Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 92, No. 2, 410 – 424 0021-9010/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

Interpersonal Deviance, Organizational Deviance, and Their Common

Correlates: A Review and Meta-Analysis
Christopher M. Berry, Deniz S. Ones, and Paul R. Sackett
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

Interpersonal deviance (ID) and organizational deviance (OD) are highly correlated (R. S. Dalal, 2005). This,
together with other empirical and theoretical evidence, calls into question the separability of ID and OD. As
a further investigation into their separability, relationships among ID, OD, and their common correlates were
meta-analyzed. ID and OD were highly correlated (␳ ⫽ .62) but had differential relationships with key Big
Five variables and organizational citizenship behaviors, which lends support to the separability of ID and OD.
Whether the R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson (2000) instrument was used moderated some relationships. ID
and OD exhibited their strongest (negative) relationships with organizational citizenship, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. Correlations with organizational justice were small to moderate,
and correlations with demographic variables were generally negligible.

Keywords: counterproductive work behavior, workplace deviance, interpersonal deviance, organizational

deviance

It has become popular in the workplace deviance literature to
make a distinction between interpersonal deviance (ID), which
encompasses deviant behaviors targeted toward individuals (e.g.,
violence, gossip, theft from coworkers), and organizational devi-
ance (OD), which encompasses deviant behaviors targeted toward
the organization (e.g., intentionally working slowly, damaging
company property, sharing confidential company information),
and to treat these as separate behavioral families. Although this
dichotomy originally arose from the multidimensional scaling
study by Robinson and Bennett (1995), the case can be made that
much of its popularity stems from the development, validation, and
publication of a public-domain self-report measure of workplace
deviance that includes ID and OD subscales (Bennett & Robinson,
2000). Indeed, the vast majority of research using the ID–OD
distinction uses the Bennett and Robinson (2000) self-report mea-
sure or some variant of it. Despite the intuitive appeal of the
distinction, though, the foundation for it came mostly from em-
ployees’ perceptions of the similarity of deviant workplace behav-
iors (e.g., Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995)
instead of from the more crucial evidence of actual covariation
between deviant workplace behaviors (Ones & Viswesvaran,
2003; Sackett & DeVore, 2002). Recent meta-analytic evidence
(Dalal, 2005) addressing the actual covariation between ID and
OD found that the two dimensions correlated highly (r ⫽ .70,
corrected for unreliability), calling into question whether the
ID–OD distinction is a meaningful one (at least as currently
measured). Therefore, a critical examination of the evidence for
and against the ID–OD distinction is warranted. The following
sections of this article review the literature on the structure of
workplace deviance, examine the empirical evidence for and
Christopher M. Berry, Deniz S. Ones, and Paul R. Sackett, Department
of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christo-
pher M. Berry, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail:
berry053@umn.edu
against the ID–OD distinction, and then propose a series of meta-
analyses of relationships that ID and OD have with a common set
of correlates to address questions about the construct validity of
the ID–OD distinction.
Structure of Workplace Deviance
There have been many different perspectives on the structure of
workplace deviance. One conceptualization is to view the deviance
domain as characterized by an overall deviance construct, with
specific deviant behavior domains (e.g., theft, lateness, harass-
ment; each commonly measured in terms of frequency of occur-
rence) loading to differing degrees on an overall construct. The
polar opposite of the single construct position is to view each
deviant behavior domain as a discrete construct. Differentiating ID
and OD constitutes a position between these two extremes. A
perspective differentiating between ID and OD creates behavioral
families larger than each specific behavior but smaller than an
overall deviance construct. If ID and OD relate differently to
various behaviors of interest in organizations, they lend more focus
and specificity to the study and prediction of such behaviors
beyond the overall construct approach yet are more parsimonious
than the approach that assumes separate constructs for each be-
havior, which makes them potentially useful for the development
of more systematic and integrative theories of workplace deviance.
Whether facets such as ID and OD add to our understanding of
deviance beyond the overall or separate construct approaches is in
many ways ultimately an empirical question.
An early attempt to group deviant behaviors into broader be-
havioral categories was that by Hollinger (1986; Hollinger &
Clark, 1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b), who developed a two-
category framework for the interrelationships of deviant behaviors.
The first category of behaviors was labeled property deviance and
referred to organization-targeted acts and misuse of employer
assets. The second category of behaviors was labeled production
deviance and referred to violating norms about how work should
be carried out.

410
 INTERPERSONAL DEVIANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE
Robinson and Bennett (1995), noticing that Hollinger’s (1986;
Hollinger & Clark, 1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b) framework failed
to address deviant behaviors of an interpersonal nature (e.g., sexual
harassment and physical aggression), broadened the taxonomy
and, using multidimensional scaling, produced a two-dimensional
solution. The first dimension reflected a continuum of behaviors
ranging from relatively minor acts to more serious ones (severity
dimension). The second dimension reflected a continuum indicat-
ing the extent to which deviant behaviors were interpersonal and
harmful to individuals versus noninterpersonal and harmful to the
organization (target dimension).
Crossing the two dimensions identified by Robinson and Ben-
nett (1995) yielded four quadrants of deviant behaviors. One
quadrant contained serious and organizationally harmful behaviors
(labeled property deviance). A second quadrant contained rela-
tively minor but still organizationally harmful behaviors (labeled
production deviance). A third quadrant contained relatively minor
and interpersonally harmful behaviors (labeled political deviance).
The fourth quadrant contained serious and interpersonally harmful
behaviors (labeled personal aggression).
On the basis of Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) work, Bennett
and Robinson (2000) developed and validated a self-report instru-
ment of workplace deviance. This instrument contained two sub-
scales based on the Robinson and Bennett (1995) target dimension:
one subscale measuring ID, and one measuring OD. Confirmatory
factor analyses were offered in support of the two-factor model of
deviance, and evidence of convergent and discriminant validity
was presented.
Thus, there have been many conceptualizations of the structure
of deviance. Dimensions reflecting distinctions among targets of
the behavior, severity of the behavior, and task relevance (e.g.,
Gruys & Sackett, 2003) of the behavior have been empirically
identified. Behavioral categories reflecting property deviance, pro-
duction deviance, political deviance, personal aggression, ID, OD,
and many more specific categories (e.g., theft, attendance, drug
and alcohol use) have been identified. Sackett and DeVore (2002)
suggested a hierarchical model, with a general deviance factor at
the top, several group factors (e.g., ID and OD) below the general
factor, and specific behavior domains (e.g., theft, attendance, drug
and alcohol use) below these group factors.
Probably the most popular way the structure of deviance is
currently conceptualized is the ID–OD factor model proposed by
Bennett and Robinson (2000). Although the ID–OD distinction has
enjoyed some support (e.g., Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Gruys &
Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), so have other concep-
tualizations. This calls into question why the ID–OD factor model
is currently so popular compared with all other models. One
possibility is that its popularity arose in great part because of the
ease of measurement resulting from the existence of a public
domain self-report instrument measuring ID and OD (i.e., Bennett
& Robinson, 2000). Therefore, an examination of the evidence for
and against the ID–OD distinction is warranted. The following
section of this article provides such an examination.
Evidence for and Against the Distinction Between
ID and OD
When one is making the case for a distinction between two
constructs (e.g., ID and OD), three lines of evidence are the most
411
common and compelling. First, for two constructs to be considered
distinct, they must not be too highly correlated (e.g., Campbell &
Fiske, 1959). This calls into question what exactly is meant by “too
highly correlated.” It is difficult to point to one value as this
threshold, but we posit that when the correlation between two
constructs approaches values commonly agreed on as acceptable
for reliability coefficients (e.g., r ⫽ .70 and higher), the distinc-
tiveness of the two constructs becomes questionable. Mostly on the
basis of self-report measures of ID and OD, Dalal’s (2005) meta-
analysis estimated that the two constructs have a corrected corre-
lation of .70. This magnitude of correlation calls into question the
separability of ID and OD but is not by itself conclusive evidence.
The second commonly presented line of evidence for the dis-
tinctiveness of two constructs is whether factor analyses of their
content domains result in interpretable two-factor solutions. At
least three studies (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Lee & Allen, 2002;
Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2006) have addressed the
ID–OD distinction by testing it against an overall deviance con-
struct using factor analyses of deviance measures. Lee and Allen
(2002) reported finding inadequate fit for the two-factor ID–OD
model, whereas Bennett and Robinson (2000) and Sackett et al.
(2006) reported adequate fit, but each of these three studies used
different cutoffs for determining adequate fit. Although there is
debate about what can be called adequate fit of a factor model
(Maruyama, 1998), authors have suggested cutoff values for at
least two fit indexes used in all three studies: the normed fit index
(.90; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and the comparative fit index (.95;
Hu & Bentler, 1999). According to these fit criteria, ID–OD
two-factor models did not fit adequately in Bennett and Robinson
(2000) or Lee and Allen (2002) but did fit adequately in Sackett et
al. One possibility for this disparity is that Sackett et al. used a
much larger sample size (N ⫽ 900) than did Bennett and Robinson
(2000; N ⫽ 143) or Lee and Allen (2002; N ⫽ 155). One cannot
know for sure, though, whether sampling error is at the root of
differences between these specific factor-analytic results. Thus, it
appears that the factor-analytic evidence for the ID–OD distinction
is inconclusive.
The final commonly presented line of evidence for the distinc-
tiveness of two constructs is data demonstrating differential cor-
relations with other constructs. Such evidence for self-report mea-
sures of ID and OD was presented in the original validation study
of Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) measure. Bennett and Robinson
(2000) listed observed correlations between ID and 17 variables
and between OD and the same 17 variables. If ID and OD scales
measure distinct constructs, they should show differing patterns of
correlations with variables for which there is a theoretical basis for
expecting differences. Bennett and Robinson (2000) found that
variables that possessed a more organizational orientation, such as
property and production deviance (Hollinger & Clark, 1982b,
1983a, 1983b), psychological and physical withdrawal (Lehman &
Simpson, 1992), and the conscientiousness dimension of organi-
zational citizenship behavior (OCB; Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moor-
man, & Fetter, 1990), did indeed correlate more strongly with OD.
Also, antagonistic work behaviors (Lehman & Simpson, 1992),
Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970), and the courtesy di-
mension of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1990), which are composed
mostly of interpersonal target behaviors, correlated more strongly
with ID. Therefore, the evidence from Bennett and Robinson
(2000) supports the distinction between the ID and OD scales.
412 BERRY, ONES, AND SACKETT
None of these correlations was corrected for statistical artifacts,
though. Also, as with any single study with a moderate sample
size, sampling error could have affected the relative magnitudes of
these correlations. Thus, meta-analyses of such correlations, cor-
recting for statistical artifacts, would be most useful. There is
precedence for using meta-analysis to test the validity of distinc-
tions between constructs, as this approach has been used in the
OCB (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002) and organizational justice
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Por-
ter, & Ng, 2001) literatures.
There have been a number of meta-analyses in the deviance
literature (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al.,
2001; Dalal, 2005; Lau, Au, & Ho, 2003; Salgado, 2002). With the
exception of Dalal (2005), though, none of these previous meta-
analyses has made a distinction between ID and OD. Thus, of these
previous meta-analyses, only Dalal (2005) could even attempt to
draw conclusions about relationships at the ID–OD facet level.
Examining the viability of separating ID and OD was not the
purpose of Dalal’s (2005) meta-analysis, though, and Dalal (2005)
only meta-analyzed correlations among ID, OD, and some OCB
variables. There are many important correlates of ID and OD other
than OCB, and comparisons of all of these correlates’ relationships
with ID versus OD are needed if one is to best be able to draw
conclusions about the viability of the ID–OD distinction.
Research Questions
The previous section of this article demonstrates that there are
still a number of pieces missing in the construct validity puzzle of
the ID–OD distinction. Therefore, a series of meta-analyses were
completed to help fill in some of the missing pieces. The present
meta-analyses had three general purposes. Their main purpose was
to test the convergent and discriminant validity evidence for ID
and OD by determining whether ID and OD have differential
relationships with a common set of correlates. This focus on
ID–OD correlations with a large set of variables is the key way the
present meta-analyses go beyond existing meta-analyses in the
deviance domain.
Furthermore, whereas previous meta-analyses examined rela-
tionships between deviance and other constructs in a piecemeal
fashion (e.g., Dalal, 2005, only examined OCB– deviance; Sal-
gado, 2002, only examined Big Five– deviance), the present study
meta-analyzes relationships among ID, OD, and every variable
with which ID and OD have been correlated in at least three
studies. This makes the present meta-analyses the most ambitious
effort to date to further understanding of the nomological net of
workplace deviance and affords them one more key advantage
over the previous meta-analyses. That is, the present meta-analyses
make exclusive use of aggregate deviance criteria (i.e., multi-item
measures of ID and OD), whereas previous meta-analyses exam-
ining similar relationships to those in the present study differed
among themselves in the degree to which they incorporated sam-
ples using aggregate criteria versus narrower individual behavioral
criteria (e.g., theft, lateness, absenteeism), which confounds com-
parisons among previous meta-analyses. Using a common level of
aggregate measures of deviance makes comparisons of relation-
ships (e.g., deviance’s relationships with Big Five vs. organiza-
tional justice vs. OCB) more interpretable.
The second general purpose of the present study is to further test
the discriminant validity evidence for ID and OD by updating the
correlation between ID and OD reported in Dalal (2005). Dalal’s
(2005) estimate is updated in that the present study uses a larger
number of independent samples and more than double the total
sample size of Dalal (2005) to establish the most stable estimate of
the ID–OD relationship to date.
The third general purpose of the present meta-analyses is to deter-
mine whether the Bennett and Robinson (2000) measure of workplace
deviance is comparable to other existing deviance self-report mea-
sures. Deviance research using the ID–OD distinction has mostly used
the Bennett and Robinson (2000) self-report measure. Other research-
ers have developed other self-report scales using this ID–OD distinc-
tion (e.g., Laczo, 2002; Marcus, Schuler, Quell, & Humpfner, 2002),
although we know of only one study (Sackett et al., 2006) in which
participants responded to both the Bennett and Robinson (2000)
measure and a second, different self-report measure of workplace
deviance. Sackett et al. (2006) administered to participants both the
Bennett and Robinson (2000) measure and an unpublished self-report
deviance measure constructed by Laczo (2002). The ID scales in the
two different deviance measures correlated .70 (r ⫽ 1.00, corrected
for unreliability) with each other, whereas the OD scales in the two
deviance measures correlated .68 (r ⫽ .98, corrected for unreliability).
Although the evidence from Sackett et al. provided support for the
comparability of these deviance measures, these findings cannot nec-
essarily be extended beyond their sample or to measures other than
Laczo’s (2002). Therefore, it is still possible that other measures may
exhibit different patterns of relationships than the Bennett and Rob-
inson (2000) measure. Thus, the final purpose of the present meta-
analyses is to examine the previously unaddressed question of
whether type of deviance scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, vs. other
scales) moderates relationships among ID, OD, and their common
correlates. Answering each of the three main research questions of the
present meta-analyses is crucial in determining the viability of the
ID–OD distinction (at least as it is currently measured).
Method
Literature Search
A sixfold approach was used to identify articles that might
contain useful coefficients. First, a keyword search of the Psyc-
INFO database was performed (keywords were antisocial behav-
ior, counterproductive behavior, counterproductive work behav-
ior, counterproductivity, dysfunctional work behavior, interper-
sonal deviance, noncompliant behavior, organizational deviance,
organizational misbehavior, organizational retaliation behavior,
organization-motivated aggression, workplace aggression, work-
place deviance, and workplace deviant behavior). Second, the
Social Sciences Citation Index was used to identify any articles
that cited either Bennett and Robinson (2000) or Robinson and
Bennett (1995). Third, manual searches of Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, and Personnel Psychology were carried out for the years 1999
(the year before the publication of Bennett & Robinson, 2000)
onward. Fourth, manual searches of the conference programs for
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and
Academy of Management conferences were carried out for the
 INTERPERSONAL DEVIANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE
years 1998 onward. Fifth, the reference sections of located primary
studies and any pertinent meta-analyses (Cohen-Charash & Spec-
tor, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Dalal, 2005; Lau et al., 2003;
Salgado, 2002) were examined for relevant citations. Sixth, prom-
inent researchers in the organizational deviance and counterpro-
ductive work behavior areas were contacted with requests for any
unpublished work.
Studies that contained enough information to extract (a) a correla-
tion between ID and OD, (b) a correlation between ID and some other
variable, or (c) a correlation between OD and some other variable
were initially included. This resulted in 31 studies, from which 38
independent samples containing 449 correlations were drawn (there
were so many correlations per sample because each sample might list
correlations between ID, OD, and any number of variables, all of
which were coded). Of these, we retained only samples reporting a
correlation between a variable and ID or OD for which there were at
least three independent samples within the entire meta-analytic data-
base reporting a correlation between that variable and ID and OD (i.e.,
if Variable X and ID were correlated in three samples but Variable X
and OD were correlated in only two samples, neither of these rela-
tionships was meta-analyzed). There is a precedent for this three-
sample cutoff, as this was the decision rule used in Cohen-Charash
and Spector (2001), a similarly designed meta-analysis in the organi-
zational justice domain. This resulted in a final database of 30 articles,
from which 37 independent samples containing 298 coefficients were
drawn (within each variable no sample contributed more than one
coefficient, but across variables each sample might have contributed
more). Twenty variables were identified that met the inclusion criteria
(see Table 1 for a listing and definitions of these variables).
Procedure
For each study, the correlation among ID, OD, and the other
variable was coded. In addition, the workplace deviance measure
used (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, vs. some other measure) and
whether deviance was measured via self-report were coded for use
as moderators.1 Christopher M. Berry independently coded all
studies. To provide a check on the accuracy of coding, Deniz S.
Ones independently coded a subset of 8 studies containing 143
coefficients, and Paul R. Sackett independently coded a subset of
8 different studies containing 86 coefficients. Agreement between
Berry and Ones was 94% (99% between Berry and Sackett) for
correlations, 100% (100%) for deviance scale used, and 100%
(100%) for whether deviance was measured via self-report. All
disagreements were minor and resolved via discussion as needed.
Formulas provided by Hunter and Schmidt (1990, p. 274) were first
used to correct all gender and minority status point-biserial correla-
tions to what the correlations would be if sample sizes for gender and
minority–majority subgroups were equal. The Hunter–Schmidt Meta-
Analysis Program (Schmidt & Le, 2004) computer software was then
used to arrive at meta-analytic estimates of the mean correlations and
variability of relationships among ID, OD, and the other variables.
Correlations were corrected for sampling error and for unreliability in
both variables using alpha coefficients (when applicable). Not enough
information was available in primary studies to make individual
statistical artifact corrections, so the artifact distribution method was
used. See Table 2 for the artifact distributions used in the present
meta-analyses and their sources.
413
Some studies used supervisor or peer report to measure ID or
OD instead of self-report. There was concern that supervisor or
peer reports might differ systematically from self-reports, perhaps
because of halo error (Dalal, 2005; Sackett et al. 2006), problems
with objectivity of self-report, or low detection rates of deviance.
Therefore, we carried out all analyses both using all studies and
excluding those studies that did not use self-report.
The variability of the corrected correlations across studies was
also examined. Hunter and Schmidt (1990) suggested that if less
than 75% of the variability in correlations across studies is ac-
counted for by statistical artifacts, moderators likely exist. Mod-
erator analyses were carried out for all relationships in which each
of the following was true: Artifacts did not account for 75% of the
variability, the absolute magnitude of corrected variability (SD␳)
was still large enough to suspect moderators, and enough infor-
mation and enough samples existed for meaningful moderator
analyses. The same meta-analytic procedures were used as were
described above for the full-sample meta-analyses.
Results
Meta-analytic results are reported in Table 3. In no case did the
exclusion of nonself-report samples significantly change any of the
meta-analytic estimates (see values in parentheses in Table 3).
First, the correlation between ID and OD was calculated (␳ ⫽ .62,
corrected for sampling error and unreliability). This value was
slightly lower than Dalal’s (2005) corrected estimate of .70. It
should be mentioned that the mean observed ID–OD correlations
were the same (.52) in the present study and in Dalal (2005).
Therefore, we can explain the difference by concluding that the
present study corrected the mean observed correlation using higher
reliability estimates than Dalal (2005). The higher reliability for ID
and OD found in the present study was expected, as we made
exclusive use of aggregate measures of ID and OD, whereas Dalal
(2005) often used narrower behavioral measures of deviance (e.g.,
withdrawal, substance abuse) and classified these as ID or OD.
Regardless, the magnitude of the correlation between ID and OD
was still large enough in both studies to call into question the
separability of ID and OD.
Second, meta-analyses of the common correlates of ID and OD
were completed. In many cases, ID and OD had very similar
relationships with their common correlates. For instance, correla-
tions for ID and OD with age, Emotional Stability, Openness to
Experience, and procedural justice were all very similar. There
were also a number of striking differences in correlations of ID and
OD with many variables. We draw particular attention to Agree-
ableness, Conscientiousness, and each of the OCB variables.
Agreeableness correlated .14 stronger with ID than with OD.
Conscientiousness, conversely, correlated .19 greater with OD
than with ID. Finally, OD correlated between .07 and .27 stronger
1
There was an attempt to code for other useful moderators of relation-
ships (e.g., gender composition of the sample, tenure of the sample). Not
enough information was reported in primary studies to examine such
moderators, however. Although this is unfortunate, we feel that the most
important potential moderators of relationships among ID, OD, and other
variables at this point in the construct validation process of self-report
deviance scales is the specific deviance scale used (Bennett & Robinson,
2000, vs. some other) and whether that deviance scale used self-report.
414 BERRY, ONES, AND SACKETT

Table 1
Definitions for Each Variable Meta-Analyzed

Variable Definition

Deviance

Interpersonal deviance Deviant behaviors in which employees engage that are targeted toward individuals (e.g., violence, gossip, theft
from coworkers).
Organizational deviance Deviant behaviors in which employees engage that are targeted toward the organization (e.g., working slowly,
damaging company property, sharing confidential company information).

Big Five

Emotional Stability The Big Five personality trait generally reflecting the degree to which a person is secure, is calm, has low
anxiety, and has low emotionality.
Extraversion The Big Five personality trait generally reflecting the degree to which a person is sociable, assertive, talkative,
ambitious, and energetic.
Openness to Experience The Big Five personality trait generally reflecting the degree to which a person is curious, intelligent,
imaginative, and independent.
Agreeableness The Big Five personality trait generally reflecting the degree to which a person is likable, easy to get along
with, and friendly.
Conscientiousness The Big Five personality trait generally reflecting the degree to which a person is hard working, dependable,
and detail oriented.

Organizational citizenship behaviors

Organizational citizenship behavior
Conscientious initiative
Organizational support
Personal support
Work behaviors that support the broader organizational, social, and psychological environment of an
organization.
A subset of behaviors that generally focuses on doing more than is expected in one’s job and persisting with
enthusiasm and effort.
A subset of behaviors that generally focuses on supporting organizational objectives and following rules and
procedures.
A subset of behaviors that generally focuses on helping other employees, being courteous, and being
cooperative.

Organizational justice

Distributive justice
Interactional justice
Interpersonal justice
Procedural justice
A type of organizational justice perception focusing on the degree to which an employee feels the allocation
of outcomes or rewards was fair.
A type of organizational justice perception focusing on the degree to which an employee feels he or she has
been treated sensitively and is respected.
A type of organizational justice perception focusing on the degree to which an employee feels communication
from the organization has been personal and respectful.
A type of organizational justice perception focusing on the degree to which an employee feels the process by
which rewards are distributed or decisions are made was fair.

Demographics

Age Age (in years) of the participant filling out the deviance measure.
Gender 0 ⫽ female, 1 ⫽ male
Minority status 0 ⫽ White, 1 ⫽ not White (is a racial–ethnic minority member)
Tenure The number of years an employee has been employed by an organization.
Work experience The number of years an employee has been working full-time jobs.

with OCB variables than did ID. Therefore, although they had
some very similar correlations with a number of common corre-
lates, it appears that ID and OD did have quite different correla-
tions with some personality traits and with OCB, which lends
support to the separability of ID and OD.
In addition to shedding light on whether ID and OD are sepa-
rable, the meta-analyses in this article also contribute to further
understanding of the nomological net of ID and OD. For instance,
ID and OD were much more strongly correlated with the Big Five
personality dimensions of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Emotional Stability (⫺.23 to ⫺.46) than with Extraversion or
Openness to Experience (⫺.09 to .02); this echoes previous find-
ings in the deviance literature (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001).
Furthermore, that Agreeableness correlated more strongly with ID
and Conscientiousness correlated more strongly with OD makes
conceptual sense, as Agreeableness is a more interpersonally ori-
ented trait, whereas Conscientiousness is less so. The fact that
Emotional Stability correlated similarly with ID and OD makes
sense, as Emotional Stability does not possess a strong interper-
sonal versus organizational component.
OCB variables also exhibited moderate to strong negative cor-
relations with ID and OD, ranging from ⫺.20 to ⫺.47. That OD
correlated more strongly with OCB conscientious initiative and
OCB organizational support was expected, given that these types
of OCB do not have strong interpersonal components. The findings
for overall OCB and OCB personal support were not as easily
 INTERPERSONAL DEVIANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE 415

Table 2
Reliability Distributions for Artifact Corrections

Variable rxx SD N k Source

Deviance
ID .84 .07 6,878 26 Present study
OD .82 .07 6,080 22 Present study
Big Five
Emotional Stability .78 .11 — 370 Viswesvaran & Ones (2000)
Extraversion .78 .09 — 307 Viswesvaran & Ones (2000)
Openness .73 .12 — 251 Viswesvaran & Ones (2000)
Agreeableness .75 .11 — 123 Viswesvaran & Ones (2000)
Conscientiousness .78 .10 — 307 Viswesvaran & Ones (2000)
OCB .79 — 16,455 47 Dalal (2005)
OS .74 — 5,607 23 Dalal (2005)
CI .73 .06 1,412 3 Present study
PS .73 — 5,864 24 Dalal (2005)
Organizational justice
Distributive justice .91 — — 66 Hauenstein et al. (2001)
Interactional justice .90 .06 668 3 Present study
Interpersonal justice .89 .04 645 3 Present study
Procedural justice .91 — — 66 Hauenstein et al. (2001)

Note. These reliability coefficients are all alphas. Dashes indicate that data were not reported. ID ⫽ interper-
sonal deviance; OD ⫽ organizational deviance; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; OS ⫽ organiza-
tional support; CI ⫽ conscientious initiative; PS ⫽ personal support.

interpretable. It was expected that personal support would have a
stronger relationship with ID than with OD, because personal
support is composed of interpersonally oriented behaviors. Also,
as overall OCB is made up of both interpersonally and organiza-
tionally oriented behaviors, it was not expected that there would be
so much stronger a relationship with OD than with ID.
Organizational justice variables exhibited low to moderate neg-
ative correlations with ID and OD (⫺.07 to ⫺.25). Distributive and
interpersonal justice generally had the weakest correlations with
ID and OD (although ID correlated .19 with interpersonal justice,
which makes sense given the interpersonal component of interper-
sonal justice). Interactional and procedural justice, though, had
moderate negative correlations with ID and OD, with neither
exhibiting particularly different magnitudes of correlation with ID
or OD. It was not necessarily clear why procedural justice percep-
tions had stronger correlations with ID and OD than did distribu-
tive justice perceptions. For interactional versus interpersonal jus-
tice, the disparity might have been due to the typical
conceptualization of interpersonal justice as a component of inter-
actional justice, although this is only conjecture.
Demographic variables2 did not have particularly strong correla-
tions with either ID or OD. Age had a small negative correlation with
ID and OD, being male was slightly positively correlated with ID and
OD, and work experience and tenure generally had small negative
correlations with ID and OD (work experience actually had a mod-
erate correlation with OD, but this was based on only three samples).
Finally, the moderator analyses (see Table 4) addressed the ques-
tion of whether relationships differed according to whether the Ben-
nett and Robinson (2000) instrument was used to measure ID and OD.
Enough information and samples in each moderator level were avail-
able to test this for only five variables.3 In each of the relationships for
which we performed moderator analyses, before we tested for mod-
erators, 75% of the variability in correlations was not accounted for.
First, type of measure did not moderate the relationship between ID
and OD; the relationship among gender, ID, and OD; or the relation-
ship among age, ID, and OD. For OCB organizational support and
OCB personal support, however, correlations were much higher when
some measure other than Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) was used.
For OCB organizational support, the relative magnitudes of correla-
tions with ID and OD were similar regardless of whether the Bennett
and Robinson (2000) measure was used. For OCB personal support,
though, the difference between correlations with ID and OD nearly
disappeared when some measure other than Bennett and Robinson’s
(2000) was used. Therefore, although many relationships were simi-
lar, there is some evidence that the Bennett and Robinson (2000)
instrument differs from other self-report deviance measures, at least in
its relationships with OCB.
Discussion
Summary of Findings
The present meta-analyses provide support for the usefulness of
separating self-report workplace deviance scales into ID and OD
dimensions. Although ID and OD did exhibit similar relationships
2
Minority status (White vs. not White) was reported in a number of
studies, with being White having a small positive correlation with both ID
and OD (ks ⫽ 5 and 7; ␳s ⫽ .07 and .09, SD␳s ⫽ .09 and .10, respectively).
Such results are difficult to interpret, as they do not differentiate among
minority subgroups. We urge researchers to report correlations for each
racial subgroup in a sample. Although we recognize it is often the case that
there are very limited numbers of minorities in a given sample, such
correlations are of value for subsequent meta-analyses.
3
There was not enough information for moderator analyses on OCB
conscientious initiative or overall OCB because many primary studies only
included measures of one of the OCB facets. Therefore, the OCB personal
support correlations were not necessarily drawn from the same samples as
were the OCB organizational support or OCB conscientious initiative
correlations.
416 BERRY, ONES, AND SACKETT

Table 3
Meta-Analytic Results: Relationships Among ID, OD, and Their Common Correlates

Variable N k rm SDr ␳ SD␳ CV10 CV90 % var

Deviance
ID–OD 10,104 27 .52 .10 .62 .11 .49 .76 15.4
(7,090) (25) (.50) (.11) (.61) (.12) (.45) (.76) (15.7)
Big Five
Emotional Stability–ID 2,842 10 ⫺.20 .11 ⫺.24 .12 ⫺.39 ⫺.09 26.0
(2,318) (7) (⫺.22) (.10) (⫺.27) (.11) (⫺.40) (⫺.13) (26.6)
Emotional Stability–OD 2,300 7 ⫺.19 .11 ⫺.23 .12 ⫺.39 ⫺.08 22.4
Extraversion–ID 2,360 8 .02 .11 .02 .11 ⫺.12 .17 28.2
(1,836) (5) (.02) (.09) (.03) (.10) (⫺.10) (.15) (31.0)
Extraversion–OD 1,836 5 ⫺.07 .12 ⫺.09 .14 ⫺.26 .09 17.9
Openness–ID 2,360 8 ⫺.07 .05 ⫺.09 .00 ⫺.09 ⫺.09 100.0
(1,836) (5) (⫺.07) (.05) (⫺.08) (.00) (⫺.08) (⫺.08) (100.0)
Openness–OD 1,772 5 ⫺.03 .07 ⫺.04 .06 ⫺.12 .04 53.8
Agreeableness–ID 3,336 10 ⫺.36 .09 ⫺.46 .10 ⫺.58 ⫺.33 27.5
(2,934) (8) (⫺.35) (.09) (⫺.44) (.10) (⫺.57) (⫺.32) (25.7)
Agreeableness–OD 2,934 8 ⫺.25 .08 ⫺.32 .08 ⫺.42 ⫺.21 35.2
Conscientiousness–ID 3,458 11 ⫺.19 .12 ⫺.23 .13 ⫺.40 ⫺.06 20.0
(2,934) (8) (⫺.20) (.08) (⫺.24) (.08) (⫺.34) (⫺.14) (37.2)
Conscientiousness–OD 2,934 8 ⫺.34 .08 ⫺.42 .08 ⫺.53 ⫺.32 32.2
OCB
OCB–ID 2,725 8 ⫺.17 .13 ⫺.21 .14 ⫺.39 ⫺.03 17.0
OCB–OD 2,725 8 ⫺.36 .10 ⫺.44 .11 ⫺.58 ⫺.31 23.2
OCB (CI)–ID 2,020 5 ⫺.15 .13 ⫺.20 .15 ⫺.39 .00 14.2
OCB (CI)–OD 2,020 5 ⫺.36 .08 ⫺.47 .09 ⫺.59 ⫺.36 27.5
OCB (OS)–ID 3,253 8 ⫺.19 .11 ⫺.24 .13 ⫺.41 ⫺.08 18.3
OCB (OS)–OD 3,253 8 ⫺.36 .13 ⫺.46 .16 ⫺.66 ⫺.25 10.7
OCB (PS)–ID 3,386 9 ⫺.24 .15 ⫺.31 .18 ⫺.54 ⫺.09 10.7
OCB (PS)–OD 3,643 10 ⫺.30 .11 ⫺.38 .12 ⫺.54 ⫺.23 20.4
(3,386) (9) (⫺.28) (.10) (⫺.37) (.11) (⫺.51) (⫺.22) (22.2)
Organizational justice
Distributive justice–ID 1,089 5 ⫺.12 .04 ⫺.13 .00 ⫺.13 ⫺.13 100.0
(832) (4) (⫺.10) (.04) (⫺.12) (.00) (⫺.12) (⫺.12) (100.0)
Distributive justice–OD 1,089 5 ⫺.10 .06 ⫺.12 .00 ⫺.12 ⫺.12 100.0
(832) (4) (⫺.12) (.07) (⫺.13) (.00) (⫺.13) (⫺.13) (100.0)
Interactional justice–ID 1,208 6 ⫺.22 .13 ⫺.25 .13 ⫺.41 ⫺.08 26.6
(951) (5) (⫺.25) (.13) (⫺.29) (.12) (⫺.44) (⫺.13) (28.4)
Interactional justice–OD 1,190 6 ⫺.18 .09 ⫺.21 .07 ⫺.29 ⫺.25 56.5
(933) (5) (⫺.22) (.06) (⫺.25) (.00) (⫺.25) (⫺.25) (100.0)
Interpersonal justice–ID 1,242 4 ⫺.17 .16 ⫺.19 .17 ⫺.41 .02 12.2
Interpersonal justice–OD 1,242 4 ⫺.06 .06 ⫺.07 .04 ⫺.12 ⫺.02 76.5
Procedural justice–ID 1,542 7 ⫺.19 .07 ⫺.21 .02 ⫺.24 ⫺.19 93.6
(1,285) (6) (⫺.20) (.07) (⫺.23) (.01) (⫺.24) (⫺.22)
Procedural justice–OD 1,542 7 ⫺.18 .09 ⫺.21 .07 ⫺.30 ⫺.13 55.3
(1,285) (6) (⫺.22) (.05) (⫺.25) (.00) (⫺.25) (⫺.25)
Demographics
Age–ID 6,249 14 ⫺.05 .07 ⫺.06 .06 ⫺.13 .02 52.9
(2,967) (9) (⫺.09) (.08) (⫺.10) (.05) (⫺.17) (⫺.04) (58.8)
Age–OD 5,928 12 ⫺.09 .09 ⫺.10 .08 ⫺.21 .00 25.1
(2,914) (10) (⫺.12) (.12) (⫺.13) (.11) (⫺.28) (.01) (23.2)
Gender–IDa 6,250 14 .14 .07 .15 .06 .07 .23 52.2
(2,968) (10) (.17) (.07) (.19) (.03) (.14) (.23) (75.5)
Gender–ODa 5,929 12 .11 .09 .12 .08 .02 .22 23.4
(2,915) (10) (.10) (.12) (.11) (.11) (⫺.03) (.26) (23.7)
Tenure–ID 2,211 7 ⫺.01 .03 ⫺.01 .00 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 100.0
Tenure–OD 2,710 9 ⫺.07 .07 ⫺.08 .05 ⫺.14 ⫺.01 60.5
(2,453) (8) (⫺.06) (.07) (⫺.07) (.05) (⫺.13) (⫺.01) (64.0)
Work experience–ID 794 3 ⫺.10 .02 ⫺.11 .00 ⫺.11 ⫺.11 100.0
Work experience–OD 783 3 ⫺.22 .05 ⫺.25 .00 ⫺.25 ⫺.25 100.0

Note. Values in parentheses are estimates excluding samples using nonself-report of deviance. Gender: Female ⫽ 0, Male ⫽ 1. rm ⫽ mean
sample-size-weighted correlation; CV10 and CV90 ⫽ 10% and 90% credibility values, respectively; % var ⫽ percentage of variance attributable to artifacts;
ID ⫽ interpersonal deviance; OD ⫽ organizational deviance; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; CI ⫽ conscientiousness initiative; OS ⫽
organizational support; PS ⫽ personal support.
a
These point-biserial correlations were corrected to account for uneven sample sizes in each subcategory (e.g., uneven sample sizes for men vs. women).
 INTERPERSONAL DEVIANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE 417

Table 4
Moderator Analysis Results: Effects of Deviance Measure Used on Relationships

Variable N k rm SDr ␳ SD␳ CV10 CV90 % var

Deviance
ID–OD (BR) 4,751 17 .49 .12 .59 .13 .43 .76 14.9
(4,494) (16) (.48) (.12) (.58) (.13) (.42) (.74) (15.8)
ID–OD (other) 5,353 10 .54 .07 .65 .07 .56 .75 18.4
Demographics
Age–ID (BR) 2,117 8 ⫺.06 .09 ⫺.06 .07 ⫺.15 .03 47.8
(1,593) (5) (⫺.07) (.08) (⫺.07) (.06) (⫺.15) (.01) (47.3)
Age–ID (Other) 4,132 6 ⫺.05 .06 ⫺.05 .05 ⫺.12 .01 100.0
Age–OD (BR) 1,593 5 ⫺.08 .07 ⫺.09 .05 ⫺.16 ⫺.02 55.8
Age–OD (Other) 4,335 7 ⫺.10 .09 ⫺.11 .09 ⫺.22 .01 18.5
(1,321) (5) (⫺.16) (.15) (⫺.18) (.15) (⫺.37) (.01) (16.5)
Gender–ID (BR)a 2,117 8 .19 .10 .20 .08 .10 .31 37.1
(1,593) (5) (.18) (.08) (.19) (.06) (.12) (.27) (49.4)
Gender–ID (other)a 4,133 6 .11 .04 .13 .02 .10 .15 100.0
Gender–OD (BR)a 1,593 5 .10 .12 .12 .12 ⫺.03 .26 21.2
Gender–OD (other)a 4,336 7 .11 .07 .13 .07 .04 .21 25.7
(1,322) (5) (.10) (.12) (.11) (.11) (⫺.03) (.25) (100.0)
OCB
OCB (OS)–ID (BR) 1,906 4 ⫺.13 .01 ⫺.16 .00 ⫺.16 ⫺.16 100.0
OCB (OS)–ID (other) 1,347 4 ⫺.29 .12 ⫺.37 .14 ⫺.54 ⫺.19 17.1
OCB (OS)–OD (BR) 1,906 4 ⫺.28 .05 ⫺.36 .04 ⫺.41 ⫺.30 63.5
OCB (OS)–OD (other) 1,347 4 ⫺.46 .13 ⫺.60 .16 ⫺.80 ⫺.39 10.1
OCB (PS)–ID (BR) 2,039 5 ⫺.15 .07 ⫺.19 .07 ⫺.28 ⫺.11 44.1
OCB (PS)–ID (other) 1,347 4 ⫺.38 .12 ⫺.49 .14 ⫺.67 ⫺.31 14.7
OCB (PS)–OD (BR) 2,039 5 ⫺.22 .04 ⫺.28 .00 ⫺.28 ⫺.28 100.0
OCB (PS)–OD (other) 1,604 5 ⫺.40 .07 ⫺.51 .07 ⫺.61 ⫺.42 41.6
(1,347) (4) (⫺.39) (.08) (⫺.50) (.08) (⫺.60) (⫺.40) (37.6)

Note. Values in parentheses are estimates excluding samples using nonself-report of deviance. rm ⫽ mean sample-size-weighted correlation; CV10 and
CV90 ⫽ 10% and 90% credibility values, respectively; % var ⫽ percentage of variance attributable to artifacts; ID ⫽ interpersonal deviance; OD ⫽
organizational deviance; BR ⫽ Bennett and Robinson (2000) measure of workplace deviance used; Other ⫽ some measure other than the Bennett and
Robinson (2000) measure was used; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; OS ⫽ organizational support; PS ⫽ personal support.
a
These point-biserial correlations were corrected to account for uneven sample sizes in each subcategory (e.g., uneven sample sizes for men vs. women).

with a number of variables, they had clear, differential relation-
ships with the Big Five personality dimensions of Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness and with most OCB variables. Agreeable-
ness, Conscientiousness, and OCB are important variables on
which to see differential correlations. Agreeableness and Consci-
entiousness are two of the three personality traits that underlie
integrity tests (Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Ones, 1993; Ones &
Viswesvaran, 2001) and thus likely play a key role in determining
workplace deviance. In addition, the relationship between OCB
and workplace deviance has been a common and sometimes hotly
debated research topic (e.g., Bennett & Stamper, 2002; Dalal,
2005; Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002; Miles, Bor-
man, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Sackett et al., 2006), which testifies to
the importance of OCB– deviance relationships.
However, for many variables the similarity in relationships with
ID and OD was striking. For instance, the third Big Five person-
ality variable that underlies integrity tests, Emotional Stability, had
virtually identical relationships with ID and OD, as did many other
widely researched variables (e.g., age; gender; tenure; and percep-
tions of distributive, interactional, and procedural justice). ID and
OD were also relatively strongly correlated with each other. There-
fore, it seems that, for some purposes, creating an overall work-
place deviance composite would be justified.
The present meta-analyses also further understanding of the
nomological net of ID and OD by simultaneously examining the
relationships among ID; OD; and Big Five personality, OCB,
organizational justice, and demographic variables, using the same
aggregate deviance criteria in each independent sample. Because
the same deviance criteria were used for all meta-analyses, it is
appropriate to compare magnitudes of relationships that ID and
OD had with each of these classes of variables. The strongest
correlates of ID and OD were personality and OCB variables.
Considerably below these correlations, in terms of magnitude,
were correlations with organizational justice variables. Demo-
graphic variables had only very weak correlations with ID and OD.
These four classes of variables reside at different conceptual levels
in relation to deviance, though, and these different conceptual
levels may confound comparisons of magnitudes of correlation.4
That is, Big Five and justice variables are probably best concep-
tualized as (personality and situational perception, respectively)
antecedents of deviance, whereas OCB is probably best concep-
tualized as a behavioral construct at a similar conceptual level to
deviance. Categorizing the conceptual level of demographic vari-
ables in relation to deviance is more difficult, so we simply refer
to them as correlates of deviance. Comparing magnitudes of cor-
relations may not be as meaningful unless the classes of variables
that are being compared with each other reside at similar concep-
4
We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this point to our
attention.
418 BERRY, ONES, AND SACKETT
tual levels in relation to deviance (e.g., Big Five personality and
organizational justice).
The present meta-analyses also address whether correlations
were moderated by use of the Bennett and Robinson (2000)
measure of workplace deviance. The Bennett and Robinson (2000)
measure is the most commonly used self-report deviance measure,
and it is crucial to understand whether it acts in the same way as
other self-report questionnaires. Correlations were similar for Ben-
nett and Robinson’s (2000) measure versus other measures, except
in the case of OCB variables. Other measures correlated much
more strongly with OCB variables, although the relative magni-
tude of ID versus OD correlations was still fairly comparable to the
Bennett and Robinson (2000) measure. This, taken with previous
evidence (e.g., Sackett et al., 2006), suggests that, although they
are highly similar, there may be some key differences between
Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) measure and other measures, es-
pecially in the degree to which they overlap with measures of
OCB. This is especially noteworthy given the previously men-
tioned debate over the strength of the relationship between devi-
ance and OCB. These moderator analyses were only carried out on
a relatively small number of variables and samples, though, so the
comparability of these scales is still a question needing further
research.
Comparisons With Previous Meta-Analyses
Given the existence of other meta-analyses in the deviance
domain, it is useful to compare the estimates reported in the
present meta-analyses at the ID–OD facet level of deviance and
similar estimates reported in previous meta-analyses generally at
different levels of deviance. Table 5 lists such comparisons side by
side. The second column of Table 5 lists the deviance relationships
reported in previous meta-analyses, whereas the third column lists
the estimates of similar relationships in the current meta-analyses.
The fourth column lists comments on key differences between the
present meta-analyses and previous meta-analyses, other than the
level at which deviance was measured, that might have affected
relationships.
Two things are most noteworthy when we compare the meta-
analyses, and both points argue for the distinction between ID and
OD. First, the magnitudes of relationships reported in our meta-
analyses tended to be different from the magnitudes of similar
relationships reported in previous meta-analyses, such as Salgado
(2002), Colquitt et al. (2001), Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001),
and Dalal (2005). One possibility is that these differences are due
to the levels at which each meta-analysis measured deviance.5 That
is, whereas we made exclusive use of aggregate measures of ID
and OD, previous meta-analyses in the deviance domain tended to
incorporate independent samples that used narrow behavioral mea-
sures, such as theft, lateness, and absenteeism, and then aggregate
across these samples to get an overall deviance estimate of rela-
tionships. Averaging across samples using narrow behavioral cri-
teria yields meta-analytic estimates of relationships between vari-
ables and deviance at the narrowest deviance facet levels (e.g.,
theft, lateness). Therefore, our ID and OD estimates tended to be
based on broader deviance measures than those of other meta-
analyses in the deviance domain. All else equal, relationships
between constructs will be maximized when the different con-
structs are measured at the same level of specificity (e.g., Judge,
Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996;
Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996), and this may explain dif-
ferences between our results and previous meta-analyses that mea-
sured deviance at a narrower level.
For example, Salgado (2002) correlated broad Big Five person-
ality variables, and Dalal (2005) correlated relatively broad OCB
variables, with narrow aggregated measures of deviance and found
smaller relationships than our meta-analyses found when measur-
ing deviance at the broader ID and OD facet levels. Similarly,
Colquitt et al. (2001) and Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001)
correlated relatively narrow facet measures of organizational jus-
tice with a narrow measure of deviance and found stronger rela-
tionships than our meta-analyses found when measuring deviance
at the broader ID–OD level. This pattern of findings echoes Sack-
ett and DeVore’s (2002) conceptualization of deviance as a hier-
archical construct, with the appropriate level of deviance measure-
ment depending on the specificity of the variable with which one
is attempting to relate deviance. The combined results of previous
and present meta-analyses’ findings seem like strong evidence that
paying attention to the level of deviance measurement is important
and that the ID–OD level of deviance is viable.
The viability of the ID–OD distinction is further supported by
the second noteworthy finding outlined in Table 5. That is, the
strength of many relationships differed depending on whether
variables were related with ID or OD. This is most striking for Big
Five personality and OCB. For instance, Salgado’s (2002) meta-
analysis found that deviance was most strongly related to Consci-
entiousness and Agreeableness, in that order. Salgado’s deviance
measure did not distinguish between ID and OD, though, and this
masked differences between the relationships that Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness have with ID and OD. Our meta-analyses
demonstrate that Agreeableness had a stronger relationship with
ID than with OD and Conscientiousness had a stronger relation-
ship with OD than with ID. Furthermore, ID had its strongest
relationship with Agreeableness, whereas OD had its strongest
relationship with conscientiousness. Therefore, our meta-analyses
suggest that the rank ordering of the strength of relationships
between deviance and Agreeableness and Conscientiousness de-
pends on whether one is examining ID or OD. Relationships
between overall deviance and personality, although useful, mask
these potentially important differences. The same is true of OCB–
deviance relationships. Therefore, the evidence from the present
meta-analyses, especially when compared with previous meta-
analyses, which tended to measure deviance at different levels,
suggests that the distinction between ID and OD is warranted in
many cases.
While we are comparing the present meta-analyses with previ-
ous meta-analyses, it is interesting to note that the present meta-
analyses have found stronger relationships among ID, OD, and Big
Five personality than previous meta-analyses but weaker relation-
ships among ID, OD, and organizational justice. At times, justice
5
We recognize that there are other key differences between our meta-
analyses and previous meta-analyses that might have contributed to differences
between estimates, and we have outlined these in the Comments column of
Table 5. We by no means assert that the level at which deviance was measured
is the only reason for differences between meta-analyses’ estimates, but we do
feel it is an important point of difference between the meta-analyses.
 INTERPERSONAL DEVIANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE 419

Table 5
Comparisons of Estimates From Previous Meta-Analyses With Those of the Present Meta-Analyses

Previous meta-analyses Present meta-analyses’

Variable estimates estimate Comments

Deviance

ID–OD .70 (Dalal, 2005) .62 Dalal’s (2005) estimate was based on fewer samples
(k ⫽ 20) and less than half (N ⫽ 4,136) the total
sample size of the present study. Present study
makes exclusive use of aggregate deviance
measures.

Big Five

Emotional Stability–deviance
Extraversion–deviance
Openness–deviance
Agreeableness–deviance
Conscientiousness–deviance
⫺.06 (Salgado, 2002)
.01 (Salgado, 2002)
.14 (Salgado, 2002)
⫺.20 (Salgado, 2002)
⫺.26 (Salgado, 2002)
ID ⫽ ⫺.24, OD ⫽ ⫺.23 Present study makes exclusive use of aggregate
deviance measures.
ID ⫽ .02, OD ⫽ ⫺.09 Present study makes exclusive use of Big Five
measures.
ID ⫽ ⫺.09, OD ⫽ ⫺.04
ID ⫽ ⫺.46, OD ⫽ ⫺.32
ID ⫽ ⫺.23, OD ⫽ ⫺.42

OCB

OCB (PS)–Deviance ID ⫽ ⫺.11, OD ⫽ ⫺.16 (Dalal, ID ⫽ ⫺.31, OD ⫽ ⫺.38 Present study makes exclusive use of aggregate
2005) deviance measures.
OCB (OS)–Deviance ID ⫽ ⫺.17, OD ⫽ ⫺.33 (Dalal, ID ⫽ ⫺.24, OD ⫽ ⫺.46 Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) measure, which
2005) moderates OCB relationships, was used in less
than half of Dalal’s (2005) articles, according to
references, although it is unclear exactly how
often it was used.

Organizational justice

Distributive justice–deviance
Interpersonal justice–deviance
Procedural justice–deviance
Distributive justice–deviance
Procedural justice–deviance
⫺.30 (Colquitt et al., 2001)
⫺.35 (Colquitt et al., 2001)
⫺.31 (Colquitt et al., 2001)
⫺.24 (Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001)
⫺.29 (Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001)
ID ⫽ ⫺.13, OD ⫽ ⫺.12 Present study makes exclusive use of aggregate
deviance measures.
ID ⫽ ⫺.19, OD ⫽ ⫺.07 Colquitt et al.’s (2001) estimates were based on
larger numbers of samples than were the present
study’s.
ID ⫽ ⫺.21, OD ⫽ ⫺.21
ID ⫽ ⫺.13, OD ⫽ ⫺.12 Cohen-Charash and Spector’s (2001) estimates were
based on smaller numbers of samples than the
present study’s.
ID ⫽ ⫺.21, OD ⫽ ⫺.21 Present study makes exclusive use of aggregate
deviance measures.

Demographics

Age–deviance Theft ⫽ ⫺.21, ID ⫽ ⫺.06, OD ⫽ ⫺.10 Lau et al.’s (2003) estimates were generally based
Production deviance ⫽ ⫺.33, on small numbers of samples.
Lateness ⫽ ⫺.20, Lau et al. (2003) did not correct for uneven gender
Absence ⫽ ⫺.11 splits.
(Lau et al., 2003) Present study makes exclusive use of aggregate
deviance measures.
Gender–deviance Lateness ⫽ ⫺.04, ID ⫽ .15, OD ⫽ .12
Absence ⫽ ⫺.10,
Alcohol abuse ⫽ .10
(Lau et al., 2003)
Tenure–deviance Theft ⫽ ⫺.12, ID ⫽ ⫺.01, OD ⫽ ⫺.08
Lateness ⫽ ⫺.13,
Absence ⫽ ⫺.13
(Lau et al., 2003)

Note. All estimates reported in this table were corrected for unreliability in both variables, except for estimates from Salgado (2002; these were also
corrected for range restriction in personality variables) and Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001; these are uncorrected, sample-size weighted mean estimates).
ID ⫽ interpersonal deviance; OD ⫽ organizational deviance; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; PS ⫽ personal support; OS ⫽ organizational
support.
420 BERRY, ONES, AND SACKETT
researchers have been somewhat dismissive of the role of person-
ality in determining workplace deviance and have lauded the role
of organizational justice perceptions (e.g., Robinson & Greenberg,
1998). This might have been further fueled by the results of
Salgado’s (2002) meta-analysis, in which the magnitudes of rela-
tionships of overall workplace deviance with personality variables
were relatively low, especially when compared with correlations
between organizational justice and deviance reported in Colquitt et
al. (2001) and Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). Comparisons of
the magnitudes of Big Five versus justice relationships from these
previous meta-analyses are tenuous, though, because there are
possible differences in criteria between the meta-analyses. The
results of the present meta-analyses, which examine both Big Five
and justice relationships using the same aggregate ID and OD
criteria, contradict the findings and assertions from previous work.
Thus, it is useful to compare directly our meta-analyses with
Cohen-Charash and Spector’s (2001), Colquitt et al.’s (2001), and
Salgado’s (2002) meta-analyses. For the sake of comparability
with these meta-analyses’ overall workplace deviance estimates,
composite theory formulas (e.g., Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck,
1981, pp. 163–164) can be used to estimate the correlation be-
tween each of the present study’s variables and an overall work-
place deviance measure (composite of ID and OD scale scores).
Table 6 shows these values for Big Five personality and orga-
nizational justice variables in the present study, using the same
overall aggregate deviance criterion. The key message from the
analyses reported in Table 6 is that, when the same overall aggre-
gated deviance criterion was used, personality variables such as
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability had
generally higher correlations with overall workplace deviance than
did organizational justice variables. Still, some organizational jus-
tice variables did have appreciable effects on workplace deviance.
Furthermore, previous meta-analyses have demonstrated that when
narrower deviance criteria are used, justice– deviance relationships
can approach the magnitudes of personality– deviance relation-
ships. Either way, given the combined evidence from the present
meta-analyses and previous ones, such as Ones, Viswesvaran, and
Schmidt’s (1993) integrity-testing meta-analysis, the assertion that
justice is more important in predicting deviance than personality
Table 6
Estimates of the Correlations Between an Overall Workplace
Deviance Composite and Big Five Personality and
Organizational Justice Variables
Variable Estimated ␳a
Big Five personality
Emotional Stability ⫺.26
Extraversion ⫺.03
Openness to Experience ⫺.08
Agreeableness ⫺.44
Conscientiousness ⫺.35
Organizational justice
Distributive justice ⫺.14
Interactional justice ⫺.26
Interpersonal justice ⫺.14
Procedural justice ⫺.23
a
Each of these estimates was calculated via composite theory formulas
from Ghiselli et al. (1981, pp. 163–164).
appears to be false. Therefore, perhaps a perspective that includes
independent, additive main effects for both personality traits and
justice variables as well as an interactionist perspective, whereby
personality and justice perceptions interact to predict deviance,
may be most profitable (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 2005; Greenberg,
2002), although the present meta-analyses were not able to test
this. Future deviance research will likely benefit from such an
integrative approach wherein multiple theoretical perspectives on
deviance are taken into account (Fox & Spector, 2005).
Practical Implications
The results of the present meta-analyses also have implications
for practice. That is, evidence is beginning to mount that ID and
OD, despite being related, are different phenomena. Thus, organi-
zational interventions aimed at one cannot be assumed to have
comparable effects on the other. For instance, Conscientiousness is
commonly used in the selection of applicants for hire. The results
of the present meta-analyses suggest that hiring employees on the
basis of Conscientiousness will have a stronger impact on levels of
OD than on levels of ID. Similarly, efforts by organizations to
engender climates more conducive to OCB may have stronger
effects on OD than on ID. Conversely, reviewing organizational
policies and procedures in an effort to reduce feelings of injustice
among employees might be expected to have similar effects on
levels of ID and OD.
Furthermore, results suggest that if organizations are concerned
with levels of employee deviance, it may be most useful to enact
a multipronged strategy of selection for personality traits corre-
lated with deviance along with an effort to engender a climate
conducive to OCB. It may also be useful for organizations to
review policies or episodes that lead to feelings of injustice among
employees. Much less useful would be policies by which certain
demographic subsets (e.g., new or young employees) are moni-
tored more closely.
Finally, the support for Sackett and DeVore’s (2002) conceptu-
alization of deviance as a hierarchical construct has implications
for practice. The results of the present meta-analyses demonstrate
the usefulness of both overall and ID–OD facet levels of deviance,
although the relative merits of these levels of deviance versus
narrower levels have not been directly assessed. Previous meta-
analyses, though, have established the usefulness of conceptualiz-
ing deviance at the narrower behavioral categories, such as theft
and lateness. Comparisons between our meta-analyses and previ-
ous meta-analyses demonstrate that the level at which deviance is
measured affects the relationships that it has with other constructs.
Therefore, if organizations wish to realize the greatest potential
from deviance-reducing interventions, they should be very careful
and explicit about exactly what behaviors they want to reduce. The
key is in realizing the level of the hierarchical deviance construct
at which one wants to enact change and using a predictor that is
appropriately matched for that level of specificity (Ones & Vi-
swesvaran, 1996).
Additional Issues, Limitations, and Implications for
Future Research
A number of additional issues in the present research also
warrant discussion and suggest further directions for future re-
 INTERPERSONAL DEVIANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE 421

Table 7
Comparison of Correlations Based on Nonself-Report Deviance Measures With Those Based on
Self-Report Deviance Measures

Self-report Nonself-report

Variable ␳ k N ␳ k N

Deviance
ID–OD .61 25 7,090 .67 2 3,014
Big Five
Emotional Stability–ID ⫺.27 7 2,318 ⫺.14 3 524
Extraversion–ID .03 5 1,836 .01 3 524
Openness–ID ⫺.08 5 1,836 ⫺.11 3 524
Agreeableness–ID ⫺.44 8 2,934 ⫺.57 3 524
Conscientiousness–ID ⫺.24 8 2,934 ⫺.17 3 524
OCB
OCB (PS)–OD ⫺.37 9 3,386 ⫺.58 1 257
Organizational justice
Distributive justice–ID ⫺.12 4 832 ⫺.18 1 257
Distributive justice–OD ⫺.13 4 832 ⫺.07 1 257
Interactional justice–ID ⫺.29 5 951 ⫺.10 1 257
Interactional justice–OD ⫺.25 5 933 ⫺.05 1 257
Procedural justice–ID ⫺.23 6 1,285 ⫺.10 1 257
Procedural justice–OD ⫺.25 6 1,285 ⫺.02 1 257
Demographics
Age–ID ⫺.10 9 2,967 ⫺.01 4 3,282
Age–OD ⫺.13 10 2,914 ⫺.08 2 3,014
Gender–ID .19 10 2,968 .12 4 3,282
Gender–OD .11 10 2,915 .13 2 3,014
Tenure–OD ⫺.07 8 2,453 ⫺.18 1 257

Note. Rhos were corrected for sampling error (when there was more than one sample) and unreliability via
alphas in both measures (where appropriate). Gender correlations were also corrected for uneven gender splits.
ID ⫽ interpersonal deviance; OD ⫽ organizational deviance; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; PS ⫽
personal support.

search. First, the number of studies used in some of the meta-
analyses was relatively small. The sample sizes in each of the
meta-analyses (other than moderator analyses) ranged from 783 to
10,104, with an average sample size of 2,865. Furthermore, these
meta-analyses go far beyond any single study in expanding our
understanding of the relationship among ID, OD, and their com-
mon correlates. Additionally, because multiple venues for unpub-
lished work were mined for primary studies, these meta-analyses
should be relatively comprehensive in terms of the empirical work
in this domain.
Second, it should be mentioned that not enough information was
included in studies to correct for range restriction. One can imag-
ine that some of these samples (many of which were composed of
current employees) might have been restricted on deviance either
through hiring practices that directly or indirectly screened out
those prone to deviance or through attrition mechanisms whereby
those engaging in deviance were more likely to have been fired.
Although this might have suppressed the absolute magnitude of
correlations, this should not have had an appreciable effect on the
relative magnitude of correlations that ID and OD had with a
common set of correlates unless it were the case that those engag-
ing in ID were more likely to be excluded than those engaging in
OD (or vice versa). Likewise, the relative magnitudes of correla-
tions of ID and OD with personality, OCB, justice, and demo-
graphic variables would only have been affected if range restric-
tion differentially influenced these different sets of variables. We
can think of no theoretical or empirical work suggesting that such
might have been the case, so the lack of range restriction correc-
tions is not a major threat to the general conclusions from the
present meta-analyses.
Third, one could imagine that employees were more willing to
report some types of deviance than others. For example, perhaps
employees felt more comfortable admitting to acts in which the
victim was an impersonal organization (OD) than admitting to acts
in which the victim was a human being (ID). If some such
reporting mechanism truly existed, this differential willingness to
admit might have caused the disparity in correlations among ID,
OD, and their common correlates. This is unlikely to have been a
cause of the findings in the present meta-analyses, though, because
of two key points. First, both ID and OD had sizable relationships
with at least some variables (e.g., ID correlated ⫺.46 with Agree-
ableness, and OD correlated ⫺.47 with OCB conscientious initia-
tive), which argues against reduced variance from some unwill-
ingness to admit to one type of deviance being so severe as to
prevent finding relationships with any variables. Second, neither
ID nor OD exhibited systematically lower correlations with other
variables than the other, which would be expected if variance was
being restricted on one because of differential willingness to admit.
Therefore, differential willingness to report certain types of devi-
ance is not seen as a potential weakness of the present study.
Fourth, although the magnitudes of correlations reported in this
study represent very useful information, readers should take cau-
tion when interpreting these magnitudes. These correlations were
mostly based on self-reports of ID and OD and should not be
422 BERRY, ONES, AND SACKETT
confused with validities for predicting objective, verifiable devi-
ance criteria. For instance, at first glance it may appear that our
estimates of Agreeableness’s and Conscientiousness’s validities
exceed even the commonly cited meta-analytic estimate of .32 for
integrity tests in predicting counterproductive work behaviors
(Ones et al., 1993). Ones et al.’s estimate was based completely on
objective, verifiable deviance criteria, though, and is not directly
comparable to our mostly self-report estimates. More appropriately
comparable estimates from Ones et al. would be those for admis-
sions criteria, which ranged from .23 to .99, depending on the type
of integrity test and sample used. Given such high magnitudes, it
is unfortunate that so little research has been done on relationships
among ID, OD, and compound traits such as integrity (only two
such studies were identified in this study’s literature search).
Clearly, this is a need for future research.
This also leads us to mention that one caveat to the results of the
present meta-analyses is that they were largely based on self-
reports of deviance, meaning that it remains to be seen whether
these relationships hold for different deviance criteria. Some evi-
dence is provided in that the inclusion of samples in which
nonself-report deviance measures were used did not greatly affect
pooled meta-analytic estimates. One alternative explanation,
though, is that this was simply because there were so few nonself-
report samples, so the law of averages worked to keep estimates
stable. To test this, exploratory meta-analyses were carried out
with only nonself-report samples (see Table 7). Although many of
these analyses were difficult to interpret because of the possibility
of sampling error, the general pattern of results was that relation-
ships did not differ to a great degree when nonself-report was used
(average absolute difference of .10 when nonself-report was used).
Additionally, self-report correlations in Table 7 correlated .89 with
nonself-report correlations. This is not to say there were no note-
worthy differences. Correlations between ID and Emotional Sta-
bility, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were moderately dif-
ferent when nonself-report was used. Furthermore, it should be
noted that, for the sake of comparability of comparisons, alpha
reliability coefficients were used to correct correlations in nonself-
report samples. Because each of the nonself-report samples incor-
porated a single judge completing ID and OD scales about some-
one, corrections using interrater reliability coefficients might be
considered (e.g., Schmidt, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2000), which
could potentially change results.
Conclusions
The present meta-analyses provide the clearest and most com-
prehensive picture to date of the relationship among ID, OD, and
their common correlates. ID and OD scales were relatively highly
correlated with each other and had similar relationships with many
variables but also had differential relationships with key variables,
such as Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and OCB. When these
findings are taken with evidence from previous work examining
the relationship between ID and OD and the factor structure of
workplace deviance scales, the viability of separate ID and OD
scales becomes more apparent, as does the formation of overall
workplace deviance composites. Furthermore, ID and OD scales
had their strongest relationships with Big Five personality and
OCB, moderate relationships with organizational justice percep-
tions, and little to no relationship with most demographic vari-
ables. Such findings provide important theoretical contributions to
multiple literatures within industrial/organizational psychology,
including the workplace deviance– counterproductive work behav-
ior, OCB, personality, and organizational justice fields.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior
in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, ag-
gressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 90, 195–208.
*Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and
aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional
justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34, 1001–1029.
*Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360.
Bennett, R. J., & Stamper, C. (2002). Corporate citizenship and deviancy:
A study of discretionary work behavior. In C. Galbraith & M. Ryan
(Eds.), International research in the business disciplines: Strategies and
organizations in transition (Vol. 13, pp. 265–284). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of
fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
588 – 606.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace:
Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector
(Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and
targets (pp. 65– 81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation.
*Burroughs, S. M. (2001). The role of dispositional aggressiveness and
organizational injustice on deviant workplace behavior. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant
validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,
56, 81–105.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in orga-
nizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 86, 278 –321.
*Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R.
(2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work
situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
599 – 609.
*Colbert, A. E., Witt, L. A., & Mount, M. K. (2003, April). Interactive
effects of organizational support and agreeableness on interpersonal
deviance. Poster presented at the 18th Annual Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Conference, Orlando, FL.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng,
K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25
years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 425– 445.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organi-
zational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.
*Diefendorff, J. M., & Mehta, K. (2005, April). The relationships of
motivational traits with workplace deviance. Poster presented at the 20th
Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Confer-
ence, Los Angeles.
*Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (in press).
 INTERPERSONAL DEVIANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVIANCE
Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology.
*Dunlop, P., & Lee, K. (2004, April). Organizational citizenship and
workplace deviant behavior: Are they distinct? Poster presented at the
19th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Con-
ference, Chicago.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior:
Investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
*Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work
behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice:
Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory
for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and
situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003.
*Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of
counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11, 30 – 42.
*Haaland, S. A. (2002). Understanding organizational citizenship and
counterproductive work behaviors: Examining interactions utilizing an
organizational versus interpersonal categorization strategy. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University.
Hauenstein, N. M. A., McGonigle, T., & Flinder, S. W. (2001). A meta-
analysis of the relationship between procedural justice and distributive
justice: Implications for justice research. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 13, 39 –56.
*Henle, C. A. (2001). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction
between organizational justice and personality. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Colorado State University.
*Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role of
ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56,
219 –230.
*Henle, C. A., Tepper, B. J., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2005,
April). Types, sources, and moderators of workplace deviance norms.
Poster presented at the 20th Annual Society for Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology Conference, Los Angeles.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and
employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53–75.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. (1982a). Employee deviance: A response to
the perceived quality of the work experience. Work and Occupations, 9,
97–114.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. (1982b). Formal and informal social controls
of employee deviance. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333–343.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. (1983a). Deterrence in the workplace: Per-
ceived certainty, perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces,
62, 398 – 418.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark. J. (1983b). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA:
Heath.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
recting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Jones, D. A. (2004, August). Counterproductive work behavior toward
supervisors and organizations: Injustice, revenge, and context. Poster
presented at the 64th annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
New Orleans, LA.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
*Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-
423
reported counterproductive behaviors and organizational citizenship be-
haviors: Separate but related constructs. International Journal of Selec-
tion and Assessment, 10, 143–151.
*Laczo, R. M. (2002). An examination of the dimensionality of non-task
performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minne-
sota.
Lau, V. C. S., Au, W. T., & Ho, J. M. C. (2003). A qualitative and
quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behavior in
organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 73–99.
*Lee, K. (2000). Job affect as a predictor of organizational citizenship
behaviour and workplace deviance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and
workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
*Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. H. (2005). Personality correlates of
workplace anti-social behavior. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 54, 81–98.
Lehman, W., & Simpson, D. (1992). Employee substance abuse and
on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 309 –321.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimen-
sionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52– 65.
*Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb:
Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57,
969 –1000.
*Luther, N. J. (2000). Understanding workplace deviance: An application
of primary socialization theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Col-
orado State University.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive be-
havior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 647– 660.
*Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Humpfner, G. (2002). Measuring
counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German
self-report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 10, 18 –35.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an
integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of coun-
terproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 51–57.
*Mount, M. K., Johnson, E. C., Ilies, R., & Barrick, M. R. (2002, April).
Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating role of work-
place deviance. Poster presented at the 17th Annual Society for Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Can-
ada.
Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in
personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 17, 609 – 626.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity-tests and other criterion-
focused occupational personality scales (COPS) used in personnel se-
lection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 31–39.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2003). Personality and counterproductive
work behaviors. In M. Koslowsky, S. Stashevsky, & A. Sagie (Eds.),
Misbehavior and dysfunctional attitudes in organizations (pp. 211–249).
Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. (1993). Comprehensive
meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for
personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology Monograph, 78, 679 –703.
*Parish, C. M. (2002). Mapping the lexical conscientiousness factor do-
424 BERRY, ONES, AND SACKETT
main: Validation of a comprehensive hierarchical model. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Podsakoff, P. M., McKenzie, S., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
*Rever-Moriyama, S. D. (1999). Do unto others: The role of psychological
contract breach, violation, justice, and trust on retaliation behaviors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary, Al-
berta, Canada.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly:
Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace
deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organi-
zational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). New York: Wiley.
*Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006).
Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: Clarifying relation-
ships between the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441– 464.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at
work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & V. Viswesvaran
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London: Sage.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counter-
productive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 10, 117–125.
*Schaubhut, N., Adams, G. A., Jex, S. M., & Moon, M. (2004, April).
Self-esteem moderates relationships between abusive supervision and
workplace deviance. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. A. (2004). Software for the Hunter–Schmidt
meta-analysis methods [Computer software]. Iowa City: University of
Iowa, Department of Management and Organizations.
Schmidt, F. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Reliability is not
validity and validity is not reliability. Personnel Psychology, 53, 901–
912.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by
broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17, 639 – 655.
*Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How
employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 875– 894.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in “Big Five
factors” personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studies
and measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 224 –
235.
*Zehr, J. A. (2004). Deviance in the workplace: The role of personality and
coping strategies in the performance of counterproductive work behav-
iors. Unpublished master’s thesis, Minnesota State University.
Received November 23, 2005
Revision received March 31, 2006
Accepted April 5, 2006 䡲