integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior

Toward an Integrative Theory ofCounterproductive Workplace Behavior:

A Causal Reasoning Perspective

Mark J. Martinko* and Michael J. GundlachThe Florida State University

Scott C. DouglasUniversity of Montana

Over the past decade, there has been an increase in attention to counterproductiveworkplace behaviors including violence, stealing, dishonesty, volitional absenteeism,drug and alcohol abuse, and aggression, many of which have been addressed in thisspecial issue. Accompanying the attention to these specific types of behaviors has been aproliferation of theories developed to explain, understand, and manage counter-productive behavior. While these theories have addressed many apparently divergenttypes of behaviors, many similarities exist between and among these variousperspectives. In this article, we integrate these various perspectives into a causalreasoning framework, proposing that individuals' attributions about the causaldimensions of workplace events are a primary factor motivating both the emotionsand behaviors that result in counterproductive workplace behaviors.

Introduction

As detailed throughout this issue of IJSA, increasingattention has been given to explaining the nature,

causes, and effects of counterproductive behavior inorganizations during the last decade and there has been aproliferation of theoretical explanations for counter-productive workplace behaviors. Collins and Griffin(1998) describe the psychology of dysfunctional jobperformance, Folger and Skarlicki (1998) attempt toexplain aggressive behaviors with a popcorn metaphor,and Greenberg (1998) outlines the `cognitive geometry' ofemployee theft. Other explanations of dysfunctionalworkplace behaviors include or emphasize: the role oforganizational factors (O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Glew1996), revenge and blame attributions (Bies and Tripp1998; Murray 1999), integrity (Ones and Viswesvaran1998; Ones, Viswesvaran and Schmidt 1993), volition(Dalton and Wimbush 1998), and typologies of deviantworkplace behaviors (Robinson and Bennet 1995). Whilesome efforts concentrate on retaliatory forms of counter-

productive behaviors (e.g. aggression, sabotage), otherapproaches have focused on self-destructive behaviorslike drug and alcohol abuse (Harris and Greising 1998),and depression through powerlessness (Bennet 1998) andhelplessness frameworks (Martinko and Gardner 1982).

Placing our discussion in a broader context, theproliferation of theories has long been a concern ofphilosophers of science (e.g. Churchman 1971; Kuhn1970, 1977) and concern about multiple theories has beenexpressed in the organizational literature (Hassard 1993;Pfeffer 1993; Van Maanan 1995). On the one hand, it isargued that multiple perspectives allow for more insightinto domains of interest (Morgan and Smircich 1980; VanManaan 1995). On the other hand, it is argued thatmultiple theoretical frameworks inevitably result inredundancy, fragmented research programs, a lack ofgeneralizable principles, and a lack of cohesivetheoretical explanations (Pfeffer 1993; Platt 1964). Ithas been proposed that a paradigmatic approach charac-terized by strong inference (Pfeffer 1993; Platt 1964)focuses research and leads to more rapid theoreticaladvances than would be achieved by more eclectictheoretical orientations. More specifically, proponentsof the strong inference approach argue that science

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.36

* Address for correspondence: Mark J. Martinko, Department ofManagement, College of Business, The Florida State University,Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. e-mail: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT VOLUME 10 NUMBERS 1/2 MARCH/JUNE 2002

advances more rapidly with a dominant paradigm that isconstantly challenged and evolving.

The purpose of this article is to integrate the varioustheoretical perspectives concerned with counterproductivework behaviors into a paradigmatic framework with par-ticular attention to individual difference factors. Thisframework is intended to help by demonstrating therelationships and similarities between and among thevarious forms of counterproductive behaviors and thetheories used to understand these behaviors. Additionally,while previous approaches to understanding workplacedeviance have focused on addressing either retaliatory (e.g.aggression, stealing) or self-destructive (e.g. drug andalcohol abuse) behaviors, our framework shows how bothtypes of behavioral responses can result as a function ofemployees' causal reasoning and attributions for negativeworkplace outcomes. It is hoped that illuminating simi-larities can stimulate greater cross-fertilization between theapparently divergent perspectives. We hope that theparadigm will provide a vehicle for focusing researchefforts onto key questions and accelerate research progressin the tradition of strong inference.

An Explanatory Paradigm

Defining Counterproductive Workplace Behavior

In discussing definitions of counterproductive workbehaviors, Collins and Griffin (1998) note that almostall of the definitions assert that counterproductiveworkplace behaviors are characterized by a disregardfor societal and organizational rules and values. Inaddition, they note that counterproductive behaviors canrange in seriousness from low (e.g. petty stealing) to high(e.g. violence). Similarly, Hogan and Hogan (1989) viewcounterproductive job behavior as a construct coveringall deviant behaviors ranging from absenteeism toassault. Other definitions indicate that counterproductiveworkplace behaviors are actions that threaten the wellbeing of an organization and its members, and breakimplicit and explicit rules about civil, respectful, andappropriate behavior (e.g. Baron and Richardson 1994;

Martinko and Zellars 1998; Robinson and Bennet 1995).We agree with these perspectives and view counter-productive behavior as behavior by an organizationalmember that results in harming the organization or itsmembers.

The Paradigm

A paradigm is a commonly accepted way of thinking. Indeveloping the paradigm proposed in Figure 1, wereviewed major theoretical perspectives of counter-productive work behavior emphasizing their commonelements. These approaches are listed in Table 1 andinclude: Bennet's (1998) work on perceived power-lessness; Folger and Skalicki's (1998) popcorn modelfocusing on situational variables, individual differences,and perceptions of injustice; Harris and Greising's (1998)analysis of drug and alcohol use emphasizing how imagesand principles affect user decisions; Neuman's (1998)perspective of workplace violence emphasizing organiz-ational factors; Martinko and Gardner's (1982) dis-cussion of learned helplessness which includedorganizational, individual difference, and attributionalvariables; O'Leary-Kelly et al.'s (1996) organizationalmotivated aggression model emphasizing organizationalvariables; Ones et al.'s (1993) work on the influence ofemployee integrity on workplace performance; andothers. Table 1 gives a brief description of everyperspective, lists individual and situational variables usedin each, and shows the types of counterproductivebehaviors addressed. Additionally, cognitive informationprocessing elements used in each approach are describedto show how each contributed to the development of theparadigm, with its emphasis on employees' attributionsfor disequilibria in workplace outcomes, procedures, andsituations.

In addition to considering elements of the varioustheories listed in Table 1, we also included what weconsider to be the three major paradigms used to accountfor behavior in both psychology and the organizationalsciences: expectancy theory (Vroom 1964); reinforcementtheory (Skinner 1957); and social learning theory

Figure 1. The Paradigm for Counterproductive Behavior

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR 37

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

Table 1. Summary of research and theoretical perspectives of counterproductive work behavior

Theory/Approach

IndividualDifferences

SituationalVariables

Cognitive Processing

Causal Perceptions ofAttributions Disequilibria

Counter-ProductiveBehaviors

Popcornmetaphor foremployeeaggression(Folger andSkarlicki,1998)

Worker's boundedautonomy,Negative Affect,Neuroticism,Hostile andsinisterattribution Bias,Organizationalparanoia

Organizationalpolicies,practices, rules,norms, culture,etc.,Leadership Style

Perceptions oforganizationalinjustice

Attributions ofintent

Organizationalretaliatorybehavior: theft,sabotage, etc.Displacedaggression

Theory ofrevenge inorganizations(Bies andTripp, 1996;Murray, 1999)

Social Identity,Emotions,Rumination,Self-Efficacy

Bystanders,Damaged civicorder,Violation oforganizationalnorms and rules

RevengeCognitions

Personalisticattributions,Blameattributions

Revengeresponses:venting,dissipation,fatigue,explosion,acts of covert andovert violence andaggression

Dysfunctionalimpressionmanagement(IM) (Gardnerand Martinko,1998)

Self-monitoring,Machiavellianism,Self-consciousness

Ambiguity,Accountability,Resourcescarcity

Apologies,FeedbackavoidingInformationmanipulationsSelf-handicapping

Alcohol anddrug abuse(Harris andGreising,1998)

Tenure,Age,Race,Stress

Job autonomy,Stressors,Adverse Workingconditions

Image TheoryProgressiondecisionsShocks

Adoptiondecisions

Wages,EAP participation,Turnover,Absenteeism,Accident rates

Workplaceabsence(Dalton andMesch, 1991;Dalton andWimbush,1998)

Age,Gender,Tenure,Commitment

Controllingorganizationalrules,Lenientabsenteeismpolicy

Assessment ofadvantages andloses ofabsenteebehavior

Interpretationsof reasons forabsenteebehavior

Absenteeism,Sick leave

Understandingemployeetheft(Greenberg,1990, 1993)

Personality,Moraldevelopment

Wages,Organizationalethics,Peer pressure

Perceptions ofworkplaceinequities

Theft,Minimization andexternalizationbehaviors(Increasedorganizationalcosts)

38 MARK J. MARTINKO, MICHAEL J. GUNDLACH AND SCOTT C. DOUGLAS

International Journal of Selection and Assessment ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Table 1. continued

Theory/Approach






Integrity andworkplaceperformance(Ones,Viswesvaran,and Schmidt,1993; OnesandViswesvaran,1998)

ConscientiousnessAgreeableness,Emotionalstability,Socialization,Trustworthiness

Job complexity,Organizationalethics

Drug and alcoholabuse,Poor jobperformance,Violence,Absenteeism,Thefts

Psychology ofcounterprodu-ctive jobperformance(Collins andGriffin, 1998)

Impulsivity,Machiavellianism,Self-regulation,Integrity,Self-control,Socialization

Rumors aboutorganizationalmembers,Organizationalstructure andpolicies

Self-regulationandmetacognition

Tardiness,Harassment,Interpersonalconflict,Claiming others'work,Cheatingcustomers,Personal use ofcompany property

Model of workfrustration-aggression(Fox andSpector,1999)

Trait anxiety,Trait anger,Control beliefs,Emotions

Punitivemeasures,Likelihood ofpunishmentOrganizationalconstraints

Acts of personalandorganizationalaggression likeverbal abuse,sabotage, etc.

Organization-ally inducedhelplessness(Martinko andGardner,1982)

Locus of control,Achievementneeds,Gender

Organizationalstructure,policies,procedures,appraisals, andreward system

Causalattributions fornegative andpositiveworkplaceoutcomes

Low productivity,Absenteeism,Turnover,Depression

Stress andpreventingworkplaceviolence(Mack,Shannon,Quick, andQuick, 1998)

Perceiveddemand,Perceivedcapability,Marital status,Family history,Self-esteem,Self-image,Self-concept

Social support,Social andcultural changes

Proclivity tointernalize orexternalizeperceivedsources of stress

Individual andorganizationaldistress,Alcohol and drugabuse,Absenteeism,Suicide,Theft,Verbalharassment andthreats,Sabotage



Table 1. continued

Theory/Approach






Aggressivereactions(Greenbergand Alge,1998)

Perception offairness,Emotions,Social/interpersonalsensitivity,Sinister attributionerror bias

Pay policy,Formal rules ofthe organization

Assessingsource and levelof organizationalfairness/unfairness

Attributions fororganizationalprocedures andpolicies

Hostile verbal orsymbolic gestures,Impedingorganizationalproductivity,Physicalaggression

Cognitiveappraisalperspective onworkplaceaggression(Martinko andZellars, 1998)

Negative affect,Locus of control,Emotionalsusceptibility,Attribution style,Gender

Authoritarianleadership,Organizationalpolicies,Discipline andgrievanceprocedure

Trigger Events Causalattributions fornegativeworkplaceoutcomes

Workplaceaggression andviolence such asverbal or physicalabuse

Perceivedpowerlessness(Bennet,1998)

Locus of control,Perception ofcontrol,Self-efficacy

Job autonomy,Autocraticmanagementstyle

Perceptionsof individualcontrol

Attributions forfailures

Absenteeism,Spreading rumors,Stealing,Tardiness,Working slowly

Organization-motivatedaggression(O'Leary-Kelly,Griffin, andGlew, 1996)

Personal andorganizationalinfluences: family,school, peers, workculture, etc.Emotionalreactivity

Aversivetreatment,Crowding,Uncomfortabletemperatures andnoise,Poor air quality,Controllingpolicies

Perception thatsome externalthreat exists inthe organization

Organizationallymotivatedaggression andviolence rangingfrom homicide toverbal abuse

Workplaceviolence andaggression(Baron andNeuman,1996; BaronandRichardson,1994;Neuman,1998; Neumanand Baron,1997)

Age, Ethnicity,Gender, Physicaland/or mentalcapabilities,Negative affect,Type A behavior,Self-monitoring,Hostile, attributionbias

Workforcediversity,Unfairtreatments,Aggression-relatedorganizationalnorms,Temperature,Humidity,Lighting,Air quality,Being monitored

Interpreting thatsome form ofunfair treatmentor an unjustnegativeoutcome hasoccurred

Causalattributions forjudgements ofunfairness

Interpersonalhostility,Sabotage,Work slowdowns,Strikes,Stealing,Employeewithdrawal,Acts of violenceand aggressionDepression



(Bandura 1977). These theories are well known in theorganizational sciences and together include: antecedent/environmental variables, individual differences, infor-mation processing, and outcome/reinforcement/instru-mentality elements. Considering the common elementsfrom these established theories with the perspectives ofcounterproductive behavior described from Table 1, wearrived at the basic paradigm illustrated in Figure 1.Simply stated, the paradigm indicates that counter-productive behavior is the result of a complex interactionbetween the person and the environment in which theindividual's causal reasoning about the environment andexpected outcomes drive the individual's behavior.

Fleshing out the Paradigm

Many of the theories of counterproductive behaviorshare similar elements and, we believe, reflect the samebasic processes. As indicated by the suggested paradigm,the most immediate determinant of counterproductivebehavior is the causal reasoning process. We will beginour discussion with this element of the model, since, aswe will argue later, the sense-making process representedby casual reasoning helps to tell us why particularenvironmental and individual difference factors areimportant in understanding counterproductive beha-viors.

Table 1. continued

Theory/Approach






Attributionalexplanation ofresistance toinformationtechnology inthe workplace(Martinko,Henry, andZmud, 1996)

Prior experiences,Attribution Style

Co-workerbehavior,Technologycharacteristics,Managementsupport

Associatingfrustration orfailure with theintroduction ofinformationtechnology

Causalattributions fornegative impactof informationtechnology

Resistance toworkplacetechnology,Hostility,Anger,Anxiety,Helplessness

Exploring therole ofindividualdifferences inthe predictionof workplaceaggression(Douglas andMartinko,2001)

Trait anger,Attribution style,Negativeaffectivity,Attitudes towardrevenge,Self-control,Previousexposures toaggressivecultures

Perceiving someupsetting orthreateningstimuli in one'sworkplaceenvironment

Attributing thisto supervisor(s),the organization,and/or co-workers viaattributions ofintentionality

Variousincidences ofworkplaceaggression

Structural andindividualdeterminantsof workplacevictimization(Aquino,2000; AquinoGrover,Bradfield, andAllen, 1999)

Conflictmanagementstyle,Negative affect,Low self-determination,Hostility

Structuralcharacteristicsof organizationHierarchicalstatus

Experiencingthat one is thetarget of unfair,unjust, orabusivetreatment

This experienceis attributed tothe behavior ofco-worker(s)

PerceivedvictimizationAnxietyDistress



Causal Reasoning Theory (CRT)

Almost every theoretical perspective that attempts toexplain counterproductive behavior incorporates a factorconcerned with information processing (see Table 1). Twocommon elements of these perspectives are that theydescribe: (1) how individuals evaluate the quality of theiroutcomes (e.g. perceived fairness, perceived justice,perceived success or failure); and (2) how beliefs aboutthe causes of their outcomes (e.g. attributions) effectbehavior and affect. The process of evaluating the qualityof outcomes has been described in various ways andusually includes a comparative process that results inperceptions of disequilibria, injustice, or inequity of sometype. Examples of components relating to the evaluation ofoutcomes include: Greenberg's (1990, 1993) focus onperceptions of injustice as stimuli for employee theft;Aquino's (2000) notion of perceived victimization (2000);Harris and Greising's (1998) description of imagecompatibility relating to alcohol and drug abuse;Martocchio and Judge's (1994) policy capturing approachto explain individuals' decisions to be absent; and Folgerand Skarlicki's (1998) equity comparisons.

The second stage of this cognitive process invariablyinvolves an analysis of the causes of the outcomes thatresulted in the perceived disequilibria. Articles thatdescribe this second stage include: Neuman (1998) whonotes that attributions for the causes of negativeoutcomes are driving forces for aggressive behavior; Biesand Tripp's (1998) and Murray's (1999) description ofthe role of overly personalistic attributions (or `blameattributions') in acts of organizational revenge; Martinkoand Zellars' (1998) emphasis on the role of attributions inprecipitating aggressive behaviors; Martinko andGardner's (1982) description of how attributions leadto organizationally induced helplessness; and Judge's(1996) focus on employees' attributions for absenteeism.

Although we acknowledge and describe a two-stageprocess where individuals (1) perceive some type of dis-equilibrium (e.g. injustice or inequity) in the workplace;and then (2) make an attribution for the disequilibrium;we have decided to focus primarily on the attributionalside of this process. There are two reasons for this. First,it appears that there is a relatively high degree ofconsensus regarding the process by which outcomes areevaluated. Although the recent literature has pointed outthat there are many different ways of describing thenature of the evaluation process including relative asopposed to absolute equity (Martinko 2000) anddistributive, procedural, and interactional justice (e.g.Folger and Skarlicki 1998; Murray 1999), the literaturehas, for the most part, confirmed that perceptions of thequality of outcomes are a necessary antecedent cognitionthat precedes counterproductive behavior (see Table 1for additional references). Although it is important tounderstand the process by which the quality of outcomes

is evaluated, we believe that it is the attributions for thecause of the outcomes that will be most predictive of thenature and form of counterproductive behavior. Morespecifically, although two individuals may both perceivethat their outcomes are undesirable and inequitable, webelieve that it is their causal reasoning processes,manifested through the attributions that they make forthe causes of their outcomes, which are most importantin predicting their counterproductive reactions to theoutcomes. Thus, as we will describe below, if a personattributes a disappointing outcome to his or her owninternal and unstable characteristics such as a lack ofeffort, the individual will be likely to assume blame andwill probably not engage in counterproductive behavior.On the other hand, if the individual attributes thedisappointing outcome to an external, stable, andintentional cause, such as a jealous or malevolent co-worker (e.g. Bies and Tripp 1996; Murray 1999), theindividual is much more likely to engage in some form ofcounterproductive retaliatory behavior.

Although different theories have been used to describehow and why various causal reasoning processes areassociated with counterproductive behavior, we believethat attribution theory provides the most comprehensive,parsimonious, and integrated explanation of why someindividuals, as opposed to others, when presented withthe same stimuli, choose to engage in counterproductivebehavior. Moreover, we also believe that attributiontheory helps to explain why, when confronted withnegative outcomes, some individuals choose to directtheir behavior externally through retaliatory forms ofcounterproductive behavior, while others direct theirefforts internally to produce self-destructive forms ofcounterproductive behavior, such as alcohol and drugabuse. More specifically, we believe and have evidence,which supports that specific patterns of attributions forperceived inequitable/unjust workplace outcomes arehighly predictive of individuals' proclivities to engage inretaliatory versus self-destructive counterproductivebehaviors. These relationships are depicted in Figure 2,and explained in more detail below.

Although many of the sources cited above describeaspects of attribution theory, the primary sources whichform the basis of our arguments regarding the centralrole of attributions are Abramson, Seligman andTeasdale (1978); Weiner (1986); Martinko and Gardner(1982); Martinko and Zellars (1998); Douglas andMartinko (2001), and Weiner's (1995) book onjudgements of responsibility. Essentially these worksargue that one's attributions about the causes ofoutcomes (equitable or inequitable) are a primary forcemotivating counterproductive behaviors. More specifi-cally, the locus of causality dimension affects affectivereactions. Internal attributions for negative events oftenresult in negative feelings about the self, including self-deprecation and helplessness (e.g. Martinko and Gardner



1982). On the other hand, external attributions stimulatenegative affective reactions that are directed outwardsuch as revenge, particularly when individuals perceivethat there are no mitigating circumstances and when theperpetrators' actions are seen as intentional (e.g.Martinko and Zellars 1998; Weiner 1995).

The stability dimension affects expectancies. Whennegative outcomes are perceived to be the result ofunstable causes, they do not alter expectancies. As a result,regardless of whether the attribution is internal or external,because the outcome is unstable, it is not anticipated in thefuture, and counterproductive behavior is unlikely. On theother hand, if the cause of an undesirable outcome isperceived to be stable, regardless of whether it is perceivedas internal or external, the outcome is expected to continueand counterproductive behavior is more likely. Morespecifically, when negative outcomes are attributed tointernal and stable causes such as lack of ability, itincreases the likelihood of counterproductive behavior thatis internally directed such as learned helplessness andalcohol and drug abuse (Martinko and Gardner 1982). Onthe other hand, negative outcomes that are attributed toexternal and stables causes, which are also perceived to beintentional, and without mitigating circumstances, such asa punitive manager, are more likely to result in externallydirected counterproductive behaviors such as aggression,revenge, and sabotage (e.g. Bies and Tripp 1996; Douglasand Martinko, 2001). Importantly, this perspective stresses

that the cognitive interpretation of a negative outcome is aprimary driving force in determining whether or not anindividual chooses to engage in counterproductive be-havior, and whether the behavior is manifested internallyor externally resulting in either self-destructive orretaliatory behaviors, respectively (see Figure 2).

In the remainder of this article we will elaborate on thecentrality of attributional processes by demonstratinghow they are related to individual difference and situ-ational variables.

Individual Differences

Many individual difference variables have been proposedto relate to various forms of counterproductive behavior.In this section, we argue that each of these individualdifference variables is an important antecedent tocounterproductive behaviors because of the influencethese individual differences are likely to have onattributional processes.

Gender

Research supports the notion that gender is related tocounterproductive behaviors in that males are much morelikely to express overt aggression than females (e.g. Eaglyand Steffan 1986). We believe that a possible explanation

Figure 2. A Causal Reasoning Model of Counterproductive Behavior



for the relationship between gender and aggression is thewell documented finding that males demonstrate hostileattribution biases more often than females and that thosewho demonstrate hostile attribution biases are moreaggressive than those who do not (e.g. Douglas andMartinko, 2001; Martinko and Moss 1999; Neuman 1998).In addition, a number of studies have also documented thatmales generally manifest higher levels of self-serving biasesthan females (Cash, Gillen and Burns 1977; Dobbins,Pence, Orban and Sgro 1983), suggesting that underconditions of failure, males will be relatively more externalin their attributions than females. The finding that malesare more likely to explain negative outcomes in terms ofexternal and intentional causes offers an explanationlinking gender to attributional processes, which, in turn,are related to the incidence of counterproductivebehaviors.

Locus of Control

Another individual difference variable associated withaggression is locus of control which has been described asa generalized disposition to assign responsibility foroutcomes, both positive and negative, to either environ-mental causes (external locus of control) or internalcauses (internal locus of control). More specifically,Storms and Spector (1987) have found that individualswith an external locus of control are more likely toexhibit counterproductive behaviors than those with aninternal locus of control. Similarly, Perlow and Latham(1993) found that individuals who were high inexternality were more likely than others to treat clientsabusively. Thus, in general, the research documents thatlocus of control is related to incidences of counter-productive behavior in organizations. Our explanationfor these relationships is that locus of control is apersonality trait that predisposes individuals to makeeither internal or external attributions. Our model assertsthat locus of control is related to counterproductivebehavior because these attributions are related to thelikelihood that individuals will engage in counter-productive behaviors.

Attribution Style

Another individual difference variable closely related tolocus of control is attribution style. Attribution style canbe defined as the tendency to make attributions that areconsistent across situations (Abramson et al. 1978; Kentand Martinko 1995; Russell 1991). As opposed to locusof control, the notion of attribution style encompassesadditional attributional dimensions and is concernedwith conditions associated with success and failure.Several variations of attribution style have beendocumented in the literature. Seligman (1990) differen-tiates between optimistic and pessimistic styles.

Individuals with optimistic styles tend to make internaland stable attributions for success and external, unstableattributions for failure. Douglas and Martinko (2001)describe a hostile attribution style as one in whichindividuals attribute failures to external stable andintentional causes and document that these styles arerelated to self-reports of workplace aggression. Similarly,Martinko and Gardner (1982) make the case thatpessimistic attribution styles, which are indicative oflearned helplessness, are related to counterproductivebehaviors such as absenteeism, poor performance,apathy, avoidance behaviors, depression, and alcoholabuse.

The notion of attribution style suggests that style is atrait-like individual difference factor that biases the typesof attributions that individuals are likely to make acrosssituations. The research has demonstrated thatgeneralized attribution styles can be reliably measuredand that they are valid predictors of behaviors that arecharacterized by learned helplessness (Abramson et al.1978). It has also been demonstrated that individuals canbe characterized as having styles associated with specificbehavioral domains (Russell 1991). The OrganizationalAttribution Style Questionnaire (OASQ) developed byMartinko and his colleagues (Douglas and Martinko,2001; Campbell and Martinko 1998; Martinko and Moss1999; Thomson and Martinko 1998) has been developedto assess attribution styles in organizational contexts. Asdocumented by the studies referenced above, the OASQhas good reliabilities, generally exceeding .80. Moreimportantly, the OASQ and other measures ofattributions have been found to be related to attributionsfor negative workplace incidents (Campbell andMartinko 1998); the adoption of new informationtechnologies (Henry, Martinko and Pierce 1993;Martinko, Henry and Zmud 1996); self-reports ofworkplace aggression (Douglas and Martinko, 2001);differences between samples of incarcerated versus non-incarcerated adult populations (Martinko and Moss1999); and conflict between leaders and members(Martinko and Moss 2000). Thus, the research on theOASQ and related measures has demonstrated that themeasure validly predicts the types of attributions thatindividuals are likely to make as well as behaviors thatare associated with specific attributional patterns.Although more research is still needed, we believe thatattribution style is one of the most promising individualdifference variables because of its links with attributionsand counterproductive behavior.

Core Self-Evaluations

Recent work by Judge and his colleagues has suggestedthat core self-evaluations `which refer to fundamental,subconscious conclusions individuals reach aboutthemselves, other people, and the world' are related to a



variety of work-related outcomes such as satisfaction andproductivity (Judge, Erez and Bono 1998; Judge, Locke,Durham and Kluger 1998). As noted, there are obviousconnections between locus of control, attribution styles,and attributions. We believe that the notions of core self-concept and attribution styles are closely related. Morespecifically, Judge et al. (1998) have indicated that thefour variables that make up core self-image (i.e. locus ofcontrol, self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, and non-neurotocism) are highly intercorrelated. Assuming Judgeet al.'s argument is correct, it is reasonable to concludethat since locus of control is related to attributions, theother core dimensions must be related to attributions.Moreover, if attribution style is simply a better articulatedversion of locus of control, it also follows that attributionstyle will be related to the dimensions of self-concept.This chain of reasoning also leads us to consider howother core self-concepts may be related to attributions.We can argue that individuals who have high self-esteemwould have optimistic attribution styles (Martinko et al.1998) such that they would tend to attribute successes tostable and internal characteristics such as their ability andattribute failures to external and unstable characteristicssuch as luck or chance. On the other hand, we wouldexpect that people with low self-esteem would tendtoward pessimistic attribution styles, attributing failuresto internal and stable causes such as ability and success toexternal and unstable causes such as luck or chance.These insights have research support. Levy (1993) foundthat individuals with high self-esteem performed better,demonstrated higher levels of internal locus of control,and attributed performance results to stable, internalattributes in comparison to those with low self-esteem.Other studies have also indicated that internalattributions for failure are associated with low self-esteem(e.g. Winefield, Tiggemann and Winefield 1992), and thatoptimistic individuals de-emphasize internal and stableattributions for failures to protect their self-esteem (Kulikand Rowland 1989).

Similarly, we would expect that generalized self-efficacy (Bandura 1977, 1997) could also be concep-tualized as the tendency to believe that, because of one'sabilities (i.e. internal and stable attributions), individualshigh in generalized self-efficacy would expect to besuccessful in a wide variety of situations. In a series ofexperiments, Silver, Mitchell and Gist (1995) found thatgeneralized self-efficacy is related to attributions in thatindividuals high in self-efficacy made self-servingattributions (attributing failures to external, unstablecauses, like unfamiliarity with the task or bad luck) forunsuccessful performances, while low self-efficacyindividuals made self-effacing attributions (attributingfailures to stable, internal causes, such as ability) forperformance failures.

Finally, the last variable associated with core self-evaluations, non-neurotocism, can be conceptualized as

the slight positive optimistic bias suggested by Seligman(1990) which he asserted was the hallmark of successfuland fulfilled individuals. Paraphrasing Judge's definitionof `core self-evaluation', we would characterize suchindividuals as people who believe that they have controlover their successes and who believe that theirenvironments are reasonably supportive. This wouldexplain the correlation of non-neuroticism with internallocus of control, high self-esteem, and generalized self-efficacy. As discussed above, all of these variables tend tobe associated with optimistic attribution styles thatpreserve individuals' self-evaluations and would make itunlikely that they would engage in hostile or self-deprecating attributions. These arguments are consistentwith Folger and Skarlicki's (1998) suggestion thatindividuals high on neuroticism might be more likely toexhibit hostile attribution styles, making theseindividuals more apt to blame others for negativeworkplace outcomes, and demonstrate `sinister attri-bution errors' or show `organizational paranoia' (Kramer1995). Thus, non-neurotocism can be interpreted ashelping to offset hostile attributions that could lead toretaliatory behaviors.

Integrity

Another individual difference variable, which has beendemonstrated to relate to counterproductive behavior, isintegrity, as measured by integrity tests (Ones,Viswesvaran and Schmidt 1993). In general, integritytests have been found to be related to a wide variety ofproductive and counterproductive behaviors includinglow productivity, absenteeism, stealing, violence, druguse, and disciplinary problems (Hogan and Brinkmeyer1997; Hogan and Hogan 1989; Ones and Viswesvaran1998; Ones et al. 1993). Discussions of the construct ofintegrity have suggested that it includes the notions ofreliability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emo-tional stability (Ones, 1993; Sackett and Wanek 1996),although Ones et al. (1993) had suggested that themajority of the relationships represented by integritytests could be captured in the construct of conscien-tiousness. While we are not aware of any studies relatingattributions or attribution styles to integrity tests orconscientiousness, we believe that the constructs ofattribution styles, integrity, and core self-evaluation mayall be related. More specifically, we believe that there aremany similarities between the core self-evaluations ofnonneurotocism and emotional stability, and betweengeneralized self-efficacy and conscientiousness. Moreover,it seems reasonable to incorporate attributionaldimensions into the descriptions of these constructs.Thus, for example, it would seem that individuals whoare high in self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy wouldbe both conscientious and agreeable and would also belikely to be biased toward an internal locus of control as



well as an optimistic attribution style. Similarly, wewould expect that a person characterized by emotionalstability would also be characterized as non-neurotic, andhave the slightly optimistic attribution style that Seligman(1990) suggests identifies with `well-adjusted' individuals.Although, at this point, these relationships are mostlyspeculation, it would seem that, within the context of ourgeneral discussion, they are relationships that warrantfurther inquiry.

Negative Affectivity

Watson and Clark (1984) have defined NegativeAffectivity (NA) as the extent to which individualsexperience high levels of distressing emotions like anger,fear, hostility, and anxiety. High NA individuals tend tobe less satisfied with their lives and focus on negativeaspects of themselves and their environments (Watsonand Pennebaker 1989) and are often perceived as hostile,demanding, and distant (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield andAllen 1999; Watson and Clark 1984). Moreover,according to Shavit and Shouval (1977) high NAindividuals are likely to interpret slightly negative oreven ambiguous social information as threatening.

We suspect that the nature of the relationship betweenNA and attributions as well as attribution styles issomewhat different than the types of relationshipsdemonstrated for the other individual difference varia-bles. In the case of NA, we believe that NA probably hasthe most impact on the first stage of the cognitiveprocesses described in our model: the perceptions ofdisequilibria. In other words, given the definition of NA,which indicates that people high in NA have a heightenedtendency to dwell on the negative aspects of themselves(i.e. internal attributions) and their world (i.e. externalattributions), we believe that NA is probably related tothe incidence and frequency of pessimistic attributions.Thus, we believe that individuals high in NA are morelikely to perceive disequilibria and therefore more likelyto make pessimistic attributions and experience thevariety of affective states related to the individualdifference variables we have described above. Inaddition, the tendency to ruminate and dwell on thenegative aspects of life, which is characteristic of peoplehigh in NA, also suggests that these individuals may, ingeneral, perceive negative events as more stable thanindividuals who are not characterized as high NA. Thus,we believe that NA affects not only the likelihood thatindividuals engage in attributional processes but also thetendency to view outcomes as relatively permanent andstable. Because of these perceptions of stability,individuals high in NA are more likely to perceive thecauses as stable and therefore more likely to displaycounterproductive behavior than others.

The Situation/Environment

The importance of the environment as a stimulus forbehavior is recognized by each of the major behaviorparadigms described above as well as all of the theoriesof counterproductive behavior. However, there appearsto be a bifurcation in theoretical perspectives of counter-productive behavior with regard to the relative impo-rtance of the environment versus individual differencevariables. On the one hand, one group of organizationaltheorists appears to prefer to explain the incidence andfrequency of counterproductive behavior in terms oforganizational factors. Thus, the discussions of counter-productive behavior by Baron and his colleagues (Baronand Richardson 1994; Neuman 1998), Robinson andGreenberg (1998), Folger and Skarlicki (1998), andO'Leary-Kelley et al. (1996) all emphasize the role oforganizational level factors, stressing an `organizationallevel' perspective. In addition, some of these perspectivesappear to actively discourage consideration of the role ofindividual differences. For example, Robinson andGreenberg (1998) indicated that `no clear picture emergesof the deviant personality type in organizations' andassert that individual differences account for aninsignificant portion of the variance in counterproductivebehavior. Similarly, O'Leary-Kelley et al. (1996) limittheir discussion of aggressive behavior to factorsprompted by the organization and appear to discouragethe exploration of the role of individual differencesindicating that `we believe that an exclusive focus onthese antecedent factors is misguided.'

On the other hand, a second group, which primarilyfocuses on integrity testing (e.g. Hogan and Hogan 1989;Ones et al. 1993) emphasizes the role of individualdifferences in counterproductive behavior, and does littlein terms of explaining how individual differences interactwith environmental/organizational level variables. Itshould be emphasized that this group does not deny theimportance of organizational level factors in stimulatingcounterproductive behavior. It simply emphasizes therole of individual differences and the ability to predictcounterproductive behaviors by assessments of individualdifference factors.

We believe that both of the above perspectives makean important contribution to understanding counter-productive behavior through their contribution tounderstanding the impact of the environment andindividual differences on the cognitive processingcomponents of the paradigm depicted in Figure 1 andmore fully articulated in Figure 2. More specifically, webelieve that the organizational level perspectives areimportant because they point to organizational factorsthat generate negative outcomes, which provide theprimary stimuli for the first part of the cognitive process(perceiving disequilibria) as well as the data forattributing causation. Thus, for example, organizational



level factors suggested by Martinko and Gardner (1982),Martinko and Zellars, (1998), and Folger and Skarlicki(1998) such as authoritarian leadership, punitive workingconditions, numerous rules and procedures, and a cultureof aggression all increase the probability that individualswill experience negative outcomes and therefore perceivedisequilibria. Similarly, factors such as grievanceprocedures and discipline policies for aggression(O'Leary-Kelley et al. 1996) all serve to reduce theprobability of unfair treatment, undoubtedly reduceperceptions of disequlibria (i.e. inequity and perceivedinjustice), and may help ameliorate attributions to theorganization as a causal agent for some outcomes.

On the other hand, the theories that focus onindividual difference factors can be interpreted asidentifying individual predispositions to perceivedisequlibria (e.g. negative affectivity) as well as biasingindividuals towards the types of attributions they willmake for the disequilibria (e.g. locus of control,attribution style, and core self-evaluations). Thus, theparadigm that we have proposed integrates both of theseperspectives by: (1) recognizing that some situationalfactors increase the likelihood of perceived disequlibriaand provide the data for attributional processes; and (2)recognizing how individual difference factors moderatethese perceptions of disequlibria as well as the process ofmaking attributions that lead to counterproductivebehavior. In closing we would like to point out thatour emphasis on individual differences is not an attemptto downplay the role of organizational factors. However,because there are already extensive discussions of the roleof organizational factors in the studies cited above aswell as in Table 1, we prefer to refer readers to the extantliterature rather than reiterate discussions that arealready available.

Limitations

Our objective in writing this article was to explain theelements of the paradigm that appears to be emerging asresearchers work on understanding counterproductivebehavior. Keeping this objective in mind, we emphasizedthe common elements of apparently disparate perspec-tives and we attempted to avoid focusing on minordifferences or the explication of a specific perspective.Because of this approach as well as the ordinaryconstraints in writing an integrative article, weexperienced and imposed limitations, the most salientof which are described below.

Rational Information Processing

One concern in describing the paradigm was whether ornot the rational and sequential information-processingparadigm that emerged provided a realistic depiction of

the way the various factors interact. As Cronshaw andLord (1987) have suggested, everyday decision-makingmay not be amenable to the types of effortfulinformation processing suggested by rational decisionmaking models. Similarly, as suggested by Lewin (1951),motivated behavior is probably most accurately depictedas the result of the simultaneous mutual interaction ofboth individual and situational variables. Yet, asMartinko and Zellars (1998) note, it is practicallyimpossible to entirely decompose and reconstruct all ofthe various factors and levels that contribute to anysingle act or class of counterproductive behaviors.Recognizing these limitations, we believe that at thisstage of our understanding, the proposed paradigm isprobably the most practical way to describe howresearchers have conceptualized the dynamics of theprocess by which people choose to engage in counter-productive behavior. However, we recognize that theprocess is more interactive and is often less cognitivelyexplicit and sequential than we have depicted. Althoughthe model does include feedback loops to recognizeinteractions, we realize that this representation, althoughuseful at this stage of theory building, does not displaythe full complexity of the interactions that undoubtedlyoccur.

Scope

A second limitation is the result of the attempt to capturethe entire domain of counterproductive behaviors, whichincludes violence as well as mundane behaviors such aspoor work performance. Because of this broad scope, wehave compromised some precision. For example, we donot explicitly incorporate trigger events or emotions intothe current model, although more discussion of thesevariables would certainly be relevant and increase theexplanatory power of the model for many forms ofcounterproductive behavior. In addition, although wehave presented a model that indicates that attributionalprocesses fully mediate the relations between sets ofindividual and situational factors and counterproductivebehavior, we recognize that some individual andsituational factors may also have direct effects oncounterproductive behavior.

Attributional Dimensions

Again, because our goal was not the explication of aspecific theoretical perspective or specific class ofcounterproductive behaviors, we did not fully articulateeach of the perspectives that we considered. In the case ofattribution theory, we primarily referred to thedimensions of locus of causality and stability to argueour case, since they were usually sufficient to make thenecessary arguments. Nonetheless, attribution theoristsalso recognize many other dimensions that are probably



related to counterproductive behavior includingcontrollability, intentionality, and globality. Thesedimensions should be considered in fully articulatingtheories of counterproductive behavior. Similarly, thefiner points of each of the various theories we includedshould be considered and more fully integrated intomodels of counterproductive behavior as we begin tomore fully understand and recognize critical relation-ships.

Conclusion

The paradigm we have developed has severalimplications. The first is that it highlights major variablesthat are typically included in theories of counter-productive behavior. As a result, it can serve as achecklist for theories that attempt to explain counter-productive behavior, suggesting the minimal list ofvariables that should be considered. Thus, the paradigmshould be useful in theory building. For example,including attributional styles and processes into Harrisand Greising's (1998) theory of image-making might helpto increase the explanatory power of their theory.Similarly, including situational variables as well as moreexplicitly including atttribution styles into integrity testsmight result in increasing the predictive power of theseinstruments.

Another implication of the paradigm, which was mademore apparent by the relative ease with which thevarious theories appeared to fit within the paradigm, isthat there are many similarities between and among thevarious theories of counterproductive behavior. Whileseparate theories may be helpful in developing moreidiosyncratic understandings of some behaviors, webelieve it is also important to have a standard andreferent point for theory building. We are hopeful thatthe paradigm and model that we have articulated cancontribute toward a consensus of the basic dynamicssurrounding the processes that generate counter-productive behaviors.

Finally, as indicated in the Introduction, an advantageof a paradigmatic approach is that it highlights keyrelationships, which form the focal points of a theory. Indeveloping the model, we have argued that attributionstyles and processes play a strong role in the developmentand expression of counterproductive behaviors. Since notall scholars and practitioners may agree on this point, itis the obvious place to challenge the model. In the sprit ofthe tradition of strong inference, we welcome challengesto the model. Systematic disconfirmation of the model isthe optimal way to build theory that can help usunderstand and explain the similarities and differencesin the various forms of counterproductive behavior thatoccur in our places of work.

References

Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P. and Teasdale, J.D. (1978)Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49±74.

Aquino, K. (2000) Structural and individual determinants ofworkplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical statusand conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26,171±193.

Aquino, K., Grover, S.L., Bradfield, M. and Allen, D.G. (1999)The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, andself-determination on workplace victimization. Academy ofManagement Journal, 42, 260±272.

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997) The Exercise of Control. New York:Freeman and Company.

Baron, R.A. and Neuman, J.L. (1996) Workplace violence andworkplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequencyand potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161±173.

Baron, R.A. and Richardson, D.R. (1994) Human Aggression,2nd edn. New York: Plenum Press.

Bennet, R.J. (1998) Perceived powerlessness as a cause ofemployee deviance. In R.W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly andJ.M. Collins (eds) Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations:Violent and Deviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1996) Beyond distrust: `Gettingeven' and the need for revenge. In R.M. Kramer and T.Tyler (eds), Trust in Organizations. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1998) Revenge in organizations:The good, the bad, and the ugly. In R.W. Griffin, A.O'Leary-Kelly and J.M. Collins (eds) DysfunctionalBehavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior.Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Campbell, C.R. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) An integrativeattributional perspective of empowerment and learnedhelplessness: A multimethod field study. Journal ofManagement, 24, 173±200.

Cash, T.F., Gillen, B. and Burns, D.S. (1977) Sexism and`beautyism' in personnel consultant decision making.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301±310.

Churchman, C.W. (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems.New York: Basic Books.

Collins, J.M. and Griffin R.W. (1998) In R.W. Griffin, A.O'Leary-Kelly and J.M. Collins (eds) DysfunctionalBehavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior.Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Cronshaw, S.F. and Lord, R.G. (1987) Effects of categorization,attribution, and encoding processes on leadershipperceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 97±106.

Dalton, D.R. and Mesch, D.J. (1991) On the extent andreduction of avoidable absenteeism: An assessment ofabsence policy provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,76, 810±818.

Dalton, D.R. and Wimbush, J.C. (1998) Absence does not makethe heart grow fonder. In R.W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly andJ.M. Collins (eds) Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations:Violent and Deviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Dobbins, G.H., Pence, E.C., Orban, J.A. and Sgro, J.A. (1983)The effects of sex of the leader and sex of the subordinate onthe use of organizational control policy. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 32, 325±343.

Douglas, S.C. and Martinko, M.J. (2001) Exploring the role ofindividual differences in the prediction of workplaceaggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 547±559.



Eagly, A. and Steffan, V.J. (1986) Gender and aggressivebehavior: A meta-analytical review of the social psychologicalliterature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309±330.

Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (1998) A popcorn metaphor foremployee aggression. In R.W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly andJ.M. Collins (eds) Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations:Violent and Deviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (1999) A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915±933.

Gardner, W. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) The dysfunctionaleffects of impression management in organizations, In R.W.Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly and J.M. Collins (eds)Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent andDeviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Greenberg, J. (1990) Employee theft as a reaction tounderpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cut. Journalof Applied Psychology, 75, 561±568.

Greenberg, R. (1993) Stealing in the name of justice:Informational and interpersonal moderators of theftreactions to underpayment inequity. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81±103.

Greenberg, J. (1998) The cognitive geometry of employee theft:negotiating `the line' between taking and stealing. In R.W.Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly and J.M. Collins (eds)Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent andDeviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Greenberg, J. and Alge, B.J. (1998) Aggressive reactions toworkplace injustice. In R.W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly andJ.M. Collins (eds) Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations:Violent and Deviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Harris M.H. and Greising, L.A. (1998) Alcohol and drug use asdysfunctional workplace behaviors. In R.W. Griffin, A.O'Leary-Kelly and J.M. Collins (eds) DysfunctionalBehavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior.Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Hassard, J. (1993) Sociology and Organization Theory:Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Henry, J.W., Martinko, M.J. and Pierce, M.A. (1993)Attributional style as a predictor of success in a firstcomputer science course. Computers in Human Behavior, 9,341±352.

Hogan, J. and Brinkmeyer, K. (1997) Bridging the gap betweenovert and personality-based integrity tests. PersonnelPsychology, 50, 587±599.

Hogan, J. and Hogan, R. (1989) How to measure employeereliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 273±280.

Judge, T.A. (1996) Dispositional influences on attributionsconcerning absenteeism. Journal of Management, 22, 837±862.

Judge, T.A., Erez, A. and Bono, J.E. (1998) The power of beingpositive: the relation between positive self-concept and jobperformance. Human Performance, 11, 167±187.

Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C. and Kluger, A.N. (1998)Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role ofcore self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17±34.

Kent, R. and Martinko, M. (1995) The development andevaluation of a scale to measure organizational attributionstyle. In M. Martinko (ed.) Attribution Theory: AnOrganizational Perspective. Delray Beach, FL: St. LuciePress.

Kramer, R.M. (1995) The distorted view from the top: Power,paranoia, and distrust in organizations. In R. Bies, R.Lewicki and B. Sheppard (eds), Research in Negotiations inOrganizations. Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolution.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T.S. (1977) The Essential Tension. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Kulik, C.T. and Rowland, K.M. (1989) The relationship ofattributional frameworks to job seekers' perceived successand job search involvement. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 10, 361±368.

Levy, P.E. (1993) Self-appraisal and attributions: A test of amodel. Journal of Management, 19, 51±63.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.

Mack, D., Shannon, C., Quick, J. and Quick, J. (1998) Stressand the preventive management of workplace violence. InR.W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly and J.M. Collins (eds)Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent andDeviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Martinko, M.J. (2000) Basic motivation. In F. Luthans (ed.)Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Martinko, M.J. and Gardner, W.L. (1982) Learned helplessness:An alternative explanation for performance deficits.Academy of Management Review, 7, 195±204.

Martinko, M.J., Henry, J.W. and Zmud, R.W. (1996) Anattributional explanation of individual resistance toinformation technologies in the workplace. Behavior andInformation Technology, 15, 313±330.

Martinko, M.J. and Moss, S.E. (1999) An exploratory study ofworkplace violence and aggression. In S. Barr (ed.)Proceedings of the Southern Management AssociationConference. Orlando, FL, 86±88.

Martinko, M.J. and Moss, S.E. (2000) Conflict in the leader-member dyad: An attributional interpretation. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the SouthernManagement Association, Orlando, FL.

Martinko, M. and Zellars, K. (1998) Toward a theory ofworkplace violence: A cognitive appraisal perspective. InR.W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly and J.M. Collins (eds)Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent andDeviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Martocchio, J.J. and Judge, T.A. (1994) A policy capturingapproach to individual's decisions to be absent.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,57, 358±386.

Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980) The case for qualitativeresearch. The Academy of Management Review, 5, 491±500.

Murray, B. (1999) The effects of blame attributions andoffender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in theworkplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607±627.

Neuman, J.H. (1998) Workplace violence and workplaceaggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potentialcauses, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24,391±419.

Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1997) Aggression in theworkplace. In R. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (eds)Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W. and Glew, D.J. (1996)Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework.Academy of Management Review, 21, 225±253.

Ones, D.S. (1993) The Construct Validity for Integrity Tests.Doctoral Dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1998) Integrity testing inorganizations. In R.W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly and J.M.Collins (eds) Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations:Violent and Deviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C. and Schmidt, F.L. (1993)Comprehensive of meta-analysis of integrity validities:



findings and implications for personnel selection andtheories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 679±703.

Perlow R. and Latham, L.L. (1993) Relationship of client abusewith locus of control and gender: A longitudinal study inmental retardation facilities. Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 831±834.

Pfeffer, J. (1993) Barriers to the advancement of organizationalscience: Paradigm development as a dependent variable.Academy of Management Review, 18, 599±620.

Platt, J.R. (1964) Strong inference. Science, 146, 347±353.Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995) A typology of deviant

workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555±572.

Robinson, S.L. and Greenberg, J. (1998) Employees behavingbadly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the studyof workplace deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,5, 1±30.

Russell, D.W. (1991) The measurement of attributional process:Trait and situational approaches. In Zelen, S.L. (ed.) NewModel, New Extensions of Attribution Theory. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Sackett, P.R. and Wanek, J.E. (1996) New developments in theuse of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness,dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnelselection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787±829.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1990) Learned Optimism. New York: Knopf.Shavit, H. and Shouval, R. (1977) Repression-sensitization and

processing of favorable and adverse information. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 33, 1041±1044.

Silver, W.S., Mitchell, T.R. and Gist, M.E. (1995) Responses tosuccessful and unsuccessful performance: the moderating

effect of self-efficacy on the relationship betweenperformance and attributions. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decisions Processes, 62, 286±299.

Skinner, B.F. (1957) Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Storms, P.L. and Spector, P.E. (1987) Relationships oforganizational frustration with reported behavioralreactions: The moderating effects of locus of control.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 635±637.

Thomson, N. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) Observer attributionstyle: An empirical analysis of the cross-situational stabilityof observer attributions. In Barr, S. (ed.) SouthernManagement Association Conference Proceedings. Orlando,FL, 27±30.

Van Maanan, J. (1995) Style as theory. Organizational Science,6, 687±692.

Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: JohnWiley.

Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1984) Negative affectivity: Thedisposition to experience aversive emotional states.Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465±490.

Watson, D. and Pennabaker, J.W. (1989) Health complaints,stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negativeaffectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234±254.

Weiner, B. (1986) An Attribution Theory of Motivation andEmotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1995) Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation ofa Theory of Social Conduct. New York: Guilford Press.

Winefield, A.H., Tiggemann, M. and Winefield, H.R. (1992)Unemployment distress, reasons for job loss, and causalattributions for unemployment in young people. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 213±219.



integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior

Documents

organizationally induced helplessness

policy capturing approach

social learning theory

causal reasoning processes

human decision processes

optimistic attribution styles

pessimistic attribution styles

individual difference factors