Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18, No.

1, Fall 2003 (2003)

A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

REVIEW OF ANTECEDENTS OF
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR
IN ORGANIZATIONS
Vivian C. S. Lau
Wing Tung Au
Jane M. C. Ho
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a qualitative and quantitative review of the

antecedents of counterproductive behaviors (CPB). The qualitative review organ-
izes antecedents identified in past research into four broad categories: personal,
organizational, work, and contextual factors. The quantitative review includes
metaanalyses of 40 published studies with a combined sample size of 42,359.
The results indicate that employees who are young or dissatisfied engage in
more CPBs. In addition, absenteeism is more prevalent among employees who
are young, female, have lower income, have lower job satisfaction, and who per-
ceive a stronger absence norm, or a stronger ability to be on time.

KEY WORDS: counterproductive behavior; metaanalysis.

CPB is defined as any voluntary organizational behaviors that affect

an individual’s job performance or undermine organizational effective-
ness. The term CPB is often used as equivalent to deviant or antisocial
behavior. The former refers to both property deviance, such as acquiring
or damaging property belonging to one’s employer; and production devi-
ance, or violating organizational norms regarding the quantity and qual-
ity of work performed (Hollinger & Clark, 1982). The latter refers to any

Address correspondence to Winton Au, Department of Psychology, The Chinese Uni-

versity of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China. E-mail: wintonau@cuhk.edu.hk.
This project was supported in part by the Direct Grant for Research 2000–2001 (Proj-
ect code 2020579) at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to the second author.

73

0889-3268/03/0900-0073/0  2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

74 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

behavior that brings harm, or is intended to bring harm, to an organiza-

tion, its employees, or stakeholders (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997).
Accumulating evidence show that CPB in organizations has become
pervasive as well as costly. According to Harper (1990), 33% to 75 % of
employees have engaged in theft, computer fraud, embezzlement, van-
dalism, sabotage, and absenteeism. In addition, the outcome of employee
deviance and delinquency accounted for between $6 and $200 billion of
organizational loss annually (Murphy, 1993).
The purpose of the present article is to examine the state of the
literature on the antecedents of CPBs. This article is organized into two
major sections. The first part presents a qualitative review of past stud-
ies. In this section, articles and reviews of literature are briefly summa-
rized. The second part presents metaanalyses of 40 empirical studies
that examine the relations between CPBs and their antecedents.

QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH

Martinko, Gundlach, and Douglas (2002) proposed an integrative

theory of counterproductive behavior and classified the antecedents of
CPB into individual differences and situational variables. Our qualita-
tive review follows a similar classification that also identifies a personal
category which is essentially the same as their individual differences
variable. However, we subdivided the situational variables into three
categories including the (a) organizational, (b) work, and (c) contextual
factors.
First, the personal factor category includes characteristics shared
among employees engaging in CPB at work (Boye & Jones, 1997). Fac-
tors like job satisfaction, perceived stress, habits, and demographic char-
acteristics are all grouped under this category. Nevertheless, personality
characteristics like integrity or conscientiousness are excluded from our
summary because ample reviews are available (e.g., Ones, Viswesvaran,
& Schmidt, 1993; Salgado, 2002). Second, the organizational factor cate-
gory includes shared or summary of perception that people attach to par-
ticular features of the work setting (Ostroff, 1993). Examples include
supervisory monitoring, group influence, organization-level anti-theft
policy, and organizational characteristics. The third category, work fac-
tor, includes antecedents that are related to the job nature such as job
complexity, high-risk occupations, task independence, and so forth. Fi-
nally, the contextual factor category refers to a diverse mix of variables
in the environment that is potentially relevant to the individual’s deci-
sion to engage in or refrain from committing specific dishonest acts (Mur-
phy, 1993). These situational factors include employment rate, economic
prosperity, weather, and opportunity to steal. The following section re-
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 75

views empirical findings of CPB and their antecedents as broken down

by these four categories. Table 1 presents the list of CPBs (criteria) and
their antecedents (predictors) identified in this review.

QUALITATIVE REVIEW

A. Personal Factors
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
appraisal one makes of his or her job, or job experiences (Locke, 1976).

Table 1
List of Predictors and Criteria Identified in the Qualitative Review

Predictors Criteria

A. Personal Factors • Theft*

• Demographics (e.g., age, sex, marital status, race)* • Production devi-
• Family responsibilities ance*
• Personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy) • Drug use*
• Job satisfaction • Lateness*
• Job satisfaction related symptoms (e.g., stress, burnout, work- • Absenteeism*
load)* • Alcohol abuse*
• Attitudinal predictors (e.g., attitudes towards alcohol, • Sabotage
violence, and drug abuse) • Substance abuse
• Perceptions of job (e.g., boring jobs, inequity) • Work break exten-
• Ability to be on time* sion
• Motivation to be on time • Food break exten-
• Pressure to be on time sion
• Other CPBs (e.g., absenteeism predicts tardiness) • CPB index*
B. Organizational Factors
• Organizational physical conditions
• Organizational climate (e.g., technological readiness, human
resources primacy, and communication flow)
• Employment condition
C. Work Factors
• Job characteristics (e.g., policy-related)
• Supervisory (e.g., support, emphasis, work facilitation, team
building, and communication)
• Peer (support, emphasis, work facilitation, and team building)
D. Contextual Factors
• Weather
• Population

Note: Variables that are included in the present metaanalyses are marked with an “*”.
76 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

It is also a feeling based on worker’s estimation of the extent to which

the work environment fulfills one’s needs (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984), and
is considered a person’s predisposition to respond to one’s environment
in a favorable or unfavorable manner (Steers & Porter, 1991). It was
typically found that dissatisfied employees had poorer performance in
schools (Ostroffs, 1992), and were more likely to engage in employee
theft, lateness, absenteeism, substance abuse, and sabotage.
Employee Theft. Theft is the unauthorized taking of organization prop-
erty by adult employees (Altheide, Adler, Adler, & Altheide, 1978). Find-
ings have been consistent regarding the relation between job dissatisfac-
tion and employee theft. In various studies in which employees were
asked to anonymously report their past year’s level in thefts of merchan-
dise, supplies, tools, equipment, and other material assets belonging to
their employers, dissatisfied employees stole more than satisfied employ-
ees in retail and hospital industries (Hollinger & Clark, 1983b), as well
as in the food industry (London House & Food Marketing Institute, 1991,
1992, 1993 & 1995). A study conducted on a randomly selected sample of
employees also indicates that dissatisfied workers tended to steal more
merchandise or equipment from their employers (Mangione & Quinn,
1975).
Workers who hold low-paying, low-status, or boring jobs behave sim-
ilarly as dissatisfied workers. It has been suggested that they tended to
use theft to assert power and attain status (Altheide et al., 1978; Hol-
linger & Clark, 1983; Zeitlin, 1971). As shown in past studies, students
engaged in theft activities more when they believed that they were un-
derpaid (Greenberg, 1993; Hair, Bush, & Busch, 1976). Besides, it is
found that when employees were not given adequate explanation for a
pay cut, they often stole more during the period of pay reduction (Green-
berg, 1990). On the contrary, employees who felt empowered stole less
(Bennett, 1988).
Closely related to job satisfaction is organizational commitment. The
three distinct components of organizational commitment includes a de-
sire to maintain membership with the organization, belief in and accep-
tance of the values and goals of the organization, and a willingness to
exert effort on behalf of the organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).
Past research suggests that those who were not committed to their orga-
nization stole more (Hollinger & Clark, 1983). For example, employees
of convenience stores with the desire for revenge against the organiza-
tion and those who resent their employers engaged in more thefts (Ter-
ris & Jones, 1982; Hair et al., 1976).
Lateness, Absenteeism, and Tardiness. Adler and Golan (1981) operation-
alize lateness as arriving more than seven minutes after the start of an
employee’s scheduled shift. Based on two objective measures of lateness:
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 77

(a) the number of days an employee was late to work and the number of
minutes he or she was late in each incident, dissatisfied employees are
more likely to be late (Adler & Golan, 1981) than satisfied workers. In
another study based on self-report measures of lateness (e.g., “How often
are you late for work?”), nonacademic university staffs who were dissat-
isfied with their work and their coworkers were late and absent more
frequently (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990; Porter & Steers, 1973). Similar re-
sults on lateness were also obtained in other professions (Clegg, 1983).
It is found that hospital staffs with low-paying jobs were more likely
to be absent (Price, 1998), and uncommitted employees tended to take
more sick leaves before quitting their jobs (McElroy, Morrow, & Fenton,
1995). Employees who had long working hours are found to be late more
often (Motley, 1926). Likewise, employees in the printing industry who
were psychologically alienated and had job search intentions reported
more incidents of tardiness (Gupta & Jerkins, 1983).
There are contradictory findings regarding the relations between job
involvement, absenteeism and lateness. On one hand, there exists an
inverse relation between job involvement and absenteeism. For instance,
role conflict and a low degree of job involvement led to a higher absence
rate (Scott & McClellen, 1990) while employees having higher attach-
ment to non-work were more likely to be absent for reasons related to
non-work constraints (Youngblood, 1984; Dunn, 1990; Haccoun & Des-
gent, 1993). On the other hand, workers with high job involvement, as
reflected by both self and supervisory ratings, were found to be late more
frequently (Beehr & Gupta, 1978).

Substance and Alcohol Abuse. Research suggested that dissatisfied

workers used more drugs (except vitamins or aspirin) at work to help
them get through the workday (Mangione & Quinn, 1975), and they were
more likely to drink five or more alcoholic drinks per day (Hingson, Man-
gione, & Barrett, 1981). Both substance and alcohol abuse may be the
indirect results of the way organizations treat individuals. In other
words, maltreated employees are dissatisfied, and they may end up
abusing alcohol and other substances. Indirect evidence is abundant; for
example, those who perceived themselves as being less valued, or having
little prospects for success, goal attainment, and liking their jobs en-
gaged in more drinking (Steele & Hubbard, 1985; Herrington, Levy, &
Richman, 1980). Low visibility of performance also led to the develop-
ment of deviant drinking culture among automobile workers (Ames &
Janes, 1987). Automobile assembly line workers who held routine and
boring jobs (Runcie, 1980; Ames & Janes, 1987; Widick, 1976; Hingson
et al., 1981) and other employees who were experiencing status inconsis-
tency (Parker, 1979) tend to drink more. In addition, more alcoholics
were found in organizations with poor working conditions where organi-
78 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

zational concern for employee’s welfare and happiness was lacking

(Steele & Hubbard, 1985). Besides, role ambiguity, work overload, and
job insecurity all result in greater substance abuse (Ferguson, 1974;
Margolis, Kroes, & Quinn, 1974). It is found that powerless workers con-
sumed greater quantity of alcohol, and of higher frequency (Seeman &
Anderson, 1983). On the contrary, empowered employees demonstrated
a 40% drop of absenteeism (Bennett, 1998).
Sabotage. Sabotage is rule breaking which takes the form of conscious
action or inaction directed towards the mutilation or destruction of the
work environment including the machinery of production and the com-
modity itself (Taylor & Walton, 1971). In case studies conducted with a
variety of industries, Taylor and Walton (1971) found that individual or
collective workers reduce dissatisfaction, tension and frustration through
sabotaging. In addition, upon review of published accounts of sabotage
and from interviews with workers in a variety of industries, Crino (1994)
found that avoidance of work is associated with sabotage. Nonetheless,
there were fewer incidents of sabotage when employees are empowered
(Bennett, 1998).

Perceived Stress
Job stress is the job-related discomfort or illness that people experi-
ence because of their work situations (Beehr, 1991). Ross and Altmaier
(1994) further define occupational stress as “the interaction of work con-
ditions with characteristics of the worker such that the demands of work
exceed the ability of the worker to cope with them” (p. 12). Symptoms
of job stress can be psychological, psycho-physiological, or behavioral in
nature. Perceived stress results from an individual’s cognitive appraisal
of a situation as a stressor while environmental situations can become a
stressor for an individual only if that person appraises it as such. People
usually focus on “experienced” or “perceived stress” since how individu-
als perceive a demand and react to a stressor is a determinant of the
degree of stressfulness of a situation (McGrath, 1976; Parasuraman &
Alutto, 1984). High level of perceived stress are found to be related to
occurrence of CPB such as violence, substance abuse, unexcused absence,
and theft.
Violence and Alcohol Abuse. Highly stressed police officers were more
likely to feel like criminally assaulting a suspect (Jones, 1980b), for in-
stance, using weapon on a suspect, shouting at, pushing, or shoving a sus-
pect. They also tended to consume alcohol during paid working hours and
engaged in alcohol misuse (Jones, 1980a, 1980b; Parker and Brody, 1982).
Unexcused Absence. Assembly and packaging workers experiencing much
stress reported significantly more unexcused absences (Fitzgibbons &
Moch, 1980).
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 79

Employee Theft. Stressful workers engaged in more theft activities (La-

velli, 1986) in the nursing profession as well as in the retail industries
(Jones & Boye, 1994). Similarly, workers used thefts to release their
frustration with the organization (Zeitlin, 1971).
Unauthorized Extension of Work Breaks. Burned out nurses and those
with unfavorable cognition toward theft extended their work breaks
more often (Jones, 1981a; Jones & Boye, 1994).

Perceived Certainty of Detection

Perceived certainty of punishment is the perception of the likelihood
to “commit the act (of theft) and not get caught” (Jensen, Erickson, and
Gibbs, 1978, p. 78). A similar concept is sanctioned threat, which is the
employee’s perceived risk of being discovered by an unspecified control
agent (Anderson, Chiricos, & Waldo, 1977, Hollinger & Clark, 1983a).
Workers who were uncertain of the risk of detection stole more (London
House & Food Marketing Institute, 1991, 1992, 1993, & 1995). Using a
self report measure on “general perception of detection risk,” Hollinger
and Clark (1983a) found that in retail organizations, general hospitals,
and electronic manufacturing firms, employees perceiving a low risk of
detection for acts of employee theft was over three and a half times more
likely to steal from their employers.

Attitudes and Beliefs

Attitudes also influence the extent to which a person engages in
CPB. Workers with an accepting attitude towards violence stole a larger
dollar amount of merchandise from their companies (Jones, 1980a;
Jones, 1981b), came to work hung-over from alcohol misuse more often,
and consumed more alcohol on the job (Jones, 1980a). Besides, those who
accept theft, or do not regard the act of theft as something wrong, stole
more (O’Bannon, Goldinger, & Appleby, 1989; Cressy, 1953). Past re-
search (Jones, 1979a) suggests that college students with tolerant atti-
tudes towards unacceptable social deviance tend to engage in substance
abuse more, whereas secondary school teachers with negative attitudes
towards work and job are more likely to be absent from work (Scott &
McClellen, 1990).

Demographic Characteristics
Some demographic characteristics including tenure, age, sex, family
size, and economic condition are associated with CPB. The relation be-
tween tenure and CPB is not clear. In one study, workers with longer
tenure in a public utility had higher records of absenteeism (Garrison &
80 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Muchinsky, 1977, r = .27), while in another study, manufacturing work-

ers with shorter tenure were late more often (Bardsley and Rhodes,
1996, r = −.15).
Accumulating findings show that the effect of age on other CPB is
unclear as well. Older employees working in a consumer products com-
pany achieved higher attendance (Hui & Lee, 2000, r = −.13), whereas
older workers of an accounting department in a public utility had a
higher absence rate (Garrison & Muchinsky, 1977, r = .17). As for late-
ness, young workers in the manufacturing industry (Bardsley & Rhodes,
1996) and in the retail and hospital industries (Hollinger & Clark, 1983)
were more likely to be late, and to steal.
Both sex and family responsibilities influence CPB. Among second-
ary school teachers (Scott & McClellen, 1990), clerical workers (Naylor &
Vincent, 1959), manufacturing workers (McKee, Markham, & Scott,
1992), and assembly and packaging employees (Fitzgibbons & Moch,
1980), women with a larger number of dependents reported more ab-
sences. Likewise, women with elementary school children were more of-
ten late to work (Bardsley and Rhodes, 1996). In addition, workers with
greater kinship responsibilities and women who had larger family sizes
also reported higher absence rates (Brooke, 1988; Price, 1998; and Garri-
son & Muchinsky, 1977).
Economic conditions seem to affect CPB as well. Poor employees or
those undergoing economic hardship reported more drugs or alcohol
abuse (Cahalan, 1970; Cahalan & Room, 1974; Knupfer & Room, 1967;
Mulford, 1964; Pearlin & Radabaugh, 1976). Theft was also used as a
mean to ease financial pressure (Merton, 1938).

Other Individual Characteristics

Certain past experience is shown to be predictive of CPB. For exam-
ple, employees either with poor previous employment records, that is,
having more than five jobs in the previous five years, or are downwardly
mobilized, were more likely to be alcoholic (Plant, 1978). Furthermore,
workers with limited mastery of skills and high levels of anxiety
(Pearlin & Radabaugh, 1976) or those who had lower self-esteem
(Pearlin and Radabaugh, 1976) tended to use drinking as a coping mech-
anism more often, while those who were once deprived of affection, or
were socially isolated tended to abuse substance (Prescott, 1980). Al-
though fifty-two percent of thieves caught in service merchandise compa-
nies attributed theft to need and greed (Lipman & McGraw, 1988), theft
is also found to be associated with low levels of cognitive development,
field dependence, and external locus of control (Trevino, 1986; Green-
berg, 1998). Besides, substance abusers were more likely to steal and
engage in violent acts (Hollinger & Clark, 1983; Jones & Terris, 1983;
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 81

Walker, Yesavage, & Tinklenberg, 1981). Employees, who supported

habits such as gambling and substance abuse, or those who had to
compensate for financial losses, also stole more (Albrecht, Wernz, &
Williams, 1995). On the contrary, workers with high levels of religious
participation were less likely to engage in marijuana and alcohol use
(Burkett, 1977). Lastly, employees with low morale (Giese & Ruter,
1949) and manufacturing workers who viewed themselves as being un-
able to be on time (Bardsley and Rhodes, 1996) were often late to work.

B. Organizational Factors
Supervisor Monitoring
Low levels of supervisory support or immediate social control re-
sulted in increased absence, more drinking, and the emergence of devi-
ant drinking culture among hospital staff, sailors, and automobile work-
ers respectively (Price, 1998; Hitz, 1973; Ames & Janes, 1987). Theft was
more prevalent when supervisors encourage theft in controlled forms
(Gouldner, 1954), and when managers were non-responsive to workers’
perceptions, attitudes, and needs (Hollinger & Clark, 1983b).

Group Influence
Deviant work group norms encouraged workers to engage in theft
and drinking. It is found that employees collaborated to steal in restau-
rants (Hawkins, 1984), electronic assembly plants (Horning, 1970), among
longshoremen (Mars, 1974), as well as in other industries (Hollinger &
Clark, 1982; Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg & Scott, 1996; Dalton, 1959;
Altheide et al., 1978). Additionally, deviant drinking norms were found
among longshoremen, construction workers, and railroad engineers (Pil-
cher, 1972; Applebaum, 1984; Gamst, 1980; Salaman, 1974). Other simi-
lar organizational customs also seem to promote drinking (Cosper, 1979;
Roman, 1981).
Apart from group norms, employees who had close association with
co-workers who stole were more likely to steal (Paaganen, 1988), where-
as industries with a high group absence rate also had higher levels of
individual absences (Gellaty, 1995; Geurts, Buunk, & Schaufeli, 1994;
Harrison & Schaffer, 1994; Johns, 1994; Mathieu & Kohler, 1990).

Organizational Level Antitheft Policy

Retail organizations without any formal anti-theft policy had higher
theft rates (Parilla, Hollinger, & Clark, 1988). Similarly, under more lib-
eral absence policies, absence rates increase (Boudreau, Christian, &
82 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Thibadeau, 1993; Dalton & Mesch, 1990, 1992; Dalton & Todor, 1993;
Drago & Wooden, 1992; Haccoun & Desgent, 1993; Markham & McKee,
1995; Wilson & Peel, 1991). In the hospital industry, organizational per-
missiveness encouraged absenteeism (Price, 1998).
When there were only mild sanctions of theft from managers and
coworkers, workers in retail, hospital and electronic manufacturing in-
dustries were almost twice as likely to steal (Hollinger & Clark, 1982).
Past research suggest that both apprehensions and terminations for
theft led to lower theft rates in retail companies and hospitals, respec-
tively (Parilla et al., 1988).

Organizational Characteristics
Larger organizations had more incidents of lateness and alcohol
abuse (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979; Revans, 1959) while
workers with inadequate training and shift workers had the highest
rates of alcohol abuse (Trice & Roman, 1971; Smart, 1979). However,
alcoholics were less likely to work on shift rotation (Plant, 1978). One
study showed that organizations implementing the four-day workweek
system recorded fewer absences but more lateness (Goodale & Aagaard,
1975). In addition, theft and violence were more common in public sec-
tors (Nigro & Waugh, 1996) and in organizations with open and non-
bureaucratic structures (Galbraith, 1987).

C. Work Factors
Work characteristics found to be resulting in alcohol abuse include
job complexity, on-the-job mobility and task interdependence among blue
collars and federal employees (Parker & Brody, 1982; Trice, 1965a & b;
Roman, 1981). Problem drinkers were found to be attracted to, or created
in high-risk occupations like breweries and distilleries (Plant, 1978). Em-
ployees who lived far away from their workplace were often absent from
or late for work (VandenHeuvel & Wooden, 1995; Motley, 1926).

D. Contextual Factors
Last but not least, external situational variables appear to affect
CPB as well. For instance, high employment rate and economic prosper-
ity led to an increase in absence rates (Markham & McKee, 1991;
Dragon & Wooden, 1992; Leigh, 1985) whereas workers stole more when
opportunities were available and when merchandise was easily accessi-
ble (Astor, 1972; Hair et al., 1976). Finally, employees arrived at work
early when there was not much sunlight in the morning and came in
late when it was bright (Mueser, 1953).
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 83

QUANTITATIVE REVIEW

In view of the inconsistencies among the reported CPB-antecedent

relations reviewed above, we conducted a series of metaanalyses to de-
termine the magnitude of the bivariate relations concerned.

METHOD

Procedure
Literature Search. Studies involving predictions of various CPBs were
gathered from the PsycINFO electronic database (1967–2001). The pri-
mary aim is to locate published studies as well as unpublished disserta-
tions in this area. To identify additional relevant studies, citation lists
provided in the articles and previous qualitative reviews were also exam-
ined. From the computer-assisted searches, 91 references of articles con-
cerning antecedents of CPBs were obtained. Among these, 8 were quali-
tative review and another 11 were narrative reviews or case studies. The
complete list of articles included in the metaanalyses is available upon
request.
Inclusion Rules. The present metaanalysis targets the general popula-
tion of employed adults (Matt & Cook, 1994). All studies examining
CPBs were included. However, some relatively ambiguous forms of or-
ganizational behavior such as, withdrawal, intentions of turnover and
retirement were excluded because they are not necessarily counterpro-
ductive. Apart from these, as discussed earlier, the exploration of person-
ality factors (e.g., honesty) as CPB antecedents is beyond the scope of
this study and hence, excluded from our data analysis. In the end, forty
articles met our inclusion criteria. These articles were marked with an
“*” in the reference section. Analyses of the relations between predictors
and criterion are estimated from these 40 independent samples (total
N = 42,359). The criteria (CPBs) include (a) theft, (b) production devi-
ance, (c) lateness, (d) absenteeism, and (e) alcohol abuse. The predictors
(antecedents of CPB) include (a) age, (b) sex, (c) marital status (single
vs. married), (d) tenure, (e) income, (f) educational level, (g) race (white
vs. non-white), (h) job satisfaction, and (i) job dissatisfaction related
symptoms (e.g., stress, burnout, and workload). For the prediction of ab-
senteeism in particular, other predictors like job insecurity, perceived
absence norm, 4-day workweek, shift work, and ability to be on time are
also considered. The predictors and criteria examined in the metaanaly-
ses are marked with an “*” in Table 1.
Effect sizes were computed from correlations and other reported sta-
tistics were converted into correlations whenever possible. For studies
84 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

reporting multiple correlations, the individual correlations were first

transformed into Fisher’s Z scores. After averaging, the mean Fisher’s Z
values were then transformed back to their corresponding mean correla-
tions.
Other information concerning potential moderators, range restric-
tion, as well as predictor and criterion unreliabilities were also recorded,
yielding a total of 14 different pieces of information for each bivariate
relation.
Metaanalytic Procedures. Data were analyzed with the Hunter, Schmidt,
and Jackson (1982) metaanalytic method. This method was used because
it can estimate the amount of variance attributable to sampling error,
range restriction, and unreliability, as opposed to the true differences in
underlying population relations. In the metaanalyses reported here, we
corrected for sampling error and unreliability in both the predictor and
criterion measures, where appropriate. When the primary authors re-
ported overall reliabilities of predictors, these values were used directly
to correct for attenuation. If multiple correlations were reported in the
original articles instead, these values were used to compute the weighted
reliabilities of the predictors. For studies in which reliabilities for some
variables were not reported, the mean reliabilities for these variables as
estimated from other studies were used. Variance attributable to sam-
pling error and to differences between studies in reliability and range
restriction was determined, and the amount was subtracted from the
total amount of variation, yielding estimates of true variation and true
average correlation. Data were analyzed by the use of a computer pro-
gram (Meta-Analysis Software Version 5.2) developed by Schwarzer
(1991).

RESULTS

The metaanalysis results for different predictor-criterion combina-

tions which involved demographic variables, job satisfaction and related
factors are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Table 4 presents results of differ-
ent predictors that co-vary with absenteeism. Results from three other
metaanalyses of miscellaneous predictor-criterion combinations are pre-
sented in Table 5.
The first column in each table identifies the predictors or criteria
being analyzed. The next two columns present the number of correla-
tions and the total sample size. For each metaanalysis, the average
(mean r), as well as the standard deviation (sd) were computed and pre-
sented in the next two columns. The following four columns include the
estimated population mean (ρ), the estimated population standard devia-
 Table 2
Metaanalytic Results for CPBs Related to Various Demographic Variables

80% CV 95% CI

Predictor Criterion k n Mean r SD Mean ρ SD (ρ) Lower Upper Lower Upper

Age Theft 3 9175 −0.21 0.04 −0.21 0.04 −0.26 −0.17 −0.28 −0.15
Production deviance 3 9175 −0.33 0.05 −0.33 0.06 −0.41 −0.26 −0.44 −0.22
Lateness 3 391 −0.20 0.06 −0.21 0.07 −0.30 −0.12 −0.21 −0.21
Absenteeism 6 1221 −0.11 0.08 −0.11 0.07 −0.20 −0.02 −0.11 −0.11
Sexa Lateness 2 215 −0.07 0.16 −0.04 0.16 −0.24 0.17 −0.30 0.23
Absenteeism 6 2093 −0.09 0.06 −0.10 0.06 −0.18 −0.02 −0.16 −0.04
Alcohol abuse 4 4070 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.10
Marital Statusb Theft 3 9175 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.18 0.01 0.21
Absenteeism 2 415 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 −0.10 0.15 −0.11 0.16
Tenure Theft 3 9175 −0.10 0.04 −0.12 0.03 −0.16 −0.08 −0.17 −0.07
Lateness 3 391 −0.13 0.02 −0.13 0.02 −0.15 −0.11 −0.13 −0.13
Abstenteeism 4 1807 −0.05 0.10 −0.13 0.12 −0.28 0.02 −0.36 0.10
Income Absenteeism 3 878 −0.08 0.07 −0.14 0.05 −0.21 −0.08 −0.14 −0.14
Educational Level Lateness 2 259 −0.02 0.02 −0.01 0.02 −0.04 0.01 −0.01 −0.01
Absenteeism 2 269 −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.01 −0.02 0.00 −0.01 −0.01
V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO

Racec Absenteeism 2 366 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.16 −0.14 0.28 −0.03 0.17

Note: k = number of correlations; n = total sample size for all studies combined; mean r = average uncorrected correlation;
sd = standard deviation of uncorrected correlation; mean ρ = average corrected correlation; sd(ρ) = standard deviation of corrected
(true score) correlation; 80% CV = lower and upper limits of 80% credibility value; and 95% CI = lower and upper limits of 95%
confidence interval (asex: 0 = woman and 1 = man; bmarital status: 0 = unmarried and 1 = married; crace: 0 = non-White and 1 =
White).
85
 86

Table 3
Metaanalytic Results for CPBs Related to Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction Related Symptoms

80% CV 95% CI

Predictor Criterion k n Mean r SD Mean ρ SD (ρ) Lower Upper Lower Upper

Job Satisfaction Theft 3 9175 −0.08 0.01 0.09 0.01 −0.10 −0.08 −0.09 −0.09
Production deviance 3 9175 −0.14 0.02 −0.16 0.02 −0.18 −0.14 −0.16 −0.16
Lateness 4 501 −0.08 0.13 −0.07 0.13 −0.23 −0.10 −0.26 −0.13
Absenteeism 7 1581 −0.11 0.05 −0.13 0.04 −0.19 −0.08 −0.13 −0.13
Alcohol Abuse 2 1417 −0.03 0.04 −0.06 0.04 −0.11 0.00 −0.09 −0.02
Job Dissatisfaction Lateness 3 418 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.09
Related Symptoms Absenteeism 7 3479 −0.04 0.06 −0.03 0.08 −0.13 0.08 −0.20 0.14
Alcohol abuse 3 4799 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.07 −0.08 0.10 −0.13 0.15

Note: k = number of correlations; n = total sample size for all studies combined; mean r = average uncorrected correlation;
sd = standard deviation of uncorrected correlation; mean ρ = average corrected correlation; sd(ρ) = standard deviation of corrected
(true score) correlation; 80% CV = lower and upper limits of 80% credibility value; and 95% CI = lower and upper limits of 95%
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

confidence interval.
 Table 4
Metaanalytic Results for Predictors of Absenteeism

80% CV 95% CI

Predictor k n Mean r SD Mean ρ SD (ρ) Lower Upper Lower Upper

Job Insecurity 2 1874 0.011 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.04
Perceived Absence Norm 2 392 0.17 0.10 0.26 0.10 0.13 0.38 0.03 0.48
4 Day Workweek 2 1083 0.26 0.34 0.33 0.34 −0.10 0.77 −0.55 1.00
Shift Workd 3 1324 −0.14 0.29 0.01 0.19 −0.24 0.25 −0.36 0.37
Ability to be on time 5 2522 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.14
Age 6 1221 −0.11 0.08 −0.11 0.07 −0.20 −0.02 −0.11 −0.11
Sexa 6 2093 −0.09 0.06 −0.10 0.06 −0.18 −0.02 −0.16 −0.04
Marital statusb 2 415 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 −0.10 0.15 −0.11 0.16
Tenure 4 1807 −0.05 0.10 −0.13 0.12 −0.28 0.02 −0.36 0.10
Income 3 878 −0.08 0.07 −0.14 0.05 −0.21 −0.08 −0.14 −0.14
Educational level 2 269 −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.01 −0.02 0.00 −0.01 −0.01
Racec 2 366 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.16 −0.14 0.28 −0.03 0.17
Job satisfaction 7 1581 −0.11 0.05 −0.13 0.04 −0.19 −0.08 −0.13 −0.13
Job dissatisfaction related symptoms 7 3479 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.14
V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO

−0.04 −0.03 −0.13 −0.20

Note: k = number of correlations; n = total sample size for all studies combined; mean r = average uncorrected correlation; sd = standard
deviation of uncorrected correlation; mean ρ = average corrected correlation; sd(ρ) = standard deviation of corrected (true score) correlation;
80% CV = lower and upper limits of 80% credibility value; and 95% CI = lower and upper limits of 95% confidence interval (asex: 0 = woman
and 1 = man; bmarital status: 0 = unmarried and 1 = married; crace: 0 = non-White and 1 = White; dshift work: 0 = nonshift and 1 = shift).
87
 88

Table 5
Other Metaanalytic Results

80% CV 95% CI

Predictor Criterion k N Mean r SD Mean ρ SD (ρ) Lower Upper Lower Upper

Job Insecurity Alcohol Abuse 2 2479 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06
Ability to be on time Lateness 2 308 −0.02 0.09 −0.04 0.09 −0.15 0.08 −0.10 0.03
Age Theft, production deviance, 18 23388 −0.17 0.10 −0.25 0.10 −0.38 −0.12 −0.19 −0.16
lateness, absenteeism,
alcohol abuse, and
CPB index

Note: k = number of correlations; n = total sample size for all studies combined; mean r = average uncorrected correlation; sd =
standard deviation of uncorrected correlation; mean ρ = average corrected correlation; sd(ρ) = standard deviation of corrected (true score)
correlation; 80% CV = lower and upper limits of 80% credibility value; and 95% CI = lower and upper limits of 95% confidence interval.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 89

tion (sd ρ), the 80% credibility value (CV), and the 95% confidence inter-
val (CI). The population distribution estimates are for distributions cor-
rected for both predictor and criterion unreliability. Since predictor and
criterion reliabilities were not provided in some studies, and for some
predictors like gender and age, had no measurement errors, these vari-
ables were assumed to have perfect reliabilities (i.e., 1). In other words,
for these particular studies, correlations had not been corrected for arti-
facts. The results from analyses with corrections for unreliability are the
most accurate estimates of the population distribution. Therefore, our
discussion focuses on the results that include reliability corrections.
Metaanalysis result is interpreted with a rather conservative crite-
rion, that is, predictability is recognized if and only if both the 95% confi-
dence interval (CI) and the 80% credibility value (CV) exclude zero.
Given that the absolute values of mean true correlation obtained ranged
from .01 to .33, a correlation is considered to be weak if its absolute value
is smaller than .20. The magnitude of a correlation that is larger than
or equal to .20 is regarded as moderate.

Predicting CPB with Demographics Characteristics

We analyzed how various demographic characteristics like age, sex,
tenure, marital status, race, income, and educational level could predict
different CPBs such as theft, production deviance, absenteeism, lateness,
and alcohol abuse.
Effects of Age on Theft, Production Deviance, Lateness, and Absenteeism.
The estimated population value of the correlation between age and theft
was −.21 (k = 3, n = 9175) when the correlations were corrected for unre-
liability in predictor and criterion measures. For this estimate, the 95%
CI excluded zero, indicating that we can be confident that the average
true correlation is nonzero and relatively invariable (−.28 to −.15). The
80% CV, also excluded zero, indicates that more than 80% of the individ-
ual corrected true score correlations are smaller than zero (−.26 to −.17).
Thus, these results suggest that the mean true correlation between age
and theft is moderate in magnitude (−.21) and distinguishable from zero.
In summary, there was a moderate age effect that younger employees
engage in more theft.
Production deviance, lateness, and absenteeism also decreased with
age. The corrected correlations were −.33 (k = 3, n = 9175), −.21 (k = 3,
n = 391), −.11 (k = 6, n = 1221), respectively. All three sets of the 95% CI
and the 80% CV excluded zero. In summary, there was a moderate age
effect that younger employees engage in more production deviance, and
were more likely to be late for work. However, there was only a weak
90 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

age effect that younger employees were more likely to be absent from
work.

Effects of Sex on Lateness, Absenteeism, and Alcohol Abuse. The corrected

weighted mean correlation of sex and lateness was −.04 (k = 2, n = 215).
Since both the 95% CI (−.30 to .23) and the 80% CV (−.24 to .17) included
zero, the association between sex and lateness was negligible. However,
we found a weak sex effect that women were more likely than men to be
absent from work, whereas men engaged in alcohol abuse more often
than women—the corrected weighted mean correlations were −.10 (k =
6, n = 2093), and .10 (k = 4, n = 4070), respectively, and both sets of the
95% CI and the 80% CV excluded zero.

Effects of Marital Status on Theft and Absenteeism. The corrected mean

correlation between marital status and theft was .11 (k = 3, n = 9175),
and both the 95% CI and 80% CV excluded zero. In summary, there was
a weak marital status effect that married employees engaged in theft
more often than unmarried employees. However, we found no relation
between marital status and absenteeism—the corrected correlation was
.02 (k = 2, n = 415) and both the 95% CI and 80% CV included zero.

Effects of Tenure on Theft, Lateness, and Absenteeism. There was a weak

tenure effect that employees with a shorter tenure were more likely to
engage in more thefts and to come to work late. The corrected correla-
tions were −.12 (k = 3, n = 9175), and −.13 (k = 3, n = 391), respectively,
and both sets of the 95% CI and 80% CV excluded zero. However, there
was no association between tenure and absenteeism—the corrected cor-
relation was −.13 (k = 4, n = 1807) while both 95% CI and 80% CV in-
cluded zero.

Effects of Educational Level on Lateness and Absenteeism. Since the cor-

rected correlations were −.01 (k = 2, n = 259) and −.01 (k = 2, n = 269),
and not all of the 95% CI nor the 80% CV excluded zero, we found negli-
gible effects of educational level on lateness and absenteeism.

Effect of Race on Absenteeism. The correlation corrected for unreliabili-

ties was .07 (k = 2, n = 366) and both the 95% CI and 80% CV included
zero. There was a negligible association between race and absenteeism.

Predicting CPB with Job Satisfaction and Other Related Variables

A series of metaanalyses were conducted to examine the general be-
lief that dissatisfied employees engage in more CPBs. We subdivided the
analyses into two parts: (a) studies that used job satisfaction as predic-
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 91

tors, and (b) those that used job dissatisfaction related symptoms, like
burnout and stress as predictors of CPBs.
Effects of Job Satisfaction on Theft, Production Deviance, Lateness, Ab-
senteeism, and Alcohol Abuse. There was a weak job satisfaction effect
that dissatisfied employees were more likely to steal, to engage in pro-
duction deviance, and to be absent from work. The respective corrected
correlations were −.09 (k = 3, n = 9175), −.16 (k = 3, n = 9175), and −.13
(k = 7, n = 1581), and all three sets of the 95% CI and 80% CV excluded
zero. However, we found negligible effects of job satisfaction on lateness
and alcohol abuse. The respective corrected correlations were −.07 (k =
4, n = 501) and −.06 (k = 2, n = 1417), and not all of the 95% CI and 80%
CV excluded zero.
Effects of Job Dissatisfaction Related Symptoms on Lateness, Absentee-
ism, and Alcohol Abuse. We found a weak effect that employees who
experienced more job dissatisfaction related symptoms like job stress
and work overload were more lately to come to work late—the corrected
correlation was .09 (k = 3, n = 418), and both the 95% CI and 80% CV
excluded zero. However, job dissatisfaction related symptoms had negli-
gible impacts on absenteeism and alcohol abuse—the respective cor-
rected correlations were −.03 (k = 7, n = 3479) and .01 (k = 3, n = 4799),
while not all of the 95% CI and 80% CV excluded zero.

Predicting Absenteeism
Absenteeism is the most frequently studied CPB. In addition to de-
mographics characteristics and job satisfaction that had been reviewed
above, we also analyzed how job insecurity, perceived absence norm,
ability to come on time, four-day work week, and shift work affect absen-
teeism. In summary, we found a moderate norm effect that employees
who perceived a strong absence norm were more likely to be absent from
work (ρ = .26, k = 2, n = 392). Interestingly, there was also a weak per-
ceived ability effect that employees who had a high perceived ability to
be on time were more likely to be absent from work (ρ = .08, k = 5, n =
2522). However, the effects of job insecurity, 4-day work week, and shift
work on absenteeism were negligible—the respective corrected correla-
tions were .03, .33, and .01, but not all of the 95% CI and 80% CV ex-
cluded zero.

Other Metaanalytic Results

Three sets of metaanalyses did not fall into the categories reviewed
above and were presented here. These include the relations between (a)
92 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

job insecurity and alcohol abuse, (b) ability to be on time and lateness,
and (c) age and CPBs in general.
Job Insecurity and Alcohol Abuse. The corrected correlation was .06 (k =
2, n = 2479). Both the 95% CI and the 80% CV excluded zero. In sum-
mary, there was a weak job insecurity effect that employees who were
insecure about their jobs were more likely to abuse alcohol.
Ability to Be on Time and Lateness. The corrected correlation calculated
was −.04 (k = 2, n = 308). Both the 95% CI and the 80% CV included
zero. Therefore, there was no relation between ability to be on time and
lateness.
Age and CPB in General. Age is the most frequently studied predictor.
We pooled together the validity coefficients in the 18 different studies that
used age to predict theft, production deviance, alcohol abuse, absenteeism,
lateness, and CPB index in order to examine the effect of age on CPB in
general. The corrected correlation was −.25 (k = 18, n = 23388). Both the
95% CI and the 80% CV excluded zero. In summary, there was a moderate
age effect that younger employees engaged in more CPB in general.

DISCUSSION

The discussion is organized to address three categories of analyses

examining (a) CPBs which are affected by demographic variables; (b)
CPBs associated with job satisfaction; and (c) predictors correlated with
absenteeism.

Demographics and CPBs

Age. Analyses focusing on demographic variables show that age, sex, and
marital status are all valid predictors of different CPBs. In particular,
age seems to be the most powerful predictor. As people got older, they
engaged in less theft, production deviance, lateness, and absenteeism
(ρ’s = −.21, −.33, −.21, and −.11 respectively). Moreover, older people en-
gaged in fewer CPBs in general—its correlation across different CPBs
including theft, production deviance, lateness, absenteeism, alcohol
abuse, and CPB index was strong (ρ = −.25). In other words, older em-
ployees engaged in less organizational misbehavior. However, one should
be careful in interpreting these results because no causal relation could
be established. In fact, other uncontrolled extraneous variables like ten-
ure, status, income levels, could be affecting the age-CPB relation.
Gender. On one hand, consistent with past research findings, men en-
gaged in alcohol abuse more often than women do (ρ = .10). On the other
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 93

hand, women were more likely than men to be absent from work (ρ =
−.10). This can be attributed to the fact that women are more likely to
take up the role of caregivers in families and are responsible for child-
care and elderly care. Such responsibilities tax their ability to go to work.
Nevertheless, employers should not, in any case, discriminate against
female or married employees. The correlation results point to general
group differences (between men and women, and between married and
singled-persons) which do not apply to any specific individuals. Apart
from eliminating potential adverse effect of employment discrimination,
employers should actively seek to provide assistance to their employees
who are in need. For instance, organizations could offer childcare ser-
vices to alleviate over-burdening of female employees in order to help
them reduce absenteeism and being late for work.

Job Satisfaction and CPB

Another factor which has considerable predictive power on CPB is
job satisfaction. Consistent with our qualitative review, people who were
less satisfied with their job engaged in more CPB. Specifically, satisfied
employees were less likely to steal, engaged in production deviance, and
be absent from work (ρ’s = −.09, −.16, & −.13, respectively). Dissatisfied
employees or those who hold negative attitude towards their work, prob-
ably engage in CPB in order to harm their company and to release their
dissatisfaction. An alternative explanation is that those who perform
CPB are more likely to be penalized by their organization. As a result,
they become less satisfied with their job.

Predictors of Absenteeism
Absenteeism is the most widely explored CPB among past studies.
It is found that absenteeism decreased with age (ρ = −.11) and was more
prevalent for women than men (ρ = −.10). People who were absent more
also had lower income (ρ = −.14), had lower job satisfaction (ρ = −.13),
perceived a stronger absence norm (ρ = .26) as well as a stronger ability
to be on time (ρ = .08).

Summary and Implications for Future Research

The correlations among the antecedents and CPBs ranged from
weak to moderate (ρ = .01 to .33). The strength of these correlations were
comparable to the predictive validity of integrity tests on external mea-
sures of actual theft (ρ = .16) and other CPBs (excluding theft) in general
(ρ = .09). These correlations were also comparable to the predictive valid-
ity of personality-based integrity tests on CPBs on the whole (ρ = .26,
94 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993). Our results suggest that the pre-
dictive power of organizational factors, personal factors, and demograph-
ical variables are similar to that of integrity tests. In addition to using a
careful selection procedure and integrity tests to identify and thus elimi-
nate counterproductive employees from the workplace, improving situa-
tional factors like enhancing job satisfaction is another venue to reduce
CPB. Future study should also consider how the interaction between in-
dividual differences and situational factors affect CPB.

REFERENCES

The 40 studies used in the metaanalyses were marked with an “*”.

*Adler, S., & Golan, J. (1981). Lateness as a withdrawal behavior. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 66(5), 544–554.
Altheide, D. L., Adler, P. A., Alder, P., & Altheide, D. A. (1978). The social meanings of
employee theft. In J. M. Johnson & J. D. Douglas (Eds.), Crime at the top: Deviance in
business and the professions. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.
*Ames, G., & Janes, C. R. (1987). Heavy and Problem Drinking in an American blue collar
population. Social Science and Medicine, 25(8), 949–960.
Anderson, L. S., Chiricos, T. G., & Waldo, G. P. (1977). Formal and informal sanctions: A
comparison of deterrent effects.Social Problems, 25, 103–114.
Applebaum, H. (1984). Work in market and industrial societies (Ed.) Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Astors, S. D. (1972). Twenty steps to preventing theft in business. Management Review,
61(3), 34–35.
*Bardsley, J. J., & Rhodes, S. R. (1996). Using the Steers-Rhodes (1984) framework to
identify correlates of employee lateness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(3),
351–365.
Beehr, T. A. (1991). Stress in the workplace: An overview. In J. W. Jones, B. D. Steffy, &
D. W. Bray (Eds.), Applying psychology in business: The handbook for managers and
human resource professionals (pp. 709–714). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. A. (1978). A note on the structure of employee withdrawal.
Organizational behavior and human performance, 21, 73–79.
Bennett, R. J. (1998). Perceived Powerlessness as a Cause of Employee Deviance. In R. W.
Griffin, K. A. O’Leary & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations:
Violent and deviant behavior. Monographs in organizational Behavior and Industrial
Relations (volume 23, part A, pp. 221–239). Stanford, Conn. and London: JAI Press.
*Boudreau, C. A., Christian, W. P., & Thibadeau, S. F. (1993). Reducing absenteeism in
a human service setting: A low cost alternative. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 13(2), 37–50.
Boye, M. W., & Jones, W. J. (1997). Organizational culture and employee counterproductiv-
ity. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations
(pp.172–183). London: Sage.
Brooke, P, P. (1986). Beyond the Steers and Rhodes model of employee attendance. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 11, 345–361.
*Burkett, S. R. (1977). Religion, Parental influence, and adolescent alcohol and marijuana
use. Journal of Drug Issues, 7, 263–273.
Cahalan, D. (1970). Problem drinkers: A National Survey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,
Pubs.
Cahalan, D., & Room, R. (1974). Problm drinking among American men. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California, School of Public Health.
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 95

Clegg, C. W. (1983). The psychology of employee lateness, absence and turnover: A method-
ological critique and an empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 88–101.
*Cosper, R. (1979). Drinking as conformity: A critique of sociological literature on occupa-
tional differences in drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40, 868–891.
Crino, M. D. (1994). Employee sabotage: A random or preventable phenomenon? Journal
of Managerial Issues, 6(3), 311–330.
*Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee atten-
dance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 370–387.
*Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. M. (1992). The impact of employee initiated transfer on absen-
teeism: A four-year cohort assessment. Human Relations, 45, 291–304.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1993). Turnover, transfer, absenteeism: An interdependent
perspective. Journal of Management, 19, 193–219.
Dalton, D. R., & Wimbush, J. C. (1998). Absence Does Not Make the Heart Grow Fonder.
In R. W. Griffin, A. Oleary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in
organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior. Monographs in Organizational Be-
havior and Industrial Relations (pp. 127–146). Stamford, CT and London: JAI Press.
Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage. New York: John Wiley.
Dawis, R., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individ-
ual differences model and its applications. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Drago, R., & Wooden, M. (1992). The determinants of labor absence: Economic factors and
workgroup norms across countries. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 764–
778.
Dunn, L. F. (1990). An empirical study of labor-market equilibrium under working hour
constraints. Review of Economic Statistics, 72, 250–258.
Fitzgibbons, D., & Moch, M. D. (1980). Employee absenteeism: A multivariate analysis
with replication. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 349–372.
Ferguson, L. W. (1974). Public-service drug-use scales: Rationale, derivation, and norms.
Psychological Reports, 34(3, 1), 871–876.
Galbraith, J. R. (1987). Organization design. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organiza-
tional behavior (pp. 343–357). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: JAI Press.
Gamst, F. C. (1980). The hoghead: An industrial ethnology of the locomotive engineer. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
*Garrison, K. R., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Attitudinal and biographical predictors of
incidental absenteeismJournal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 221–230.
*Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test
of a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469–485.
Gehlmann, S. C. (1992). Individual differences in employee stress as related to office en-
vironment and individual personality factors. In J. C. Quick, L. R. Murphy, & J. J.
Hurrell (Eds.), Stress and well-being at work: assessments and interventions for occu-
pational mental health (pp. 225–238). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
ciation.
*Geurts, S. A., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1994). Health complaints, social compari-
sons, and absenteeism. Work and Stress, 8(3), 220–234.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. London:
Sage.
Giese, W. J., & Ruter, H. W. (1949). An objective Analysis of Morale. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 33, 421–427.
*Goodale, J. G., & Aagaard, A. K. (1975). Factors relating to varying reactions to the 4-
Day Work Week. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 33–38.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Wildcat strike: A study in worker-management relationships. New
York: Harper & Row.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden
cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.
*Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal
moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.
Greenberg, J. (1997). A Social Influence Model of Employee Theft: Beyond the Fraud Trian-
96 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

gle. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in

organizations, (Volume 6, pp. 39–51). Greenwich, CT, and London: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1998). The cognitive geometry of employee theft: Negotiating “the line” be-
tween taking and stealing. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.),
Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 147–193).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why Do Workers Bite the Hands That Feed Them?
Employee Theft as a Social Exchange Process. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 111–156). Greenwich, CT, and Lon-
don: JAI Press.
*Gupta, N. & Jenkins, D. G. (1983). Tardiness as a manifestation of employee withdrawal.
Journal of Business Research, 11(1), 61–75.
Haccoun, R. R., & Desgent, C. (1993). Perceived reasons and consequences of work absence:
A survey of French-speaking employees in Quebec. International Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 28(1), 97–117.
Hair, J. F., Bush, R. F., & Busch, P. (1976). Employee theft: Views from two sides. Business
Horizons, 19, 25–29.
*Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An
examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 37(1), 60–78.
Harper, D. (1990). Spotlight abuse—Save profits. Industrial Distribution, 79, 47–51.
Harrison, D. A., & Shaffer, M. A. (1994). Comparative examinations of self-reports and
perceived absenteeism norms: Wading through Lake Wobegon. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 79, 240–251.
Hawkins, R. (1984). Employee theft in the restaurant trade: Forms of ripping off by waiters
at work. Deviant Behavior, 5, 47–69.
Herrington, S., Levy, M. F., & Reichmann, W. (1980). Career development in alcoholics
and nonalcoholics. In L. Brill & C. Winick (Eds.), Yearbook of drug and substance
abuse (pp. 204–212). New York: Human Science Press.
*Hingson, R., Mangione, T., & Barrett, J. (1981). Job characteristics and drinking practices
in the Boston metropolitan area. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 42(9), 725–738.
Hitz, D. (1973). Drunken Sailors and others: Drinking problems in specific occupations.
Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 34(2), 496–505.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of employee
deviance. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333–343.
*Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983a). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty,
perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62(2), 398–418.
*Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983b). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Horning, D. N. M. (1970). Blue collar theft: Conceptions of property, attitudes toward pil-
fering, and work group norms in a modern industrial plant. In E. O. Smigel & H. L
Ross (Eds.), Crimes against bureaucracy (pp. 46–64). New York: Van Nostrand Rein-
hold.
*Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organi-
zational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Management, 26,
215–232.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis. Cumulating research
findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jensen, G. F., Erickson, M. L., & Gibbs, J. P. (1978). Perceived risk of punishment and
self-reported delinquency. Social Forces, 57, 57–78.
Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported absence
data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4): 574–591.
*Jones, J. W. (1980a). Attitudinal correlates of employees’ deviance: theft, alcohol use, and
nonprescribed drug use. Psychological Reports, 47, 71–77.
Jones, J. W. (1980b). Correlates of Police Misconduct, violence and alcohol use on the job.
Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the Society of Police and Criminal
Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
*Jones, J. W. (1981a). Dishonesty, burnout, and unauthorized work break extensions. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(3), 406–409.
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 97

Jones, J. W. (1981b). Dishonesty, staff burnout, and employee theft. Paper presented at the
89th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Division of Industrial
Psychology, Los Angeles.
*Jones, J. W., & Boye, M. W. (1994). Job stress and predisposition to steal, and employee
theft. American Journal of Health Promotion, 8(5), 331–333.
Jones, J. W., & Terris, W. (1983). Personality correlates of theft and drug abuse among job
applicants. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the 16 PF Test, 3,
85–94.
Jones, W. J., & Boye, M. W. (1992). Job Stress and employee counterproductivity. In J. C.
Quick, L. R. Murphy, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Stress & well-being at work: Assessments
and interventions for occupational mental health (pp. 239–251). Washington, DC, US:
American Psychological Association.
*Knupfer, G., & Room, R. (1967). Drinking patterns and attitudes of Irish, Jewish, and
white protestant American men. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 28(4), 676–
699.
Lavelli, M. (1986). Psychological predictors of employee counterproductivity. Master’s the-
sis, DePaul University, Chicago.
Leigh, J. P. (1985). The effects of unemployment and the business cycle on absenteeism.
Journal of Economics and Business, 37, 159–170.
Lipman, M., & McGraw, W. R. (1988). Employee theft: a $40 billion industry. In I. A.
Lipman (Ed.), The private security industry: issues and trends. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 498:9–118.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
London House & Food Marketing Institute. (1991). Second annual report on employee theft
in the supermarket industry: 1990 summary of findings. Rosemont, IL: London House.
London House & Food Marketing Institute. (1992). Third annual report on employee theft
in the supermarket industry: 1991 findings. Rosemont, IL: London House.
London House & Food Marketing Institute. (1993). Fourth annual report on employee theft
in the supermarket industry. Rosemont, IL: London House.
London House & Food Marketing Institute. (1995). Fifth annual report of supermarket
employee behavior. Rosemont, IL: London House.
London House & National Food Services Security Council. (1996). First annual report on
restaurant employee behavior. Rosemont, IL: London House.
Manello, T. A., & Seaman, F. J. (1979). Prevalence, costs and handling of drinking problems
on seven railroads DOT-TSC-1375. Washington, DC.
*Mangione, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and
drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 114–116.
*Margolis, B. L., Kroes, W. H., & Quinn, R. P. (1974). Job stress: An unlisted occupational
hazard. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 16, 659–661.
*Markham, S. E., & McKee, G. H. (1991). Declining organizational size and increasing
unemployment rates: Predicting employee absenteeism from within- and between-
plant perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 952–965.
*Markham, S. E., & McKee, G. H. (1995). Group absence behavior and standards: A multi-
level analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1174–1190.
Mars, G. (1974). Dock pilferage: A case study in occupational theft. In P. Rock & M. McIn-
tosh (Eds.), Deviance and social control (pp. 209–228). London: Tavistock.
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.
*Mathieu, J. E., & Kohler, S. S. (1990). A cross-level examination of group absence influ-
ences on individual absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 217–220.
Matt, G. E., & Cook, T. D. (1994). Threats to the validity of research syntheses. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Fenton, J. B. (1995). Absenteeism and performance as
predictors of voluntary turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 217–220.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
98 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351–1395). New York:

Wiley.
*McKee, G. H., Markham, S. E., & Scott, K. D. (1992). Job stress and employee withdrawal
form work. In J. C. Quick, L. R. Murphy, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Stress & well-being
at work: Assessments and interventions for occupational mental health (pp. 153–163).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Merton, R. T. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–
682.
Motley, R. E. (1926). Lateness of Plant Employees: A Study of Causes and Cures. Journal
of personality Research, 5, 1–3.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mueser, R. E. (1953). The weather and other factors influencing employee punctuality.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 329–337.
*Mulford, H. A. (1964). Drinking and deviant drinking. Quarterly Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 25, 634–650.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1979). Drug use in industry, DHEW Publication (ADM
79–811). Washington, DC: U. S. Gov. Printing office.
*Naylor, J. C., & Vincent, N. L. (1959). Predicting female absenteeism. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 12, 81–84.
Nigro, L.G., Waugh, W. I. (1996). Violence in the American workplace: Challenges to the
American employer. Public Administration Review, 46, 326–333.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories
of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679–704.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963–974.
Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influences on individual behavior
and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 56, 56–90.
Paajanen, G. E., Hansen, T. L., & McLellan, R. A. (1993). PDI Employment Inventory and
PDI Customer Service Inventory Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions, Inc.
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1984). Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational
settings: Toward the development of a structural model. Academy of Management
Journal, 27, 330–350.
Parilla, P. F., Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1988). Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 56, 56–90.
*Parker, D. A. (1979). Status inconsistency and drinking behavior. Pacific Sociological Re-
view, 22, 77–95.
*Parker, D. A., & Brody, J. A. (1982). Risk factors for alcoholism and alcohol problems
among employed women and men. In Occupational alcoholism: A review of research
issues. Rockville, MD: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
*Pearlin, L. I., & Radabaugh, C. W. (1976). Economic strains and the coping function of
alcohol. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 652–663.
Pilcher, W. W. (1972). The Portland longshoremen: A dispersed urban community. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Plant, M. A. (1978). Occupation and alcoholism: Cause or effect? A controlled study of re-
cruits to drink trade. International journal of the addictions, 13(4), 605–626.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in em-
ployee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 115–176.
Prescott, J. W. (1980). Somatosensory affectional deprivation (SAD) theory of drug and
alcohol use. In D. J. Lettieri, M. Sayers, & H. W. Pearson (Eds.), Theories of Drug
Abuse: Selected Contemporary Perspectives. NIDA Reseaerch Monograph No. 30,
DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 80-967 (pp. 286–296). Washington: Government Print-
ing Office.
*Price, J. L. (1998). Estimation of Causal Model of Absenteeism. Indian Journal of Labour
Economics, 41(2), 227–246.
 V. C. S. LAU, W. T. AU, AND J. M. C. HO 99

Revans, R. W. (1959). Human Relations, Management, and Size. In E. M. High-Jones (Ed.),

Human Relations and Modern Management. Quadrangle, Chicago.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Roman, P. M. (1981). Job characteristics and the identification of deviant drinking. Journal
of Drug Issues, 11, 357–364.
Ross, R. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). Intervention in occupational stress. London: Sage.
Runcie, J. F. (1980). By day I make the cars. Harvard Business Review, 58, 106–115.
Salaman, G. Community and occupations: An exploration of work/leisure relationships.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125.
Schwarzer, R. (1991). Meta-analysis programs [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved
from http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/gesu_engl/meta_e.htm
*Scott, K. D., & McClellan, E. L. (1990). Gender differences in absenteeism. Public Person-
nel Management, 19, 229–253.
*Seeman, M., & Anderson, C.S. (1983). Alienation and alcohol: The role of work, mastery,
and community in drinking behavior. American Sociological Review, 48, 60–77.
*Smart, R. G. (1979). Drinking problems among employed, unemployed and shift workers.
Journal of Occupational Medicine, 21, 731–736.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in
work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
*Steele, P. D., & Hubbard, R. L. (1985). Management styles, perceptions of substance
abuse, and employee assistance programs in work organizations. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 21(3), 271–286.
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1991). Motivation and work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, L., & Walton, P. (1971). Industrial sabotage: motives and meanings. In S. Cohen
(Ed.), Images of Deviance. New Work: Penguin Books.
Terris W. & Jones, J. W. (1982). Psychological factors related to employees’ theft in the
convenience stores industry. Psychological Reports, 51, 1219–1238.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interac-
tionist model. Academy of management review, 11, 601–617.
Trice, H. M. (1965a). Alcoholic employees: A comparison of psychotic, neurotic, and “nor-
mal” personnel. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 7(3), 94–99.
Trice, H. M. (1965b). Reactions of supervisors to emotionally disturbed employees: A study
of deviation in a work environment. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 7(5), 177–188.
Trice, H. M., & Roman, P. M. (1971). Occupational risk factors in mental health. In J.
Leedy (Ed.), Compensation in Psychiatric Disability and Rehabilitation (pp. 145–205).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Urban, M. L. (1972) Drugs in industry. In National Commission on Marijuana and Drug
Buase, Drug in America, 1. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
VandenHeuvel, A., & Wooden, M. (1995). Do explanations of absenteeism differ for men
and women? Human Relations, 48, 1309–1329.
Walker, S., Yesavage, J. A., & Tinklenberg, J. R. (1981). Acute phencyclidine (PCP) intoxi-
cation: Quantitative urine levels and clinical management. American Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 138(5), 674–675.
Widick, B. J. (1976). Auto Work and its Discontents (Ed.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
Wilson, N., & Peel, N. J. (1991). The impact on absenteeism and quits of profit-sharing
and other forms of employee participation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44,
454–468.
*Youngblood, S. A. (1984). Work, nonwork, and withdrawal. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(1), 106–117.
Zeitlin, L. R. (1971). A little larceny can do a lot for employee morale. Psychology Today,
22, 24, 26, 64.