INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT

VOLUME 10

NUMBERS 1/2

MARCH/JUNE 2002

Toward an Integrative Theory of Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: A Causal Reasoning Perspective

Mark J. Martinko* and Michael J. Gundlach
The Florida State University University of Montana
Over the past decade, there has been an increase in attention to counterproductive workplace behaviors including violence, stealing, dishonesty, volitional absenteeism, drug and alcohol abuse, and aggression, many of which have been addressed in this special issue. Accompanying the attention to these specific types of behaviors has been a proliferation of theories developed to explain, understand, and manage counterproductive behavior. While these theories have addressed many apparently divergent types of behaviors, many similarities exist between and among these various perspectives. In this article, we integrate these various perspectives into a causal reasoning framework, proposing that individuals' attributions about the causal dimensions of workplace events are a primary factor motivating both the emotions and behaviors that result in counterproductive workplace behaviors.

Scott C. Douglas

Introduction
s detailed throughout this issue of IJSA, increasing attention has been given to explaining the nature, causes, and effects of counterproductive behavior in organizations during the last decade and there has been a proliferation of theoretical explanations for counterproductive workplace behaviors. Collins and Griffin (1998) describe the psychology of dysfunctional job performance, Folger and Skarlicki (1998) attempt to explain aggressive behaviors with a popcorn metaphor, and Greenberg (1998) outlines the `cognitive geometry' of employee theft. Other explanations of dysfunctional workplace behaviors include or emphasize: the role of organizational factors (O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Glew 1996), revenge and blame attributions (Bies and Tripp 1998; Murray 1999), integrity (Ones and Viswesvaran 1998; Ones, Viswesvaran and Schmidt 1993), volition (Dalton and Wimbush 1998), and typologies of deviant workplace behaviors (Robinson and Bennet 1995). While some efforts concentrate on retaliatory forms of counter* Address for correspondence: Mark J. Martinko, Department of Management, College of Business, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. e-mail: mmartin@cob.fsu.edu

productive behaviors (e.g. aggression, sabotage), other approaches have focused on self-destructive behaviors like drug and alcohol abuse (Harris and Greising 1998), and depression through powerlessness (Bennet 1998) and helplessness frameworks (Martinko and Gardner 1982). Placing our discussion in a broader context, the proliferation of theories has long been a concern of philosophers of science (e.g. Churchman 1971; Kuhn 1970, 1977) and concern about multiple theories has been expressed in the organizational literature (Hassard 1993; Pfeffer 1993; Van Maanan 1995). On the one hand, it is argued that multiple perspectives allow for more insight into domains of interest (Morgan and Smircich 1980; Van Manaan 1995). On the other hand, it is argued that multiple theoretical frameworks inevitably result in redundancy, fragmented research programs, a lack of generalizable principles, and a lack of cohesive theoretical explanations (Pfeffer 1993; Platt 1964). It has been proposed that a paradigmatic approach characterized by strong inference (Pfeffer 1993; Platt 1964) focuses research and leads to more rapid theoretical advances than would be achieved by more eclectic theoretical orientations. More specifically, proponents of the strong inference approach argue that science

36

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

37

advances more rapidly with a dominant paradigm that is constantly challenged and evolving. The purpose of this article is to integrate the various theoretical perspectives concerned with counterproductive work behaviors into a paradigmatic framework with particular attention to individual difference factors. This framework is intended to help by demonstrating the relationships and similarities between and among the various forms of counterproductive behaviors and the theories used to understand these behaviors. Additionally, while previous approaches to understanding workplace deviance have focused on addressing either retaliatory (e.g. aggression, stealing) or self-destructive (e.g. drug and alcohol abuse) behaviors, our framework shows how both types of behavioral responses can result as a function of employees' causal reasoning and attributions for negative workplace outcomes. It is hoped that illuminating similarities can stimulate greater cross-fertilization between the apparently divergent perspectives. We hope that the paradigm will provide a vehicle for focusing research efforts onto key questions and accelerate research progress in the tradition of strong inference.

Martinko and Zellars 1998; Robinson and Bennet 1995). We agree with these perspectives and view counterproductive behavior as behavior by an organizational member that results in harming the organization or its members.

The Paradigm
A paradigm is a commonly accepted way of thinking. In developing the paradigm proposed in Figure 1, we reviewed major theoretical perspectives of counterproductive work behavior emphasizing their common elements. These approaches are listed in Table 1 and include: Bennet's (1998) work on perceived powerlessness; Folger and Skalicki's (1998) popcorn model focusing on situational variables, individual differences, and perceptions of injustice; Harris and Greising's (1998) analysis of drug and alcohol use emphasizing how images and principles affect user decisions; Neuman's (1998) perspective of workplace violence emphasizing organizational factors; Martinko and Gardner's (1982) discussion of learned helplessness which included organizational, individual difference, and attributional variables; O'Leary-Kelly et al.'s (1996) organizational motivated aggression model emphasizing organizational variables; Ones et al.'s (1993) work on the influence of employee integrity on workplace performance; and others. Table 1 gives a brief description of every perspective, lists individual and situational variables used in each, and shows the types of counterproductive behaviors addressed. Additionally, cognitive information processing elements used in each approach are described to show how each contributed to the development of the paradigm, with its emphasis on employees' attributions for disequilibria in workplace outcomes, procedures, and situations. In addition to considering elements of the various theories listed in Table 1, we also included what we consider to be the three major paradigms used to account for behavior in both psychology and the organizational sciences: expectancy theory (Vroom 1964); reinforcement theory (Skinner 1957); and social learning theory

An Explanatory Paradigm
Defining Counterproductive Workplace Behavior
In discussing definitions of counterproductive work behaviors, Collins and Griffin (1998) note that almost all of the definitions assert that counterproductive workplace behaviors are characterized by a disregard for societal and organizational rules and values. In addition, they note that counterproductive behaviors can range in seriousness from low (e.g. petty stealing) to high (e.g. violence). Similarly, Hogan and Hogan (1989) view counterproductive job behavior as a construct covering all deviant behaviors ranging from absenteeism to assault. Other definitions indicate that counterproductive workplace behaviors are actions that threaten the well being of an organization and its members, and break implicit and explicit rules about civil, respectful, and appropriate behavior (e.g. Baron and Richardson 1994;

Figure 1. The Paradigm for Counterproductive Behavior

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

38

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

Table 1. Summary of research and theoretical perspectives of counterproductive work behavior Theory/ Approach Individual Differences Situational Variables Cognitive Processing Causal Attributions Perceptions of Disequilibria Attributions of intent CounterProductive Behaviors Organizational retaliatory behavior: theft, sabotage, etc. Displaced aggression

Popcorn metaphor for employee aggression (Folger and Skarlicki, 1998)

Worker's bounded autonomy, Negative Affect, Neuroticism, Hostile and sinister attribution Bias, Organizational paranoia Social Identity, Emotions, Rumination, Self-Efficacy

Organizational Perceptions of policies, organizational practices, rules, injustice norms, culture, etc., Leadership Style

Theory of revenge in organizations (Bies and Tripp, 1996; Murray, 1999)

Bystanders, Damaged civic order, Violation of organizational norms and rules

Revenge Cognitions

Personalistic attributions, Blame attributions

Revenge responses: venting, dissipation, fatigue, explosion, acts of covert and overt violence and aggression Apologies, Feedback avoiding Information manipulations Self-handicapping

Dysfunctional impression management (IM) (Gardner and Martinko, 1998) Alcohol and drug abuse (Harris and Greising, 1998) Workplace absence (Dalton and Mesch, 1991; Dalton and Wimbush, 1998)

Self-monitoring, Machiavellianism, Selfconsciousness

Ambiguity, Accountability, Resource scarcity

Tenure, Age, Race, Stress Age, Gender, Tenure, Commitment

Job autonomy, Stressors, Adverse Working conditions Controlling organizational rules, Lenient absenteeism policy Wages, Organizational ethics, Peer pressure

Image Theory Progression decisions Shocks Assessment of advantages and loses of absentee behavior

Adoption decisions

Wages, EAP participation, Turnover, Absenteeism, Accident rates Absenteeism, Sick leave

Interpretations of reasons for absentee behavior

Understanding Personality, employee Moral theft development (Greenberg, 1990, 1993)

Perceptions of workplace inequities

Theft, Minimization and externalization behaviors (Increased organizational costs)

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

39

Table 1. continued Theory/ Approach Individual Differences Situational Variables Cognitive Processing Causal Attributions Perceptions of Disequilibria CounterProductive Behaviors Drug and alcohol abuse, Poor job performance, Violence, Absenteeism, Thefts

Integrity and workplace performance (Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt, 1993; Ones and Viswesvaran, 1998) Psychology of counterproductive job performance (Collins and Griffin, 1998)

Conscientiousness Agreeableness, Emotional stability, Socialization, Trustworthiness

Job complexity, Organizational ethics

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

Rumors about organizational members, Organizational structure and policies

Self-regulation and metacognition

Tardiness, Harassment, Interpersonal conflict, Claiming others' work, Cheating customers, Personal use of company property Acts of personal and organizational aggression like verbal abuse, sabotage, etc. Causal attributions for negative and positive workplace outcomes Low productivity, Absenteeism, Turnover, Depression

Model of work frustrationaggression (Fox and Spector, 1999) Organizationally induced helplessness (Martinko and Gardner, 1982) Stress and preventing workplace violence (Mack, Shannon, Quick, and Quick, 1998)

Trait anxiety, Trait anger, Control beliefs, Emotions

Punitive measures, Likelihood of punishment Organizational constraints Organizational structure, policies, procedures, appraisals, and reward system Social support, Proclivity to Social and internalize or cultural changes externalize perceived sources of stress

Locus of control, Achievement needs, Gender

Perceived demand, Perceived capability, Marital status, Family history, Self-esteem, Self-image, Self-concept

Individual and organizational distress, Alcohol and drug abuse, Absenteeism, Suicide, Theft, Verbal harassment and threats, Sabotage

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

40

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

Table 1. continued Theory/ Approach Individual Differences Situational Variables Cognitive Processing Causal Attributions Assessing source and level of organizational fairness/ unfairness Perceptions of Disequilibria Attributions for organizational procedures and policies CounterProductive Behaviors Hostile verbal or symbolic gestures, Impeding organizational productivity, Physical aggression Workplace aggression and violence such as verbal or physical abuse

Aggressive reactions (Greenberg and Alge, 1998)

Perception of Pay policy, fairness, Formal rules of Emotions, the organization Social/ interpersonal sensitivity, Sinister attribution error bias Negative affect, Locus of control, Emotional susceptibility, Attribution style, Gender Locus of control, Perception of control, Self-efficacy Personal and organizational influences: family, school, peers, work culture, etc. Emotional reactivity Authoritarian leadership, Organizational policies, Discipline and grievance procedure Job autonomy, Autocratic management style Aversive treatment, Crowding, Uncomfortable temperatures and noise, Poor air quality, Controlling policies Workforce diversity, Unfair treatments, Aggressionrelated organizational norms, Temperature, Humidity, Lighting, Air quality, Being monitored

Cognitive appraisal perspective on workplace aggression (Martinko and Zellars, 1998) Perceived powerlessness (Bennet, 1998) Organizationmotivated aggression (O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, and Glew, 1996)

Trigger Events

Causal attributions for negative workplace outcomes

Perceptions of individual control

Attributions for failures

Absenteeism, Spreading rumors, Stealing, Tardiness, Working slowly Organizationally motivated aggression and violence ranging from homicide to verbal abuse

Perception that some external threat exists in the organization

Workplace violence and aggression (Baron and Neuman, 1996; Baron and Richardson, 1994; Neuman, 1998; Neuman and Baron, 1997)

Age, Ethnicity, Gender, Physical and/or mental capabilities, Negative affect, Type A behavior, Self-monitoring, Hostile, attribution bias

Interpreting that some form of unfair treatment or an unjust negative outcome has occurred

Causal attributions for judgements of unfairness

Interpersonal hostility, Sabotage, Work slowdowns, Strikes, Stealing, Employee withdrawal, Acts of violence and aggression Depression

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

41

Table 1. continued Theory/ Approach Individual Differences Situational Variables Cognitive Processing Causal Attributions Associating frustration or failure with the introduction of information technology Perceptions of Disequilibria Causal attributions for negative impact of information technology CounterProductive Behaviors Resistance to workplace technology, Hostility, Anger, Anxiety, Helplessness

Attributional Prior experiences, Co-worker explanation of Attribution Style behavior, resistance to Technology information characteristics, technology in Management the workplace support (Martinko, Henry, and Zmud, 1996) Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression (Douglas and Martinko, 2001) Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization (Aquino, 2000; Aquino Grover, Bradfield, and Allen, 1999) Trait anger, Attribution style, Negative affectivity, Attitudes toward revenge, Self-control, Previous exposures to aggressive cultures Conflict management style, Negative affect, Low selfdetermination, Hostility Structural characteristics of organization Hierarchical status

Perceiving some upsetting or threatening stimuli in one's workplace environment

Attributing this to supervisor(s), the organization, and/or coworkers via attributions of intentionality

Various incidences of workplace aggression

Experiencing that one is the target of unfair, unjust, or abusive treatment

This experience is attributed to the behavior of co-worker(s)

Perceived victimization Anxiety Distress

(Bandura 1977). These theories are well known in the organizational sciences and together include: antecedent/ environmental variables, individual differences, information processing, and outcome/reinforcement/instrumentality elements. Considering the common elements from these established theories with the perspectives of counterproductive behavior described from Table 1, we arrived at the basic paradigm illustrated in Figure 1. Simply stated, the paradigm indicates that counterproductive behavior is the result of a complex interaction between the person and the environment in which the individual's causal reasoning about the environment and expected outcomes drive the individual's behavior.

Fleshing out the Paradigm

Many of the theories of counterproductive behavior share similar elements and, we believe, reflect the same basic processes. As indicated by the suggested paradigm, the most immediate determinant of counterproductive behavior is the causal reasoning process. We will begin our discussion with this element of the model, since, as we will argue later, the sense-making process represented by casual reasoning helps to tell us why particular environmental and individual difference factors are important in understanding counterproductive behaviors.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

42

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

Causal Reasoning Theory (CRT)

Almost every theoretical perspective that attempts to explain counterproductive behavior incorporates a factor concerned with information processing (see Table 1). Two common elements of these perspectives are that they describe: (1) how individuals evaluate the quality of their outcomes (e.g. perceived fairness, perceived justice, perceived success or failure); and (2) how beliefs about the causes of their outcomes (e.g. attributions) effect behavior and affect. The process of evaluating the quality of outcomes has been described in various ways and usually includes a comparative process that results in perceptions of disequilibria, injustice, or inequity of some type. Examples of components relating to the evaluation of outcomes include: Greenberg's (1990, 1993) focus on perceptions of injustice as stimuli for employee theft; Aquino's (2000) notion of perceived victimization (2000); Harris and Greising's (1998) description of image compatibility relating to alcohol and drug abuse; Martocchio and Judge's (1994) policy capturing approach to explain individuals' decisions to be absent; and Folger and Skarlicki's (1998) equity comparisons. The second stage of this cognitive process invariably involves an analysis of the causes of the outcomes that resulted in the perceived disequilibria. Articles that describe this second stage include: Neuman (1998) who notes that attributions for the causes of negative outcomes are driving forces for aggressive behavior; Bies and Tripp's (1998) and Murray's (1999) description of the role of overly personalistic attributions (or `blame attributions') in acts of organizational revenge; Martinko and Zellars' (1998) emphasis on the role of attributions in precipitating aggressive behaviors; Martinko and Gardner's (1982) description of how attributions lead to organizationally induced helplessness; and Judge's (1996) focus on employees' attributions for absenteeism. Although we acknowledge and describe a two-stage process where individuals (1) perceive some type of disequilibrium (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 attributional side of this process. There are two reasons for this. First, it appears that there is a relatively high degree of consensus regarding the process by which outcomes are evaluated. Although the recent literature has pointed out that there are many different ways of describing the nature of the evaluation process including relative as opposed to absolute equity (Martinko 2000) and distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (e.g. Folger and Skarlicki 1998; Murray 1999), the literature has, for the most part, confirmed that perceptions of the quality of outcomes are a necessary antecedent cognition that precedes counterproductive behavior (see Table 1 for additional references). Although it is important to understand the process by which the quality of outcomes

is evaluated, we believe that it is the attributions for the cause of the outcomes that will be most predictive of the nature and form of counterproductive behavior. More specifically, although two individuals may both perceive that their outcomes are undesirable and inequitable, we believe that it is their causal reasoning processes, manifested through the attributions that they make for the causes of their outcomes, which are most important in predicting their counterproductive reactions to the outcomes. Thus, as we will describe below, if a person attributes a disappointing outcome to his or her own internal and unstable characteristics such as a lack of effort, the individual will be likely to assume blame and will probably not engage in counterproductive behavior. On the other hand, if the individual attributes the disappointing outcome to an external, stable, and intentional cause, such as a jealous or malevolent coworker (e.g. Bies and Tripp 1996; Murray 1999), the individual is much more likely to engage in some form of counterproductive retaliatory behavior. Although different theories have been used to describe how and why various causal reasoning processes are associated with counterproductive behavior, we believe that attribution theory provides the most comprehensive, parsimonious, and integrated explanation of why some individuals, as opposed to others, when presented with the same stimuli, choose to engage in counterproductive behavior. Moreover, we also believe that attribution theory helps to explain why, when confronted with negative outcomes, some individuals choose to direct their behavior externally through retaliatory forms of counterproductive behavior, while others direct their efforts internally to produce self-destructive forms of counterproductive behavior, such as alcohol and drug abuse. More specifically, we believe and have evidence, which supports that specific patterns of attributions for perceived inequitable/unjust workplace outcomes are highly predictive of individuals' proclivities to engage in retaliatory versus self-destructive counterproductive behaviors. These relationships are depicted in Figure 2, and explained in more detail below. Although many of the sources cited above describe aspects of attribution theory, the primary sources which form the basis of our arguments regarding the central role of attributions are Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale (1978); Weiner (1986); Martinko and Gardner (1982); Martinko and Zellars (1998); Douglas and Martinko (2001), and Weiner's (1995) book on judgements of responsibility. Essentially these works argue that one's attributions about the causes of outcomes (equitable or inequitable) are a primary force motivating counterproductive behaviors. More specifically, the locus of causality dimension affects affective reactions. Internal attributions for negative events often result in negative feelings about the self, including selfdeprecation and helplessness (e.g. Martinko and Gardner

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

43

Figure 2. A Causal Reasoning Model of Counterproductive Behavior 1982). On the other hand, external attributions stimulate negative affective reactions that are directed outward such as revenge, particularly when individuals perceive that there are no mitigating circumstances and when the perpetrators' actions are seen as intentional (e.g. Martinko and Zellars 1998; Weiner 1995). The stability dimension affects expectancies. When negative outcomes are perceived to be the result of unstable 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 the future, and counterproductive behavior is unlikely. On the other hand, if the cause of an undesirable outcome is perceived to be stable, regardless of whether it is perceived as internal or external, the outcome is expected to continue and counterproductive behavior is more likely. More specifically, when negative outcomes are attributed to internal and stable causes such as lack of ability, it increases the likelihood of counterproductive behavior that is internally directed such as learned helplessness and alcohol and drug abuse (Martinko and Gardner 1982). On the other hand, negative outcomes that are attributed to external and stables causes, which are also perceived to be intentional, and without mitigating circumstances, such as a punitive manager, are more likely to result in externally directed counterproductive behaviors such as aggression, revenge, and sabotage (e.g. Bies and Tripp 1996; Douglas and Martinko, 2001). Importantly, this perspective stresses that the cognitive interpretation of a negative outcome is a primary driving force in determining whether or not an individual chooses to engage in counterproductive behavior, and whether the behavior is manifested internally or externally resulting in either self-destructive or retaliatory behaviors, respectively (see Figure 2). In the remainder of this article we will elaborate on the centrality of attributional processes by demonstrating how they are related to individual difference and situational variables.

Individual Differences
Many individual difference variables have been proposed to relate to various forms of counterproductive behavior. In this section, we argue that each of these individual difference variables is an important antecedent to counterproductive behaviors because of the influence these individual differences are likely to have on attributional processes.

Gender
Research supports the notion that gender is related to counterproductive behaviors in that males are much more likely to express overt aggression than females (e.g. Eagly and Steffan 1986). We believe that a possible explanation

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

44

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

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

Locus of Control
Another individual difference variable associated with aggression is locus of control which has been described as a generalized disposition to assign responsibility for outcomes, both positive and negative, to either environmental causes (external locus of control) or internal causes (internal locus of control). More specifically, Storms and Spector (1987) have found that individuals with an external locus of control are more likely to exhibit counterproductive behaviors than those with an internal locus of control. Similarly, Perlow and Latham (1993) found that individuals who were high in externality were more likely than others to treat clients abusively. Thus, in general, the research documents that locus of control is related to incidences of counterproductive behavior in organizations. Our explanation for these relationships is that locus of control is a personality trait that predisposes individuals to make either internal or external attributions. Our model asserts that locus of control is related to counterproductive behavior because these attributions are related to the likelihood that individuals will engage in counterproductive behaviors.

Attribution Style
Another individual difference variable closely related to locus of control is attribution style. Attribution style can be defined as the tendency to make attributions that are consistent across situations (Abramson et al. 1978; Kent and Martinko 1995; Russell 1991). As opposed to locus of control, the notion of attribution style encompasses additional attributional dimensions and is concerned with conditions associated with success and failure. Several variations of attribution style have been documented in the literature. Seligman (1990) differentiates between optimistic and pessimistic styles.

Individuals with optimistic styles tend to make internal and stable attributions for success and external, unstable attributions for failure. Douglas and Martinko (2001) describe a hostile attribution style as one in which individuals attribute failures to external stable and intentional causes and document that these styles are related to self-reports of workplace aggression. Similarly, Martinko and Gardner (1982) make the case that pessimistic attribution styles, which are indicative of learned helplessness, are related to counterproductive behaviors such as absenteeism, poor performance, apathy, avoidance behaviors, depression, and alcohol abuse. The notion of attribution style suggests that style is a trait-like individual difference factor that biases the types of attributions that individuals are likely to make across situations. The research has demonstrated that generalized attribution styles can be reliably measured and that they are valid predictors of behaviors that are characterized by learned helplessness (Abramson et al. 1978). It has also been demonstrated that individuals can be characterized as having styles associated with specific behavioral domains (Russell 1991). The Organizational Attribution Style Questionnaire (OASQ) developed by Martinko and his colleagues (Douglas and Martinko, 2001; Campbell and Martinko 1998; Martinko and Moss 1999; Thomson and Martinko 1998) has been developed to assess attribution styles in organizational contexts. As documented by the studies referenced above, the OASQ has good reliabilities, generally exceeding .80. More importantly, the OASQ and other measures of attributions have been found to be related to attributions for negative workplace incidents (Campbell and Martinko 1998); the adoption of new information technologies (Henry, Martinko and Pierce 1993; Martinko, Henry and Zmud 1996); self-reports of workplace aggression (Douglas and Martinko, 2001); differences between samples of incarcerated versus nonincarcerated adult populations (Martinko and Moss 1999); and conflict between leaders and members (Martinko and Moss 2000). Thus, the research on the OASQ and related measures has demonstrated that the measure validly predicts the types of attributions that individuals are likely to make as well as behaviors that are associated with specific attributional patterns. Although more research is still needed, we believe that attribution style is one of the most promising individual difference variables because of its links with attributions and counterproductive behavior.

Core Self-Evaluations
Recent work by Judge and his colleagues has suggested that core self-evaluations `which refer to fundamental, subconscious conclusions individuals reach about themselves, other people, and the world' are related to a

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

45

variety of work-related outcomes such as satisfaction and productivity (Judge, Erez and Bono 1998; Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger 1998). As noted, there are obvious connections between locus of control, attribution styles, and attributions. We believe that the notions of core selfconcept and attribution styles are closely related. More specifically, Judge et al. (1998) have indicated that the four variables that make up core self-image (i.e. locus of control, self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, and nonneurotocism) are highly intercorrelated. Assuming Judge et al.'s argument is correct, it is reasonable to conclude that since locus of control is related to attributions, the other core dimensions must be related to attributions. Moreover, if attribution style is simply a better articulated version of locus of control, it also follows that attribution style will be related to the dimensions of self-concept. This chain of reasoning also leads us to consider how other core self-concepts may be related to attributions. We can argue that individuals who have high self-esteem would have optimistic attribution styles (Martinko et al. 1998) such that they would tend to attribute successes to stable and internal characteristics such as their ability and attribute failures to external and unstable characteristics such as luck or chance. On the other hand, we would expect that people with low self-esteem would tend toward pessimistic attribution styles, attributing failures to internal and stable causes such as ability and success to external and unstable causes such as luck or chance. These insights have research support. Levy (1993) found that individuals with high self-esteem performed better, demonstrated higher levels of internal locus of control, and attributed performance results to stable, internal attributes in comparison to those with low self-esteem. Other studies have also indicated that internal attributions for failure are associated with low self-esteem (e.g. Winefield, Tiggemann and Winefield 1992), and that optimistic individuals de-emphasize internal and stable attributions for failures to protect their self-esteem (Kulik and Rowland 1989). Similarly, we would expect that generalized selfefficacy (Bandura 1977, 1997) could also be conceptualized as the tendency to believe that, because of one's abilities (i.e. internal and stable attributions), individuals high in generalized self-efficacy would expect to be successful in a wide variety of situations. In a series of experiments, Silver, Mitchell and Gist (1995) found that generalized self-efficacy is related to attributions in that individuals high in self-efficacy made self-serving attributions (attributing failures to external, unstable causes, like unfamiliarity with the task or bad luck) for unsuccessful performances, while low self-efficacy individuals made self-effacing attributions (attributing failures to stable, internal causes, such as ability) for performance failures. Finally, the last variable associated with core selfevaluations, non-neurotocism, can be conceptualized as

the slight positive optimistic bias suggested by Seligman (1990) which he asserted was the hallmark of successful and fulfilled individuals. Paraphrasing Judge's definition of `core self-evaluation', we would characterize such individuals as people who believe that they have control over their successes and who believe that their environments are reasonably supportive. This would explain the correlation of non-neuroticism with internal locus of control, high self-esteem, and generalized selfefficacy. As discussed above, all of these variables tend to be associated with optimistic attribution styles that preserve individuals' self-evaluations and would make it unlikely that they would engage in hostile or selfdeprecating attributions. These arguments are consistent with Folger and Skarlicki's (1998) suggestion that individuals high on neuroticism might be more likely to exhibit hostile attribution styles, making these individuals more apt to blame others for negative workplace outcomes, and demonstrate `sinister attribution errors' or show `organizational paranoia' (Kramer 1995). Thus, non-neurotocism can be interpreted as helping to offset hostile attributions that could lead to retaliatory behaviors.

Integrity
Another individual difference variable, which has been demonstrated to relate to counterproductive behavior, is integrity, as measured by integrity tests (Ones, Viswesvaran and Schmidt 1993). In general, integrity tests have been found to be related to a wide variety of productive and counterproductive behaviors including low productivity, absenteeism, stealing, violence, drug use, and disciplinary problems (Hogan and Brinkmeyer 1997; Hogan and Hogan 1989; Ones and Viswesvaran 1998; Ones et al. 1993). Discussions of the construct of integrity have suggested that it includes the notions of reliability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability (Ones, 1993; Sackett and Wanek 1996), although Ones et al. (1993) had suggested that the majority of the relationships represented by integrity tests could be captured in the construct of conscientiousness. While we are not aware of any studies relating attributions or attribution styles to integrity tests or conscientiousness, we believe that the constructs of attribution styles, integrity, and core self-evaluation may all be related. More specifically, we believe that there are many similarities between the core self-evaluations of nonneurotocism and emotional stability, and between generalized self-efficacy and conscientiousness. Moreover, it seems reasonable to incorporate attributional dimensions into the descriptions of these constructs. Thus, for example, it would seem that individuals who are high in self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy would be both conscientious and agreeable and would also be likely to be biased toward an internal locus of control as

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

46

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

well as an optimistic attribution style. Similarly, we would expect that a person characterized by emotional stability would also be characterized as non-neurotic, and have the slightly optimistic attribution style that Seligman (1990) suggests identifies with `well-adjusted' individuals. Although, at this point, these relationships are mostly speculation, it would seem that, within the context of our general discussion, they are relationships that warrant further inquiry.

The Situation/Environment
The importance of the environment as a stimulus for behavior is recognized by each of the major behavior paradigms described above as well as all of the theories of counterproductive behavior. However, there appears to be a bifurcation in theoretical perspectives of counterproductive behavior with regard to the relative importance of the environment versus individual difference variables. On the one hand, one group of organizational theorists appears to prefer to explain the incidence and frequency of counterproductive behavior in terms of organizational factors. Thus, the discussions of counterproductive behavior by Baron and his colleagues (Baron and Richardson 1994; Neuman 1998), Robinson and Greenberg (1998), Folger and Skarlicki (1998), and O'Leary-Kelley et al. (1996) all emphasize the role of organizational level factors, stressing an `organizational level' perspective. In addition, some of these perspectives appear to actively discourage consideration of the role of individual differences. For example, Robinson and Greenberg (1998) indicated that `no clear picture emerges of the deviant personality type in organizations' and assert that individual differences account for an insignificant portion of the variance in counterproductive behavior. Similarly, O'Leary-Kelley et al. (1996) limit their discussion of aggressive behavior to factors prompted by the organization and appear to discourage the exploration of the role of individual differences indicating that `we believe that an exclusive focus on these antecedent factors is misguided.' On the other hand, a second group, which primarily focuses on integrity testing (e.g. Hogan and Hogan 1989; Ones et al. 1993) emphasizes the role of individual differences in counterproductive behavior, and does little in terms of explaining how individual differences interact with environmental/organizational level variables. It should be emphasized that this group does not deny the importance of organizational level factors in stimulating counterproductive behavior. It simply emphasizes the role of individual differences and the ability to predict counterproductive behaviors by assessments of individual difference factors. We believe that both of the above perspectives make an important contribution to understanding counterproductive behavior through their contribution to understanding the impact of the environment and individual differences on the cognitive processing components of the paradigm depicted in Figure 1 and more fully articulated in Figure 2. More specifically, we believe that the organizational level perspectives are important because they point to organizational factors that generate negative outcomes, which provide the primary stimuli for the first part of the cognitive process (perceiving disequilibria) as well as the data for attributing causation. Thus, for example, organizational

Negative Affectivity
Watson and Clark (1984) have defined Negative Affectivity (NA) as the extent to which individuals experience high levels of distressing emotions like anger, fear, hostility, and anxiety. High NA individuals tend to be less satisfied with their lives and focus on negative aspects of themselves and their environments (Watson and Pennebaker 1989) and are often perceived as hostile, demanding, and distant (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield and Allen 1999; Watson and Clark 1984). Moreover, according to Shavit and Shouval (1977) high NA individuals are likely to interpret slightly negative or even ambiguous social information as threatening. We suspect that the nature of the relationship between NA and attributions as well as attribution styles is somewhat different than the types of relationships demonstrated for the other individual difference variables. In the case of NA, we believe that NA probably has the most impact on the first stage of the cognitive processes described in our model: the perceptions of disequilibria. In other words, given the definition of NA, which indicates that people high in NA have a heightened tendency to dwell on the negative aspects of themselves (i.e. internal attributions) and their world (i.e. external attributions), we believe that NA is probably related to the incidence and frequency of pessimistic attributions. Thus, we believe that individuals high in NA are more likely to perceive disequilibria and therefore more likely to make pessimistic attributions and experience the variety of affective states related to the individual difference variables we have described above. In addition, the tendency to ruminate and dwell on the negative aspects of life, which is characteristic of people high in NA, also suggests that these individuals may, in general, perceive negative events as more stable than individuals who are not characterized as high NA. Thus, we believe that NA affects not only the likelihood that individuals engage in attributional processes but also the tendency to view outcomes as relatively permanent and stable. Because of these perceptions of stability, individuals high in NA are more likely to perceive the causes as stable and therefore more likely to display counterproductive behavior than others.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

47

level factors suggested by Martinko and Gardner (1982), Martinko and Zellars, (1998), and Folger and Skarlicki (1998) such as authoritarian leadership, punitive working conditions, numerous rules and procedures, and a culture of aggression all increase the probability that individuals will experience negative outcomes and therefore perceive disequilibria. Similarly, factors such as grievance procedures and discipline policies for aggression (O'Leary-Kelley et al. 1996) all serve to reduce the probability of unfair treatment, undoubtedly reduce perceptions of disequlibria (i.e. inequity and perceived injustice), and may help ameliorate attributions to the organization as a causal agent for some outcomes. On the other hand, the theories that focus on individual difference factors can be interpreted as identifying individual predispositions to perceive disequlibria (e.g. negative affectivity) as well as biasing individuals towards the types of attributions they will make for the disequilibria (e.g. locus of control, attribution style, and core self-evaluations). Thus, the paradigm that we have proposed integrates both of these perspectives by: (1) recognizing that some situational factors increase the likelihood of perceived disequlibria and provide the data for attributional processes; and (2) recognizing how individual difference factors moderate these perceptions of disequlibria as well as the process of making attributions that lead to counterproductive behavior. In closing we would like to point out that our emphasis on individual differences is not an attempt to downplay the role of organizational factors. However, because there are already extensive discussions of the role of organizational factors in the studies cited above as well as in Table 1, we prefer to refer readers to the extant literature rather than reiterate discussions that are already available.

the way the various factors interact. As Cronshaw and Lord (1987) have suggested, everyday decision-making may not be amenable to the types of effortful information processing suggested by rational decision making models. Similarly, as suggested by Lewin (1951), motivated behavior is probably most accurately depicted as the result of the simultaneous mutual interaction of both individual and situational variables. Yet, as Martinko and Zellars (1998) note, it is practically impossible to entirely decompose and reconstruct all of the various factors and levels that contribute to any single act or class of counterproductive behaviors. Recognizing these limitations, we believe that at this stage of our understanding, the proposed paradigm is probably the most practical way to describe how researchers have conceptualized the dynamics of the process by which people choose to engage in counterproductive behavior. However, we recognize that the process is more interactive and is often less cognitively explicit and sequential than we have depicted. Although the model does include feedback loops to recognize interactions, we realize that this representation, although useful at this stage of theory building, does not display the full complexity of the interactions that undoubtedly occur.

Scope
A second limitation is the result of the attempt to capture the entire domain of counterproductive behaviors, which includes violence as well as mundane behaviors such as poor work performance. Because of this broad scope, we have compromised some precision. For example, we do not explicitly incorporate trigger events or emotions into the current model, although more discussion of these variables would certainly be relevant and increase the explanatory power of the model for many forms of counterproductive behavior. In addition, although we have presented a model that indicates that attributional processes fully mediate the relations between sets of individual and situational factors and counterproductive behavior, we recognize that some individual and situational factors may also have direct effects on counterproductive behavior.

Limitations
Our objective in writing this article was to explain the elements of the paradigm that appears to be emerging as researchers work on understanding counterproductive behavior. Keeping this objective in mind, we emphasized the common elements of apparently disparate perspectives and we attempted to avoid focusing on minor differences or the explication of a specific perspective. Because of this approach as well as the ordinary constraints in writing an integrative article, we experienced and imposed limitations, the most salient of which are described below.

Attributional Dimensions
Again, because our goal was not the explication of a specific theoretical perspective or specific class of counterproductive behaviors, we did not fully articulate each of the perspectives that we considered. In the case of attribution theory, we primarily referred to the dimensions of locus of causality and stability to argue our case, since they were usually sufficient to make the necessary arguments. Nonetheless, attribution theorists also recognize many other dimensions that are probably

Rational Information Processing

One concern in describing the paradigm was whether or not the rational and sequential information-processing paradigm that emerged provided a realistic depiction of

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

48

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

related to counterproductive behavior including controllability, intentionality, and globality. These dimensions should be considered in fully articulating theories of counterproductive behavior. Similarly, the finer points of each of the various theories we included should be considered and more fully integrated into models of counterproductive behavior as we begin to more fully understand and recognize critical relationships.

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, 4974. Aquino, K. (2000) Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171193. Aquino, K., Grover, S.L., Bradfield, M. and Allen, D.G. (1999) The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 260272. 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 and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161173. 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 of employee deviance. 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. Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1996) Beyond distrust: `Getting even' 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) Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Campbell, C.R. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) An integrative attributional perspective of empowerment and learned helplessness: A multimethod field study. Journal of Management, 24, 173200. Cash, T.F., Gillen, B. and Burns, D.S. (1977) Sexism and `beautyism' in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301310. 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) Dysfunctional Behavior 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 leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 97106. Dalton, D.R. and Mesch, D.J. (1991) On the extent and reduction of avoidable absenteeism: An assessment of absence policy provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 810818. Dalton, D.R. and Wimbush, J.C. (1998) Absence does not make the heart grow fonder. 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. 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 on the use of organizational control policy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 325343. Douglas, S.C. and Martinko, M.J. (2001) Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 547559.

Conclusion
The paradigm we have developed has several implications. The first is that it highlights major variables that are typically included in theories of counterproductive behavior. As a result, it can serve as a checklist for theories that attempt to explain counterproductive behavior, suggesting the minimal list of variables that should be considered. Thus, the paradigm should be useful in theory building. For example, including attributional styles and processes into Harris and Greising's (1998) theory of image-making might help to increase the explanatory power of their theory. Similarly, including situational variables as well as more explicitly including atttribution styles into integrity tests might result in increasing the predictive power of these instruments. Another implication of the paradigm, which was made more apparent by the relative ease with which the various theories appeared to fit within the paradigm, is that there are many similarities between and among the various theories of counterproductive behavior. While separate theories may be helpful in developing more idiosyncratic understandings of some behaviors, we believe it is also important to have a standard and referent point for theory building. We are hopeful that the paradigm and model that we have articulated can contribute toward a consensus of the basic dynamics surrounding the processes that generate counterproductive behaviors. Finally, as indicated in the Introduction, an advantage of a paradigmatic approach is that it highlights key relationships, which form the focal points of a theory. In developing the model, we have argued that attribution styles and processes play a strong role in the development and expression of counterproductive behaviors. Since not all scholars and practitioners may agree on this point, it is the obvious place to challenge the model. In the sprit of the tradition of strong inference, we welcome challenges to the model. Systematic disconfirmation of the model is the optimal way to build theory that can help us understand and explain the similarities and differences in the various forms of counterproductive behavior that occur in our places of work.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

INTEGRATIVE THEORY OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR

49

Eagly, A. and Steffan, V.J. (1986) Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytical review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309330. Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (1998) A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression. 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. Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (1999) A model of work frustrationaggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915 933. Gardner, W. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) The dysfunctional effects of impression management in organizations, 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. Greenberg, J. (1990) Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cut. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561568. Greenberg, R. (1993) Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81103. 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 and Deviant Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Greenberg, J. and Alge, B.J. (1998) Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice. 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. Harris M.H. and Greising, L.A. (1998) Alcohol and drug use as dysfunctional workplace behaviors. 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. 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 first computer science course. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 341352. Hogan, J. and Brinkmeyer, K. (1997) Bridging the gap between overt and personality-based integrity tests. Personnel Psychology, 50, 587599. Hogan, J. and Hogan, R. (1989) How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 273280. Judge, T.A. (1996) Dispositional influences on attributions concerning absenteeism. Journal of Management, 22, 837 862. Judge, T.A., Erez, A. and Bono, J.E. (1998) The power of being positive: the relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167187. Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C. and Kluger, A.N. (1998) Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17 34. Kent, R. and Martinko, M. (1995) The development and evaluation of a scale to measure organizational attribution style. In M. Martinko (ed.) Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. 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 in Organizations. 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: University of Chicago Press. Kulik, C.T. and Rowland, K.M. (1989) The relationship of attributional frameworks to job seekers' perceived success and job search involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 361368. Levy, P.E. (1993) Self-appraisal and attributions: A test of a model. Journal of Management, 19, 5163. Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Mack, D., Shannon, C., Quick, J. and Quick, J. (1998) Stress and the preventive management of workplace violence. 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. 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, 195204. Martinko, M.J., Henry, J.W. and Zmud, R.W. (1996) An attributional explanation of individual resistance to information technologies in the workplace. Behavior and Information Technology, 15, 313330. Martinko, M.J. and Moss, S.E. (1999) An exploratory study of workplace violence and aggression. In S. Barr (ed.) Proceedings of the Southern Management Association Conference. Orlando, FL, 8688. Martinko, M.J. and Moss, S.E. (2000) Conflict in the leadermember dyad: An attributional interpretation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association, Orlando, FL. Martinko, M. and Zellars, K. (1998) Toward a theory of workplace violence: A cognitive appraisal perspective. 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. Martocchio, J.J. and Judge, T.A. (1994) A policy capturing approach to individual's decisions to be absent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 358386. Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980) The case for qualitative research. The Academy of Management Review, 5, 491500. Murray, B. (1999) The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607627. Neuman, J.H. (1998) Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391419. Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1997) Aggression in the workplace. 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, 225253. 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 in organizations. 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:

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Volume 10 Numbers 1/2 March/June 2002

50

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

findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679703. Perlow R. and Latham, L.L. (1993) Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and gender: A longitudinal study in mental retardation facilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831834. Pfeffer, J. (1993) Barriers to the advancement of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599620. Platt, J.R. (1964) Strong inference. Science, 146, 347353. Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995) A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555572. Robinson, S.L. and Greenberg, J. (1998) Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5, 130. Russell, D.W. (1991) The measurement of attributional process: Trait and situational approaches. In Zelen, S.L. (ed.) New Model, New Extensions of Attribution Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag. Sackett, P.R. and Wanek, J.E. (1996) New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787829. 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 of Clinical Psychology, 33, 10411044. Silver, W.S., Mitchell, T.R. and Gist, M.E. (1995) Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: the moderating

effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 62, 286299. Skinner, B.F. (1957) Verbal Behavior. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Storms, P.L. and Spector, P.E. (1987) Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effects of locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 635637. Thomson, N. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) Observer attribution style: An empirical analysis of the cross-situational stability of observer attributions. In Barr, S. (ed.) Southern Management Association Conference Proceedings. Orlando, FL, 2730. Van Maanan, J. (1995) Style as theory. Organizational Science, 6, 687692. Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley. Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1984) Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465490. Watson, D. and Pennabaker, J.W. (1989) Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234254. Weiner, B. (1986) An Attribution Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Weiner, B. (1995) Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation of a 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 causal attributions for unemployment in young people. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 213219.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002