A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational CitizenshipBehavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior

Reeshad S. DalalPurdue University

Job performance is increasingly being seen to encompass constructs such as organizational citizenshipbehavior (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). Therelationship 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 ofrelationships 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 isproposed 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, deviantbehavior, 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 whatBorman and Motowidlo (1997) call task performance—that is,“the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activitiesthat 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 becausethey “shape the organizational, social, and psychological contextthat 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 threebroad performance domains: task performance, organizational cit-

izenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior(CWB).

There has been much interest in the relationship between thelatter 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 strongOCB–CWB relationships, whereas others (e.g., Dunlop & Lee,2004; Kelloway et al., 2002; Sackett et al., 2005) have foundweaker relationships.

The present research uses meta-analysis to (a) estimate thestrength of the relationship between OCB and CWB (at both theglobal and facet levels), (b) estimate these constructs’ relationshipswith a common set of antecedents, and (c) determine whether themagnitude of the OCB–CWB relationship is moderated by othervariables. Several lines of theory and empirical research are pre-sented, some of which argue for a strong negative OCB–CWBrelationship 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 originallydefined as intentional employee behavior that is discretionary andtypically not recognized or rewarded but that nonetheless improvesthe functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988; Schnake, 1991).More recently, however, it has been acknowledged that OCB maybe recognized and rewarded during performance appraisals (Or-gan, 1997). CWB, on the other hand, is defined as intentionalemployee behavior that is harmful to the legitimate interests of an

This research was funded by the Center for Human Resources Manage-ment, University of Illinois; the Seymour Sudman Dissertation Award fromthe Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois; and the FieldResearch Fund of the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Division, Uni-versity of Illinois.

This article is based on a portion of Reeshad S. Dalal’s doctoraldissertation at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Some of theanalyses were also presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, April 2004.

I thank Tatana Olson for helping to code the primary studies. CharlesHulin and Carra Sims very kindly commented on drafts of this article. I amalso grateful to Marcus Crede, Michael Bashshur, and the many otherresearchers who willingly shared their theses and unpublished data.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to ReeshadS. Dalal, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47097. E-mail: rsdalal@psych.purdue.edu

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association2005, Vol. 90, No. 6, 1241–1255 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241

1241

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 CWBcould be considered opposites in the sense that the former benefitsthe organization, whereas the latter harms it. Similar definitionalnotions of behavior exist in the social–personality psychologydomains. As Batson and Powell (2003) stated, “The word proso-cial does not appear in most dictionaries; it was created by socialscientists 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 thatemployees who typically engage in OCB will tend not to engage inCWB—that is, that there exists a strong negative relationshipbetween OCB and CWB. However, several additional issues needto be considered. Specifically, (a) there are different categories ofOCB and CWB, (b) there are several reasons why an employeemight 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) reportedtwo 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) andpraising the organization to outsiders (OCB-O). Although moreelaborate 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 underliethe more complex models.

On the CWB side, Robinson and Bennett (1995) made a similardistinction between the interpersonally directed and organization-ally directed aspects of what they called workplace deviance.Examples include gossiping about coworkers (CWB-I) and takingoverly long breaks (CWB-O). The interpersonally directed versusorganizationally directed distinction was also observed by Bennettand Robinson (2000) and Gruys and Sackett (2003, Study 2). Incontrast, 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 behaviorthat is directed toward other employees and behavior directedtoward the organization as a whole. Further support for this prop-osition comes from Bennett and Stamper’s (2001) Q-sort andmultidimensional scaling analyses of both positive and negativediscretionary work behaviors. These authors found that OCB andCWB were opposite poles of one dimension; the other dimensionpertained to the target of the behavior.

Bennett and Stamper’s (2001) results suggest that OCB-I andCWB-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 representsbehaviors designed to surpass required levels, whereas CWB-Orepresents employees behaving in ways they should not and/orfailing to meet minimum requirements (Bennett & Robinson,

2002; Kelloway et al., 2002). Heckert and Heckert (2002) arguedfor a continuum, consisting of conforming acts in the middle, actsthat violate norms (CWB-O) on one end, and acts that surpassnormative expectations (OCB-O) on the other (see also Jermier etal., 1994). On the basis of construct definitions, therefore, OCB-Oand CWB-O should be strongly negatively related.

Although one might expect strong relationships between OCB-Iand CWB-I and between OCB-O and CWB-O, it may not be asmeaningful to examine the relationship between OCB-I andCWB-O or between OCB-O and CWB-I. In addition to comparingOCB and CWB, these latter relationships involve behaviors di-rected toward different targets. As an example, it is easier tointerpret the relationship between behaviors designed to help oth-ers and those designed to harm others than it is to interpret therelationship between behaviors designed to help others and thosedesigned to flout organizational regulations concerning work re-quirements. A finer grained analysis is provided by examiningOCB and CWB directed toward the same target.

However, the precise importance of the targets of behavior hasnot yet been conclusively established. Although, as mentionedpreviously, both the OCB and CWB literatures make the distinc-tion between interpersonally directed and organizationally directedbehavior, there is also some evidence that global OCB and CWBconstructs 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 globaldimension of OCB into more specific dimensions. On the CWBside, Lee and Allen (2002) found that CWB-I and CWB-O factorscould not be empirically distinguished. Further, as Sackett (2002)stated, “It appears reasonable to think in terms of an overallcounterproductivity construct” (p. 8). Marcus, Schuler, Quell, andHumpfner (2002) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) have also de-scribed a global CWB factor.

It may well be that a hierarchical structure, with interpersonaland organizational behaviors both loading on a general factor, bestdescribes 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 andfacet levels. Therefore, the following research questions wereinvestigated:

Research Question 1: What is the magnitude of the relationshipbetween OCB and CWB?

Research Question 2: What is the magnitude of the relationshipbetween OCB and CWB directed toward the same target? Moreover,is this relationship substantially stronger than the one between OCBand CWB directed toward different targets?

Antecedents

The relationship between OCB and CWB can also be inferredby these constructs’ relationships with external variables. If OCBand CWB are very strongly related to each other, their relation-ships with antecedents should be of similar magnitude or, failingthat, should at least exhibit similar patterns (Hunter & Gerbing,1982).

Of particular interest is the fact that the sets of antecedentsidentified by the OCB and CWB literatures are very similar. Theantecedents discussed next include those mentioned as shared

1242 DALAL

antecedents by Bennett and Stamper (2001)—that is, job satisfac-tion, perceptions of organizational justice, positive affectivity, andnegative affectivity. In addition, conscientiousness and organiza-tional commitment are included because they too have featuredfairly prominently in both OCB and CWB literatures.

Job Attitudes and Organizational Justice

Social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the theory ofpsychological contracts (e.g., Rousseau, 1989), and the norm ofreciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) have been used as explanatory mech-anisms for the relationship between OCB and CWB on the onehand 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 toworkplace processes, outcomes, and interactions that are fair bybehaving 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 retaliateagainst 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 reciprocityperspectives are reflected in much of the literature examining therelationship between antecedents and OCB or CWB. In theirchapter on CWB, Sackett and DeVore (2001) wrote, “There is acertain poetry in behaving badly in response to some perceivedinjustice” (p. 160). Hollinger (1986) discussed a social bondingmodel and showed that organizational commitment (or lackthereof) predicted amount of CWB. With regard to job satisfaction,Hanisch and Hulin (1990) defined employee withdrawal (workwithdrawal can be conceptualized as a subset of CWB-O) as a “setof behaviors dissatisfied individuals enact to avoid the work situ-ation” (p. 63).

Likewise, Organ’s (1977) conceptualization of OCB was largelyshaped 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 employeejob satisfaction might indeed predict employee actions that wereexcluded 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 predictorof OCB (Becker, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; although seeWilliams & Anderson, 1991). Finally, Greenberg (1993) has statedthat the relationship between organizational justice and OCB haspreoccupied philosophers for centuries.

To summarize, then, one should expect OCB and CWB to berelated, 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 thatthe (in)justice–CWB relationship may be much stronger than thejustice–OCB relationship. That is, perceived injustice will defi-nitely prompt CWB; in contrast, perceptions of high levels ofjustice 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.

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 theliterature on the prediction of military performance” (p. 156),concluded that the strongest relationships between personality andCWB were exhibited by conscientiousness or its facets. Of partic-ular interest is the fact that the meta-analytic findings from Organand Ryan (1995) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) suggest that theconscientiousness–OCB and conscientiousness–CWB relation-ships do not differ greatly in magnitude (although see LePine et al.,2002). One would accordingly expect that conscientious peoplewill typically engage in OCB, whereas unconscientious people willtypically engage in CWB.

Positive and Negative Affect

Spector and Fox (2002) argued that affect is associated withgeneral 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 Foxasserted that the behavior may take the form of either constructiveaction (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 designedto ameliorate negative affect (NA; Spector & Fox, 2002), whereasOCB is designed to maintain positive affect (PA; Carlson et al.,1988; George & Brief, 1992).

In general, Spector and Fox (2002) predicted strong PA–OCBand NA–CWB relationships. In fact, their model posits PA as theproximal cause of OCB and NA as the proximal cause of CWB.Extrapolating from the model, one could argue that people scoringhigh on PA would typically engage in OCB but that those scoringlow on PA may or may not engage in CWB. Similarly, it could beargued that those scoring high on NA would typically engage inCWB but that those scoring low on NA may or may not engage inOCB. However, Spector and Fox did not completely discount thepossibility of nontrivial PA–CWB and NA–OCB relationships.

Conclusion

Thus, the same constructs have been identified as antecedents byboth 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. Althoughthe relationships of the aforementioned antecedents with OCBhave all been estimated by previous meta-analyses, on the CWBside only relationships with justice and conscientiousness havepreviously been assessed. The present study (partially) rectifiesthis lacuna so that antecedent–behavior relationships for OCB andCWB can be compared.

Research Question 3: Do OCB and CWB exhibit similar patterns ofrelationships with antecedents?

Potential Moderator Variables

There is reason to believe that the relationship between OCBand CWB will be moderated by several variables. Four potential

1243OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS

moderators are examined here: source of ratings, inclusion ofantithetical items, format of response options, and education levelof rater. This is by no means an exhaustive list of moderators; asdiscussed later, other potentially important moderators could notbe assessed because of lack of variance in the primary studies.

Source of Ratings

Sackett et al. (2005; see also Sackett, 2002) have recentlyconjectured that OCB–CWB relationships may be much smallerwhen self-reports are used than when supervisor reports are used.They reasoned—as did Spector and Fox (2002)—that althoughsome interpersonally directed CWBs may be easily observable byothers, most CWBs are intended by the perpetrators to be privateand, hence, unobservable. It therefore follows that supervisorshave little basis for judging many CWBs. These authors have, infact, made similar arguments with regard to some forms of OCB(see also Schnake, 1991). Sackett et al. have therefore proposedthat supervisors will make judgments about employee CWBs (andperhaps some OCBs too) on the basis of their general impressionsof the employees, an instance of halo error. Thus, a supervisor islikely to assign an employee consistent scores on OCB or CWB—that is, high OCB and low CWB scores if the supervisor has a goodimpression of the employee and vice versa in the case of a badimpression. This will inflate OCB–CWB relationships.

It is therefore hypothesized that the OCB–CWB relationshipwill be moderated by the source of the ratings. Specifically,relationships should be more strongly negative when the behaviorsare rated by supervisors than when they are rated by the jobincumbents 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 neednot be bad. That is, negation (the addition of not) does notnecessarily imply the lexical opposite (hereafter referred to as theantithesis). 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 tomeet minimum required standards merely because he or she doesnot exceed requirements. Put differently, the absence of OCB isnot identical to the presence of CWB (or vice versa).

This issue becomes important during the construction of OCBand CWB inventories. Although some researchers (Fox et al.,2003; Schnake, 1991) have suggested that the practice of includingany 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 appearnot to have taken a conclusive stand either way), many existingOCB inventories (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fet-ter, 1990; Smith et al., 1983) do contain examples of dysfunctionalbehavior. In contrast, the inclusion of examples of functionalbehavior in CWB inventories does not appear to have been asprevalent, although it has occurred occasionally (e.g., Marcus etal., 2002; Morris, 2001).

Dysfunctional behaviors in OCB inventories (e.g., “consumes alot of time complaining about trivial matters,” “always finds faultwith what the organization is doing”; Podsakoff et al., 1990) arevery similar to CWBs. Equally, functional behaviors in CWB

inventories (e.g., “volunteer[s] to finish a project for a coworkerwho is sick”; Morris, 2001) are very similar to OCBs. It istherefore hypothesized that the magnitude of the OCB–CWBrelationship is moderated by the presence versus absence of anti-thetical items within measures of OCB and CWB. Specifically, themagnitude 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 negativelyrelated, the strength of this relationship may appear to be lower incertain circumstances. Consider the case in which OCB and CWBare so strongly negatively related that they may be consideredopposite poles of a single latent factor of discretionary workbehavior. The correlation matrix in this case should exhibit onlystrong relationships: The relationship between two OCB items orbetween two CWB items will be strongly positive, whereas therelationship between an OCB item and a CWB item will bestrongly negative.

However, these strong OCB–CWB relationships should not beobserved if the data conform to an unfolding model as opposed tothe traditional dominance model (Spector, Van Katwyk, Brannick,& Chen, 1997; van Schuur & Kiers, 1994). The dominance modelassumes that relationships between observed and latent variablesare linear or at least monotonic, whereas the unfolding modelassumes 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 bothitems and respondents are mapped. The dominance model assumesthat a respondent typically will not endorse those positivelyworded items (or reverse-scored negatively worded items) thathave a more positive standing on the latent variable than he or shedoes. In contrast, the unfolding model assumes that a respondenttypically will not endorse those items that have a more positive ora more negative standing on the latent variable than he or shedoes—that is, the respondent typically will not endorse items thatare 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) willexhibit a simplex form: Correlations between items occupyingadjacent positions on the latent factor will be high, whereas thosebetween items on opposite poles of the latent factor will be closeto zero or, at best, weakly negative (van Schuur & Kiers, 1994).The relationship between two OCB items or between two CWBitems will therefore be strongly positive, but the relationshipbetween an OCB item and a CWB item will be trivial. In otherwords, 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 ofme.” Dominance models assume that people will not endorse this item ifthey have done less work than was expected of them. In contrast, unfoldingmodels recognize that people will not endorse the item either if they havedone less work than was expected of them or if they have done more workthan 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 unfoldingmodel, would be (mis)classified as being on the low end of the latent factorunder a dominance model.

1244 DALAL

tional dominance model than when it conforms to the unfoldingmodel.

The unfolding model has been posited to underlie attitudinal andpersonality data. Such a model is most likely to operate whenrespondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree ordisagree that they would engage in particular OCBs and CWBs orwhen they are asked about the extent to which these behaviors arecharacteristic or uncharacteristic of them. In contrast, the tradi-tional dominance model is likely to remain appropriate whenparticipants report the frequencies of having engaged in particularOCBs and CWBs. Therefore, it is predicted that the OCB–CWBrelationship will be moderated by the type of response options. Inparticular, a stronger negative relationship is hypothesized forbehavioral frequency response options than for agreement–disagreement or characteristic–uncharacteristic response options.

Additional support for this proposition comes from the affectliterature. 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 influencedby the education level of the rater. Stone, Stone, and Gueutal(1990) observed that most developers and users of questionnairesin I/O psychology have not been unduly concerned about whetherrespondents can comprehend questionnaire items and instructions,despite one third of the current U.S. workforce currently beingfunctionally illiterate. Moreover, research in the field of education(e.g., Mathewson, 1984) has found that special pedagogical toolsare needed in the schools to aid in the recognition and understand-ing of opposites and the ability to draw correct inferences fromthem. In general, therefore, the ability to detect opposites is likelyto vary as a function of amount of education received (but seeCordery & Sevastos, 1993). Conceptual or definitional opposition(e.g., going above and beyond vs. not doing enough), of the kindpotentially exhibited by OCB versus CWB, may be especially hardto detect. Therefore, provided that the source of OCB and CWBratings is the same, it is predicted that the rater’s education levelwill moderate the OCB–CWB relationship. In particular, the rela-tionship is hypothesized to be more strongly negative in studieswith more highly educated respondents than in studies with lesshighly educated respondents.

Moderation Hypotheses: The relationship between OCB and CWBwill be stronger (in the negative direction) (a) when the source ofratings is the supervisor rather than the job incumbent him- or herself,(b) when the citizenship and counterproductive behavior measurescontain antithetical items than when they do not, (c) when responseoptions pertain to behavioral frequency than when they pertain to thedegree of agreement or the extent to which they are characteristic ofthe ratee, and (d) when respondents are more highly educated thanwhen they are less highly educated.

Method

Literature Search

PsycINFO searches, using a variety of keywords, were conducted. Inaddition, manual searches were carried out in the Journal of Applied

Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology,Human Performance, and Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses from 1995 (publication year of the Robinson and Bennett studyon workplace deviance) onward. Reference sections of located primarystudies 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) werealso perused for citations of relevance. Finally, an e-mail requestingunpublished manuscripts was sent to the Academy of Management’sResearch Methods Network.

Inclusion Criteria

Only those studies were included that involved work behavior that wasintentional and (at least potentially) discretionary. Inclusion also requiredeither (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 thecreation of composites approximating these constructs. However, it wasalso necessary for the behavior constructs to be identifiable as eitherbeneficial (OCB) or harmful (CWB) to the legitimate interests of theorganization or its employees. Note that these procedures resulted in theexclusion of two projects cited in Sackett and DeVore (2001) as examplesof the relationship between OCB and CWB.2

With regard to the facet analyses, furthermore, inclusion required thebehavior constructs to be targeted primarily at the organization as a whole(organizational) or employees therein (interpersonal). Finally, becausesatisfaction with any one facet of the job (e.g., coworkers) alone is adeficient measure of overall job satisfaction, satisfaction–behavior rela-tionships were only included in the present analyses if the satisfactionmeasure was either global or included more than one facet of satisfaction(so that a satisfaction composite could be calculated); in this regard, thepresent research follows Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patten (2001). Itshould be noted that the exclusion of a particular facet measure of behavioror a particular measure of satisfaction did not automatically necessitate theomission 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, andOnes (1999)—Sackett and DeVore’s (2001) determination of which di-mensions constitute OCB versus CWB is not the only plausible one. All thedimensions, 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, althoughSackett and DeVore classified the Project A dimension of effort andleadership as OCB, they themselves (p. 146) have classified examples ofbehavior 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 partitionlower order constructs into OCB versus CWB, the present research doesnot include the Project A and Viswesvaran et al. studies in the list ofprimary studies. Other studies (e.g., Day & Silverman, 1989; Love &O’Hara, 1987) were excluded for the same reason. An altogether differentissue pertains to the third study cited by Sackett and DeVore (i.e., Hunt,1996). The OCB composite Sackett and DeVore constructed from thisstudy excludes Hunt’s schedule flexibility as a component. Yet Hunthimself (p. 75) included schedule flexibility in OCB. The uncorrectedcorrelation 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 morethan 18,000 (as Sackett & DeVore mentioned), the sample sizes he used toestimate correlations had a mean of about 4,000.

1245OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS

Results of Searches and Application of Inclusion Criteria

Forty-nine independent samples were identified from 38 studies. Tworaters separately coded the samples. The first rater has a PhD in I/Opsychology. The second rater was, at the time of coding, a 5th-yeargraduate student in I/O psychology (she has subsequently received herPhD). 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 behaviormeasures into the six construct categories (OCB, CWB, OCB-I, OCB-O,CWB-I, and CWB-O); agreement for only these judgments was thereforecalculated separately and was found to be 94.1%. All disagreements wereresolved using a subsequent joint inspection.

Of the 49 samples, 15 were from published articles; the remaining werefrom conference presentations and posters, unpublished dissertations, mas-ter’s theses, honors’ theses, and data sets. The overall sample size was16,721 (median across samples � 169). Not all relationships of interestcould be assessed in every sample; the analysis-level sample size thereforediffers. As can be seen in Table 1, the collection of samples was fairlyrepresentative 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 inthe 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 singleexternal variable). The use of composites was necessary when globalmeasures 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) wereused to correct correlations for unreliability and to account for the effectsof sampling error on the variance of the correlations. When possible,correction for unreliability was performed locally (i.e., at the level of theindividual sample). When a reliability estimate was not provided for ameasure in an individual primary sample, however, the correction wasaccomplished using the mean reliability from the reliability distributiongenerated from the primary samples.

The accuracy of the meta-analytic effect size estimate was examined bymeans of 90% confidence intervals. Homogeneity of effect sizes was

Table 1Demographic and Other Characteristics of Primary Sample Respondents

CharacteristicDescription or percentage of primary

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 37.60SD 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 levelattained)

�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% eachAustralia, Austria, Germany, Lebanon,

Mexico, Turkey, and an unspecifiedPacific Rim country 2.0% each

Job experience (years)M of primary sample means 9.22SD of primary sample means 5.42

Job type/title (representative selection) Clerical and secretarial staff; computer scientist/informationtechnologist; crafts employee; educator (teacher/professor); employed student; foreman/supervisor;maintenance staff; manager/administrator; mail processor;military; nurse; professional; protective professionsemployee; restaurant employee; vehicle operator

Note. Percentages may sum to less than 100% because of missing data (samples for which information was notprovided).a Not all respondents were nationals of the country in which they were surveyed. In the Lebanese sample, forinstance, some respondents were nationals of other Arab countries and yet others were Americans.

1246 DALAL

assessed using 90% credibility intervals followed by Hunter and Schmidt’s(1990) z tests for moderation. A confidence interval, constructed aroundthe uncorrected sample-size-weighted mean effect size using the standarderror of uncorrected effect sizes, indicates the extent to which samplingerror 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 correctedeffect sizes, addresses the issue of whether the studies in the meta-analysisare more appropriately viewed as components of one or of several sub-populations (Whitener, 1990). A confidence interval that contains zeroimplies that the mean (uncorrected) effect size is not significantly differentfrom zero. A large credibility interval implies that the mean (corrected)effect size is actually an estimate of the average of several subpopulationparameters (Whitener, 1990) and that moderator analysis is required.

Results

Reliability of Work Behavior

Table 2 presents sample-size-weighted mean reliabilities forOCB and CWB at the global and facet levels. These means wereimputed for studies that failed to provide the necessary localreliability 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 inTable 3. The sample-size-weighted mean correlation betweenOCB and CWB was �0.27. After correcting for unreliability inboth OCB and CWB, the sample-size-weighted mean correlationwas �0.32. The 90% confidence interval, based on the uncorrectedcorrelations, indicated that the relationship was significantly dif-ferent from zero. The finding of a nontrivial negative relationshipwas strengthened by the results of Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990)version of the file drawer analysis. The analysis revealed thatapproximately 110 additional samples with effect sizes of exactly0.00 would be needed to reduce the magnitude of the correctedrelationship to the trivial level of �0.10 (chosen because it wouldimply that OCB and CWB explain only 1% of the variance in eachother). Nonetheless, the other bound (�0.39) of the confidenceinterval indicates that OCB and CWB were not strongly relatedeither.

The presence of a wide credibility interval suggests that therewere circumstances in which the obtained relationship was stron-ger than the overall mean and other circumstances in which it wasweaker. Later I report on variables that moderate the OCB–CWBrelationship. 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 globalCWB, the relationships between components of OCB and CWBwere examined. As mentioned previously, this level of comparisonis important to ensure that behavioral constructs with similarcontent are being compared.

Table 4 displays the meta-analytic correlations. The followingconclusions can be drawn: (a) OCB–CWB relationships at thefacet level were not strong; (b) OCB–CWB relationships withintarget–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-Oand CWB-I), and (c) OCB–OCB and CWB–CWB relationshipsbetween targets or referents (i.e., OCB-I and OCB-O, and CWB-Iand CWB-O) were substantially stronger than OCB–CWB rela-tionships within target–referent (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-I, andOCB-O and CWB-O).

These results therefore demonstrate that the relationship be-tween OCB and CWB, at the facet level, is modestly negative. Theresults also indicate that the OCB versus CWB distinction is moreimportant than that between interpersonally directed versus orga-nizationally directed behavior. In other words, the target–referentof behavior may not be as important as often believed; the previousexamination of the global-level OCB–CWB relationship is, there-fore, meaningful and warranted.

Antecedents of OCB and CWB

If OCB and CWB are strongly related to each other, they shouldhave similar patterns of relationships with presumed antecedents.Job attitudes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment),perceptions of organizational justice, and certain dispositionalvariables (conscientiousness and trait affect) have been identifiedin the research literature as antecedents of both OCB and CWB.Meta-analytic relationships of these variables with OCB and CWBare displayed in Table 5. This table contains results from previ-ously published meta-analyses (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;

Table 2Reliability Estimates for Work Behavior Constructs

Construct k N Reliability

OCB 47 16,455 0.79OCB-I 24 5,864 0.73OCB-O 23 5,607 0.74CWB 49 16,721 0.77CWB-I 20 4,136 0.68CWB-O 27 6,357 0.77

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.

Table 3Meta-Analytic Relationship Between Organizational CitizenshipBehavior 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 ofcorrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); SDr � standarddeviation of uncorrected correlations; SD� � standard deviation of cor-rected correlations; 90% CI � lower and upper limits of 90% confidenceinterval; 90% CrI � lower and upper limits of 90% credibility interval.

1247OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS

Colquitt et al., 2001; LePine et al., 2002; Meyer et al., 2002; Organ& Ryan, 1995; Riketta, 2002; Salgado, 2002) that have examinedone or more of these relationships (refer to the Appendix forfurther details). The table also contains meta-analytic results fromthe primary studies examined in this study; these results, however,are not comprehensive because they are limited to studies thatexamined the OCB–CWB relationship.3

As can be seen from Table 5, the analyses from the present setof primary studies represent the only CWB meta-analyses avail-able for four of the six antecedents examined. On the OCB side, incontrast, there exists at least one previous meta-analysis for eachantecedent. The comparisons presented here focus on the ranges ofresults obtained using the sets of meta-analyses; when possible,results are presented both with and without the results from thepresent set of primary studies. Antecedent-behavior results basedon 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 andconscientiousness, for which previous CWB meta-analyses (inaddition to the previous OCB meta-analyses) have been conducted.There does not appear to be much difference in organizationaljustice’s relationship with CWB (� range � �0.25 to �0.36including the present results and �0.33 to �0.36 without them)and its relationship with OCB (� range � 0.20 to 0.34 includingthe present results and 0.23 to 0.34 without them). The relation-ships of conscientiousness with CWB (� range � �0.26 to �0.38including the present results and � � �0.26 without them) andwith OCB (� range � 0.23 to 0.30 including the present results and0.23 to 0.29 without them) likewise appear comparable.

Conclusions pertaining to the remaining antecedents should beregarded as tentative because the only standards of comparison onthe CWB side are the present (noncomprehensive) analyses. Jobsatisfaction’s relationship with CWB (� � �0.37) appears to be

stronger than its relationship with OCB (� ranges from 0.16 to 0.28including the present results and from 0.24 to 0.28 without them).Organizational commitment, too, appears to be slightly morestrongly related to CWB (� � �0.36) than to OCB (� ranges from0.20 to 0.32 both with and without the present results). Thediscrepancy appears larger for NA: Its relationship with CWB(� � 0.41) seems to be much stronger than its relationship withOCB (� � �0.10 both with and without the present results). Thisfinding supports Spector and Fox’s (2002) contention that NA ismore strongly related to CWB than to OCB.

Vis-a-vis PA, however, the situation is less clear. A fairlysubstantial discrepancy in the obtained PA–OCB results was ob-served between Organ and Ryan’s (1995) results and the presentresults (� for Organ and Ryan � 0.12; � for present results �0.34).4 The true relationship may be intermediate: On the basis offive studies (N � 985) conducted after Organ and Ryan’s meta-analysis, Borman, Penner, Allen, and Motowidlo (2001) reportedan 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 estimatesrenders comparison with the PA-CWB relationship (� � �0.34)difficult. Regardless of which of the aforementioned PA-OCBestimates is considered, however, the results appear not to supportSpector and Fox’s (2002) contention that PA is more stronglyrelated 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 studiesbetween the present results and the previous meta-analyses because thelatter 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 thirdof their total number of studies for this analysis) technically measuredextroversion rather than PA.

Table 4Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix for Behavior Facets

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

OCB-I 0.73OCB-O 0.64 (0.49)a 0.74CWB-I �0.11 (�0.11)b �0.17 (�0.13)c 0.68CWB-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 forunreliability (i.e., mean �); those in parentheses are uncorrected correlations (i.e., mean r). Values on thediagonal (in italics) are internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas). k � number of samples in whichrelationship was estimated; N � total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r � mean of uncorrectedcorrelations, 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).

1248 DALAL

across antecedents. In other words, not only the magnitudes butalso the patterns of antecedent–behavior relationships for OCBversus 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 weresupervisors or were highly educated, response options pertained tobehavioral frequencies, and measures contained antithetical items.The search for moderators was empirically justified by a widecredibility interval for the OCB–CWB relationship. Table 6 dis-plays the results of the moderator analyses.

As hypothesized, the relationship strength differed as a functionof the source of the ratings: Supervisor ratings yielded a muchstronger relationship than did incumbent (self) ratings. The OCB–CWB relationship was also stronger, as expected, when measurescontained antithetical items. Furthermore, the relationship wasinfluenced by the format of response options; the moderationeffect, however, was in the direction opposite to that hypothesized.That is, the OCB–CWB relationship was stronger when responseoptions were of the agreement–disagreement or characteristic–uncharacteristic variety than when they were of the behavioralfrequency variety. Finally, the extent to which the rater waseducated had little effect on the OCB–CWB relationship.

However, the (potential) moderator variables were themselvesintercorrelated; thus, the effects of different moderators may have

been confounded. In addition, the dichotomization of modera-tors—necessary for testing moderation according to Hunter andSchmidt’s (1990) method—resulted in a loss of information. Thismay have been problematic, especially in the case of theeducation-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) multipleregression approach was also used. This approach examines theeffect of each moderator while controlling for the effects of othermoderators; 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 thesedifferences, the WLS regression analysis confirmed that the sourceof ratings, the presence or absence of antithetical items, and thenature of response options were important moderators of theOCB–CWB relationship, whereas the level of education of therater was unimportant.

Discussion

Both citizenship and counterproductive behavior are taking theirrightful places at the table of job performance. It is, therefore,necessary to examine the extent to which these two constructs arerelated to each other. The present meta-analytic research estimatedthe true OCB–CWB relationship at both the global and facet levelsand assessed moderators of this relationship. It also examined therelationships of these two constructs with a common core ofpresumed antecedents.

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

Antecedent Meta-analysis

OCB CWB

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 �0.36Colquitt et al. (2001) 8 1,972 0.25 0.27 18 4,720 �0.30 �0.33Present 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 �0.26Present 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 uncorrectedcorrelations, weighted by sample size (N ); Mean � � mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); OCB � organizational citizenshipbehavior; CWB � counterproductive work behavior. Dashes indicate relationships not assessed by the meta-analysis in question. Present study analysesare restricted to primary studies that examined the OCB–CWB relationship (i.e., they are not exhaustive antecedent-behavior meta-analyses). Further detailsconcerning the other meta-analyses are provided in the Appendix.

1249OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS

OCB–CWB Relationship

Based on studies involving 16,721 participants, the typical re-lationship between OCB and CWB was modestly negative. Therelationships between an OCB facet and a CWB facet were also inthe low to modestly negative range. The strength of facet relation-ships did not increase appreciably when OCB and CWB facetsunder consideration were directed toward the same target(referent).

Antecedent Analyses

There was also some evidence of differences in magnitude andpattern across antecedent relationships. Antecedent–CWB rela-tionships were generally stronger than antecedent–OCB relation-ships; the extent of this discrepancy, however, appeared to varyacross antecedents. Unfortunately, this conclusion was temperedby the fact that, for most antecedents, the CWB meta-analyticresults used here were not comprehensive. For this reason (and, ingeneral, to further explicate CWB’s nomological network), there isa pressing need for future meta-analytic research on the anteced-ents of CWB. The antecedents investigated in the present researchwere 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 beexamined. The relationships of these additional constructs withCWB 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 bothOCB and CWB.

Moderator Analyses

In any meta-analysis, the overall relationship between focalconstructs 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 supervisorratings 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 withinmeasures. The (non)finding with regard to the rater’s level ofeducation was also important: It indicated that the estimated rela-tionship was generalizable across raters with varying levels ofeducational attainment. But what can be said about the strongerobserved correlations for agreement–disagreement (orcharacteristic–uncharacteristic) response options than for behav-ioral frequency response options, an effect opposite to that hypoth-esized? As suggested earlier, the use of agreement–disagreementor uncharacteristic–characteristic response formats probably doesnot result in the measurement of behavior at all. What may insteadbe elicited are—in the terminology of Ajzen’s (1991) theory ofplanned behavior—attitudes toward behaviors or behavioral inten-tions (the latter was explicitly true in one primary study). Becausesituational factors, or perceptions thereof, act as constraining orpromoting agents, behaviors may not be as consistent as theattitudes toward them or the intentions to perform them (Hanisch,Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998).5 Future research should examine thispossibility further.

In the case of (dis)agreement/(un)characteristic response op-tions, antithetical items within measures of OCB and CWB, orsupervisor ratings of behavior, the (corrected) OCB–CWB corre-lation was about �0.70. However, these cases probably do notrepresent 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 andCWB were opposite poles of a latent factor) does not always yield resultssimilar to those obtained by analysis of behavioral frequency. A similarargument, albeit in a somewhat different context, was advanced by Gruysand Sackett (2003).

Table 6Results of Moderator Analyses

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

Source of ratingsSupervisor 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 onebehavior 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 optionsBehavioral 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 levelCollege or more 9 1,767 �0.07 �0.10 (�0.35, 0.20) (�0.61, 0.42) 0.07High 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 uncorrectedcorrelations, weighted by sample size (N ); Mean � � mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N ); 90% CI � lower and upper limits of90% 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.

1250 DALAL

options, it is more desirable to elicit reports of behavioral frequen-cies than reports about attitudes toward the behaviors or behavioralintentions. Moreover, antithetical items within OCB and CWBmeasures 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 inflatedin such cases. In fact, although insufficient primary studies thatused 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 relationshipsthat are inflated to an extent. For example, self-ratings may them-selves yield a somewhat inflated OCB–CWB relationship as aresult of socially desirable responding (Sackett, 2002). If this is, infact, the case, the true OCB–CWB relationship would be evenlower 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 unableto 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 questionof whether people who engage in large amounts of OCB over acertain time interval (e.g., the last 6 months) are also capable ofengaging in large amounts of CWB over that same interval. Apotentially even more interesting question, however, and one thattruly gets at the heart of the OCB–CWB relationship, is whether agiven person is capable of engaging in both OCB and CWBsimultaneously or even within a very small time interval. So, forexample, is it possible for an employee to act in a very helpfulmanner toward a coworker and then, almost immediately, to will-fully behave in a manner detrimental to that same coworker? Inother words, if—as some (e.g., Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) havesuggested—OCB and CWB exhibit significant temporal within-person variation, it may be possible for an employee to engage inlarge amounts of both OCB and CWB over a period of time, evenif he or she cannot or will not engage in both simultaneously. Thisissue should be assessed using experience sampling methods (alsoknown as ecological momentary assessments) that track OCB andCWB over time within persons.

Levels-of-analysis issues aside, however, the present findingsbear 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 ofrelationships with external variables may be considered oppositepoles of the same latent factor. The present findings suggest that,at the person level at least, such is not the case with regard to OCBand CWB. These constructs were found to be relatively distinctfactors in their own right. The findings are congruent with somepast theorizing and empirical results. Kelloway et al. (2002) foundthat the OCB–CWB relationship was low even after a “wordingdirection method factor” was fitted (to account for the fact that allOCB items in that study included only functional behavior,whereas all CWB items included only dysfunctional behavior). AsRotundo and Sackett (2002) and others (e.g., Sackett, 2002;Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) have suggested, employee perfor-

mance may be a function of three broad classes of behavior: taskperformance, OCB, and CWB.

Yet how can behaviors that harm the organization or its em-ployees not be in quantitative opposition to behaviors that benefitthe organization or its employees? One answer requires research-ers to focus not on the target of the behaviors (the organization orother employees in the organization) but on their source (theindividual employee exhibiting the behaviors). Not only OCB butalso CWB could then be defined as sets of adaptive behavioralresponses (e.g., Hulin, 1991) or at least as responses that theemployee may perceive at the time as being adaptive.

Such a definition would lead to the prediction—consistent withthe 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 alsoSpector & Fox, 2002). Moreover, given that both leisure time afterwork and officially sanctioned work breaks are important sourcesof recovery from physical, cognitive, and emotional strain and arecrucial in increasing work engagement and proactive behavior(e.g., Boucsein & Thum, 1996; Sonnentag, 2003), occasionalunauthorized work breaks (usually conceptualized as a form ofCWB–O; see Hanisch & Hulin, 1990) may well be motivated bythe desire to obtain similar benefits. Finally, Goma-I-Freixanet(2001) reported that people who typically engage in large amountsof either prosocial or antisocial behavior score high on the Sensa-tion Seeking scale; a person may therefore seek out sensationsometimes through OCB and at other times through CWB (see alsoRiemer, 1981).

It is also worthwhile to consider some implications of thefindings for organizational practice. The findings suggest, forinstance, that the successful elimination of high-CWB employeesduring 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 designedto facilitate OCB may not simultaneously deter CWB.

Moreover, OCB and CWB may need to be evaluated separatelyduring performance appraisals. For example, rather than evaluat-ing employees along a continuum ranging from often harmingcoworkers to often helping them, it may be necessary to evaluatethe frequency with which the employee harms coworkers sepa-rately from the frequency with which he or she helps them. In thisway, one could assess whether the employee (a) frequently helpsothers but also frequently harms them, (b) does not help others butdoes not harm them either, (c) frequently helps others and rarelyharms 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 canbe done even if OCB and CWB are not that highly related. Onemajor 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.

1251OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in themeta-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 unjustpunishment: 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 ofworkplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2002). The past, present and future ofworkplace 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 anddeviancy: 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 andlegislation. Oxford, England: Clarendon.

*Boh, L., & Hulin, C. L. (2003, May). Role conflict, job attitudes andjob 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 criteriondomain 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 andcontextual 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 ofSelection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.

Boucsein, W., & Thum, M. (1996). Multivariate psychophysiologicalanalysis of stress-strain processes under different break schedules duringcomputer work. In J. Fahrenberg & M. Myrtek (Eds.), Ambulatory assess-ment: Computer-assisted psychological and psychophysiological methodsin monitoring and field studies (pp. 305–313). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe &Huber.

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do peopleaggress 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 inindustrial 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 helpingbehavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 55, 211–229.

Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (1987). Explanation of the relation betweennegative mood and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 91–108.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice inorganizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 86, 278–321.

Coleman, V. L., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlyingstructure 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 oforganizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

Coombs, C. H. (1975). A note on the relation between the vector modeland the unfolding model for preferences. Psychometrika, 40, 115–116.

Cordery, J. L., & Sevastos, P. S. (1993). Responses to the original andrevised Job Diagnostic Survey: Is education a factor in responses tonegatively worded items? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 141–143.

*Crede, M. (2002). [South African teachers’ work experiences surveys].Unpublished raw data.

*Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). Therelationship 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 workexperiences surveys]. Unpublished raw data.

Davison, M. L. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model forattitudinal 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 variablesas predictors of organizational behaviors: A structural equation modelingexamination of alternative models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.

*Drimmer, L. B. (1998). Job stress: An investigation of professional andorganizational 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 atthe 19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Chicago.

*Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades,L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 42–51.

Fisher, C. D., & Locke, E. A. (1992). The new look in job satisfactionresearch and theory. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Jobsatisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects theirperformance (pp. 165–194). New York: Lexington Books.

*Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2003, April). Anempirical 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 theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: Aconceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity rela-tionship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.

Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurementtheory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.

Goma-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.

1252 DALAL

Greenberg, J. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship: A commen-tary on the state of the science. Employee Responsibilities and RightsJournal, 6, 249–256.

Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionalityof counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 11, 30–41.

*Haaland, S. A. (2001). Understanding organizational citizenship andcounterproductive work behaviors: Examining interactions utilizing anorganizational versus interpersonal categorization strategy. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor).

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Retirement as a voluntaryorganizational withdrawal behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37,60–78.

Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importanceof individuals’ repertoires of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness ofstudying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 19, 463–480.

*Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction ofmultidimensional 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 andemployee 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 thedimensions 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 powerin organizations. London: Routledge.

Jordan, M. P. (1998). The power of negation in English: Text, contextand relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 705–752.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). Thejob 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 Selectionand Assessment, 10, 143–151.

*Laczo, R. M. (1999). Organizational withdrawal and organizationalcitizenship 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-taskperformance. 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 andworkplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 131–142.

*Lehman, W. E. K., & Simpson, D. D. (1992). Employee substance useand on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 309–321.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature anddimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical reviewand 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 youthtrainees under a job training partnership act program (JTPA): Criterionvalidation of a behavior-based measure of work maturity. Personnel Psy-chology, 40, 323–340.

*Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Humpfner, G. (2002). Measuringcounterproductivity: 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 anintegrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causalreasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,10, 36–50.

Mathewson, G. C. (1984). Teaching forms of negation in reading andreasoning. 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 betweenpredictor 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: Ameta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

*Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Buildingan integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison ofcounterproductive 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]. Unpublishedraw data.

*Miner, A. G. (2000b). Experience and evaluation: An exploration ofthe structure and function of job attitudes and affect. Unpublished master’sthesis, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.

*Molitor, D. D. (1998). An examination of the effects of personality andjob satisfaction on multiple non-workrole organizational behaviors. Un-published doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.

*Morris, M. L. (2001). The relational-interdependent self-construal atwork: 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 alternativemodels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.

O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment andpsychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, andinternalization 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 goodsoldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s constructclean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.

Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance forindustrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the studyof organizational citizenship behavior. International Review of Industrialand Organizational Psychology, 14, 337–368.

1253OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinaland dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-sonnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Plato. (2001). Symposium (S. Benardete, Trans.). Chicago: University ofChicago 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 thetheoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

*Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, andwork performance among commission sales people. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 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, monkeydo: 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 jobperformance: 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 atwork. 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 ordistinct 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, proposedmodel, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44, 735–759.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: Therole of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 434–443.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenshipbehavior: 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 ofApplied 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 thepsychology of the employment relationship. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor).

*Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? Howemployee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 23, 875–894.

Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Gueutal, H. G. (1990). Influence ofcognitive ability on responses to questionnaire measures: Measurementprecision and missing response problems. Journal of Applied Psychology,75, 418–427.

Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. NewYork: Wiley.

Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. (2000). Mood and emotion control: Somethoughts 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 isthe incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to useinstead. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 97–110.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of jobperformance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226.

Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (1999). The role of haloerror in interdimensional ratings: The case of job performance ratingsexamined via meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript.

Warr, P., Barter, J., & Brownbridge, G. (1983). On the independence ofpositive 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 ofIllinois, Urbana–Champaign.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: Atheoretical 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-rolebehaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

1254 DALAL

Appendix

Adaptation of Results of Previous Meta-Analyses

Details are provided below about the adaptation, for the present study, ofresults from the following previous meta-analyses:

LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002). The authors’ analyses of antecedentrelationships with overall organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) wereused.

Organ and Ryan (1995). The authors provided analyses estimating therelationship of job satisfaction and organizational commitment with overallmeasures of OCB. With regard to the remaining antecedents, a compositeof altruism (defined by the authors in a manner analogous to OCB-Interpersonal [OCB-I]) and generalized compliance (defined by the authorsin a manner analogous to OCB-Organizational [OCB-O]) was constructedfor the present purposes using the meta-analytic correlation betweenOCB-I and OCB-O from the present set of studies.

Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002). The authors didnot list uncorrected meta-analytic estimates. For the present purposes, theuncorrected commitment–OCB relationship was approximated using themeta-analytic reliability estimates provided by the authors themselves.

Riketta (2002). The results for extra-role performance were used forthe present purposes because the construct definition provided by theauthor paralleled common definitions of OCB.

Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). A composite between distributiveand procedural justice was constructed using the meta-analytic correlationbetween them reported in Colquitt et al. (2001). Moreover, this study didnot correct for unreliability. Unreliability corrections were conducted, forthe present purposes, using the meta-analytic reliability estimates generatedfrom the present set of studies.

Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001). A composite be-tween distributive justice and broadly defined procedural justice wasconstructed using the meta-analytic correlation between them reported by

the authors themselves. The relationship of the justice composite withnegative reactions was taken as the justice–CWB relationship. The rela-tionship of the justice composite with an OCB composite (consisting ofOCB-I and OCB-O) was used for the justice–OCB relationship. The OCBcomposite was constructed by using the meta-analytic correlation betweenOCB-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 wereconstructed (as described previously), the Table 5 entries for k and N arethe harmonic means of the composite components. Second, the abovemeta-analyses did vary, albeit slightly, in procedure, rendering compari-sons across them an inexact science. Many of the differences pertained tohow (or whether) observed relationships were corrected for attenuationresulting from artifacts. Most studies corrected for both predictor andcriterion 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 describedpreviously. Salgado (2002) corrected for range restriction but not predictorunreliability. 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, 2003Revision received November 22, 2004

Accepted January 7, 2005 �

1255OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS