –358.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., &
Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationship between
predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A
meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52.
*Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building
an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of
counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 51–57.
*Miner, A. G. (2000a). [Affect over time in the workplace]. Unpublished
raw data.
*Miner, A. G. (2000b). Experience and evaluation: An exploration of
the structure and function of job attitudes and affect. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
*Molitor, D. D. (1998). An examination of the effects of personality and
job satisfaction on multiple non-workrole organizational behaviors. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
*Morris, M. L. (2001). The relational-interdependent self-construal at
work: An examination of relations to employee attitudes and behaviors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
*Munson, L. J. (2000). Assessing the influence of personality, affectivity,
and mood on job satisfaction and job behaviors: A test of alternative
models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana–
Champaign.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
492– 499.
Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-
causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2,
46 –53.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct
clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for
industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study
of organizational citizenship behavior. International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 14, 337–368.
1254 DALAL
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802.
Plato. (2001). Symposium (S. Benardete, Trans.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. (Original work published 360 BC)
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizen-
ship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research,
31, 351–363.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’
trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Lead-
ership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.
Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
*Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and
work performance among commission sales people. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 615– 621.
Riemer, J. W. (1981). Deviance as fun. Adolescence, 16, 39 – 43.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job per-
formance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257–
266.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant work-
place behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 38, 555–572.
*Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey
do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658 – 672.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job
performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 66 – 80.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in orga-
nizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behav-
iors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at
work. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
145–164). London: Sage.
*Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2005).
Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: Single continuum or
distinct constructs? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and coun-
terproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 10, 117–125.
Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs. multiple criteria:
A review and resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24,
419 – 434.
Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed
model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44, 735–759.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 434 – 443.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,
653– 663.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and practice behav-
ior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 518 –528.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of volun-
tary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work be-
havior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Manage-
ment Review, 12, 269 –292.
Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., & Chen, P. Y.
(1997). When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: How item charac-
teristics can produce artifactual factors. Journal of Management, 23, 659 –
677.
*Spencer, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2002, April). Affect in the workplace.
Poster presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
*St. Clair, L. S. (1994). Organizational attachment: Exploring the
psychology of the employment relationship. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor).
*Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How
employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 23, 875– 894.
Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Gueutal, H. G. (1990). Influence of
cognitive ability on responses to questionnaire measures: Measurement
precision and missing response problems. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 418 – 427.
Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New
York: Wiley.
Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. (2000). Mood and emotion control: Some
thoughts on the state of the field. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 214 –217.
*Townsend, J., Phillips, J. S., & Elkins, T. J. (2000). Employee retali-
ation: The neglected consequences of poor leader-member exchange rela-
tions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457– 463.
van Schuur, W. H., & Kiers, H. A. (1994). Why factor analysis often is
the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to use
instead. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 97–110.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job
performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216 –
226.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (1999). The role of halo
error in interdimensional ratings: The case of job performance ratings
examined via meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Warr, P., Barter, J., & Brownbridge, G. (1983). On the independence of
positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44, 644 – 651.
*Wasti, S. A. (1999). Organizational commitment in a collectivist cul-
ture: The case of Turkey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affec-
tive experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1–74.
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credi-
bility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–
321.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organi-
zational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617.
 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS
Appendix
Adaptation of Results of Previous Meta-Analyses
Details are provided below about the adaptation, for the present study, of
results from the following previous meta-analyses:
LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002). The authors’ analyses of antecedent
relationships with overall organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) were
used.
Organ and Ryan (1995). The authors provided analyses estimating the
relationship of job satisfaction and organizational commitment with overall
measures of OCB. With regard to the remaining antecedents, a composite
of altruism (defined by the authors in a manner analogous to OCB-
Interpersonal [OCB-I]) and generalized compliance (defined by the authors
in a manner analogous to OCB-Organizational [OCB-O]) was constructed
for the present purposes using the meta-analytic correlation between
OCB-I and OCB-O from the present set of studies.
Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002). The authors did
not list uncorrected meta-analytic estimates. For the present purposes, the
uncorrected commitment–OCB relationship was approximated using the
meta-analytic reliability estimates provided by the authors themselves.
Riketta (2002). The results for extra-role performance were used for
the present purposes because the construct definition provided by the
author paralleled common definitions of OCB.
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). A composite between distributive
and procedural justice was constructed using the meta-analytic correlation
between them reported in Colquitt et al. (2001). Moreover, this study did
not correct for unreliability. Unreliability corrections were conducted, for
the present purposes, using the meta-analytic reliability estimates generated
from the present set of studies.
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001). A composite be-
tween distributive justice and broadly defined procedural justice was
constructed using the meta-analytic correlation between them reported by
View publication stats
1255
the authors themselves. The relationship of the justice composite with
negative reactions was taken as the justice–CWB relationship. The rela-
tionship of the justice composite with an OCB composite (consisting of
OCB-I and OCB-O) was used for the justice–OCB relationship. The OCB
composite was constructed by using the meta-analytic correlation between
OCB-I and OCB-O from the present set of studies.
Salgado (2002). The author’s analysis examining the relationship be-
tween conscientiousness and deviant behavior (labeled “counterproductiv-
ity criteria” in Sackett & DeVore’s, 2001, reference to this study) was used.
Two additional points are noteworthy. First, whenever composites were
constructed (as described previously), the Table 5 entries for k and N are
the harmonic means of the composite components. Second, the above
meta-analyses did vary, albeit slightly, in procedure, rendering compari-
sons across them an inexact science. Many of the differences pertained to
how (or whether) observed relationships were corrected for attenuation
resulting from artifacts. Most studies corrected for both predictor and
criterion unreliability using internal consistency reliability. However,
Riketta (2002) corrected for criterion unreliability using interrater reliabil-
ity when the criterion was measured using supervisor or peer ratings.
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) did not undertake any artifact correc-
tions; for the present purposes, their estimates were corrected as described
previously. Salgado (2002) corrected for range restriction but not predictor
unreliability. Differences in effect size corrections across the extant meta-
analyses can be partially surmounted by assessing both the corrected (␳)
and uncorrected (r) effect sizes.
Received December 22, 2003
Revision received November 22, 2004
Accepted January 7, 2005 䡲