Journal of Applied Psychology

2004, Vol. 89, No. 4, 647 660

Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association

0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647

Antecedents of Counterproductive Behavior at Work:

A General Perspective
Bernd Marcus

Heinz Schuler

Chemnitz University of Technology

University of Hohenheim

Counterproductive work behaviors have predominantly been investigated at relatively narrow levels, with
the focus limited to subsets of the behavioral domain as well as to specific explanatory approaches. This
study took a broader perspective with respect to both dependent and independent variables. A sample of
German employees from 2 organizations reported on their levels of general counterproductive behavior
(GCB). In predicting GCB, M. R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschis (1990) theory of self-control as a general
explanation for deviant acts was tested and compared with several alternative approaches. Results from
simple and moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses involving 24 predictors of GCB strongly
support hypotheses derived from self-control theory. Little support is found for any effects on individual
differences in GCB beyond the direct and conditional impact of internal control.

appear to have been aware of relevant developments from other

fields of research (e.g., see the introduction to Ones, 2002). A
related point is the difficulty in pinpointing the appropriate level of
theoretical parsimony with a focus on narrowly defined topics.
More general theories of counterproductive behavior than are
currently predominant in the literature may prove useful once one
looks at the overall picture (Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas,
2002).
In the present study, we therefore adopted the opposite view,
looking at counterproductive behavior from a general perspective.
We do not suggest that this perspective will replace more specific
approaches or make them redundant. We rather expect the general
approach to supplement more specific ones and perhaps to clarify
some hitherto neglected relations. In this respect, it may make
sense to start exploring the field at the highest level of parsimony
and from that point to work downward to more narrowly defined
areas of research when these other areas are shown to be beyond
the scope of the general approach. The broad perspective may
contribute to more parsimonious theorizing from a scientific point
of view as well as to more cost-effective practical solutions to the
problem. For example, theft and substance use may share certain
features (e.g., being detrimental to the goals of the organization,
implying the risk of termination if detected) but not share others
(e.g., directed at others vs. directed at self, discretionary vs. addictive). The common features may translate into common causes
and common solutions, whereas the specific features may point to
explanations and countermeasures beyond the general approach.
Our primary objectives in this study were to outline a possible
framework for such a general view on counterproductive behavior
and to apply this perspective to an empirical test of one general
theory and a broad array of alternative theories.
In accordance with recent reviews of the issue (Marcus, 2000;
Sackett & DeVore, 2001), we emphasize the fact that different
forms of counterproductive behavior are almost always positively
correlated. This finding emerged not only in wide-spectrum selfreport studies (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992; Hollinger & Clark,

Scholars of employee behavior traditionally tend to define their

core dependent variable, job performance, as the individual contribution to the goals of an organization, varying in content and
magnitude but of a generally positive sign. Notwithstanding this
tradition to view performance as more or less productive behavior,
it is no less true that organizations and their members are often
faced with acts that are clearly damaging to their goals. These
counterproductive acts can take many forms: theft, fraud, absenteeism, physical and verbal aggression, or substance use, to name
only a few. The bulk of research on counterproductive behaviors
has treated these forms as different phenomena, leading to separate
literatures for each form of counterproductive behavior. This tendency to investigate narrowly defined dependent variables is mirrored on the predictor side by a tendency to use a limited set of
independent variables as emphasized in relatively narrow theoretical approaches (for general reviews and anthologies, see Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Griffin, OLeary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998;
Marcus, 2000; Murphy, 1993; Ones, 2002; Sackett & DeVore,
2001). Hence, one of the most noticeable features of counterproductivity research to date is that of diversity. Although the manifold of specific approaches has revealed many insights into meaningful relationships between specific antecedents and specific
forms of counterproductive behavior, there have also been arguments in favor of a more general perspective. One concern with
these specialized approaches is that connections between related
areas may have been overlooked and researchers sometimes do not

Bernd Marcus, Department of Psychology, Chemnitz University of

Technology, Chemnitz, Germany; Heinz Schuler, Department of Psychology, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
This research was supported by Grant SCHU 422/9 2 from the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by a doctoral scholarship granted
by the Bundesland Baden-Wuerttemberg.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bernd
Marcus, Department of Psychology, Chemnitz University of Technology,
D-09107, Chemnitz, Germany. E-mail: bernd.marcus@phil.tu-chemnitz.de
647

648

MARCUS AND SCHULER

1983) and in supervisory ratings (e.g., Campbell, McHenry, &

Wise, 1990; Hunt, 1996) but also in some less comprehensive
studies in which more than one objective measure of counterproductive behavior was obtained (e.g., J. Hogan & Hogan, 1989;
Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz, & Singer, 1997; Latham & Perlow,
1996; Normand, Salyards, & Mahoney, 1990). At the most general
level, all acts of counterproductive behavior share the common
feature of violating the legitimate interests of an organization
(Sackett & DeVore, 2001) by being potentially harmful to its
members or to the organization as a whole (Marcus, 2001). To be
included by this definition, the following is required: 1. The
instance must be a volitional act (as opposed to mere bad luck)
regardless of the tangible outcomes of the behavior. The term
volitional, however, does not imply that doing harm is necessarily
the driving intention behind the act (e.g., stealing an item from a
coworker is a willful act regardless of whether it was done to
retaliate for something or just for the wish to possess the stolen
item, whereas misplacing the same item without purpose would
not count as a volitional act). 2. The behavior must be potentially
and predictably harmful but not necessarily result in an undesirable
outcome (e.g., operating a truck while drunk may not end up in an
accident but obviously has the potential to do so, whereas giving
a regular customer credit may well result in a loss of money, but
this could hardly be expected). 3. The act must run counter to
legitimate interests but not be outweighed by potential benefits that
are also legitimate (e.g., sexual harassment violates the interests
predominantly of those victimized, but others gain no advantage
from it, whereas the decision by an executive to enter a new market
may have disastrous outcomes for the entire organization but also
the potential of substantial benefits. Similarly, taking sick leave
without being actually sick is seen as illegitimate and thus counterproductive, but a medical indication would certainly justify the
same behavior).
We refer to behaviors fitting under this common definition as
general counterproductive behavior (GCB). GCB includes a wide
range of different acts that also have many features that are not
shared by all behaviors within this domain. Sackett and DeVore
(2001) summarized a study by Gruys (1999) who, through rational
sorting and factor-analytic techniques, identified 11 separable categories of GCB. As already mentioned, the specific features of
these categories may well contribute to our understanding of
specific causes by making us aware of theoretically meaningful
differences. However, the 11 categories were also positively and
substantially intercorrelated, indicating a significant degree of
communality among them. The present article was concerned with
this communality, with the differences being beyond the scope of
our study.
Similar to the general approach on the criterion side, we also
attempted to adopt a more comprehensive view with respect to
theoretical explanations. Although there is a noticeable trend in
recent times to integrate the various forms of GCB into a broader
construct, an according degree of generality is still virtually lacking in empirical research on its antecedents. Martinko et al. (2002)
recently presented a remarkable theoretical effort to integrate a
large number of different theoretical perspectives into a common
causal reasoning model. According to these authors, numerous
situational and individual difference variables, as emphasized in a
multitude of different theories, are all mediated by cognitive and
emotional processes to explain the two general types of self-

destructive and retaliatory counterproductive behavior. We concur

with Martinko et al. in the notion that there are a lot of similarities
between apparently different perspectives and that much redundancy is likely to be found once these similarities are taken into
account. Still, contrary to the model they proposed (which was
published subsequent to the planning of the present study), we did
not focus mainly on an integration of divergent theories. Rather,
we highlighted one theory, Gottfredson & Hirschis (1990) general
theory of crime, which claimed to provide a general and largely
comprehensive explanation for all types of deviant acts. Because
this explanation is mainly sought in an individual difference variable, we focused on the level of individuals in our research. Our
design was not suited to account for differences across higher units
of aggregation, but some of the most prominent alternative theories, including situational approaches, were incorporated and comparatively tested as far as they apply to differences in GCB across
individual employees. A taxonomic framework we used to organize all these divergent approaches is outlined below after a brief
summary of Gottfredson and Hirschis general theory.

The General Theory of Crime

In a volume that shortly after became the most-cited publication
in criminology (Cohn & Farrington, 1999), Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) proposed a theory of crime that they regarded as
truly general with respect to its scope and comprehensiveness. On
the basis of an extensive literature review, they concluded that
virtually all acts of crime, as well as numerous other analogous
behaviors, tend to be positively correlated among each other and
over long periods of time. They labeled these general facts the
versatility and stability of crime, respectively, and deduced that
only a latent personality trait can be responsible for these recurring
patterns of empirical findings. The authors sought to identify the
nature of this trait by analyzing the nature of criminal and analogous acts, which resulted in a list of common features of the
behavior in question. Among these are a lack of planning and skills
necessary for the execution of the acts, pain or discomfort on the
part of the victim, and a lack of long-term benefits for the actor.
The most important defining feature, however, is that all these acts
promise immediate and easy gratification of desires at the cost of
possible long-term negative consequences for the offender him- or
herself. Consequently, they defined the trait they held to be the
core explanation for crime as the tendency to avoid acts whose
long-term costs exceed momentary advantages (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1994, p. 4), and they labeled this construct self-control. It
is important to note that this conception of self-control differs
remarkably from earlier construct definitions with the same or
similar labels (see Pulkinnen, 1986, for a review) in that it relies
exclusively on conceptual similarities and empirical relationships
within a certain domain of behavior and basically defines the latent
trait as the common element within this domain.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) further stated that self-control in
that sense captures the essence of any criminal or analogous
conduct and thus is more proximate to the behavior than any other
explanation offered in the literature. (The authors also offered
more distal explanations for how self-control develops, but these
are beyond the scope of the present study.) Because all of these
acts are more or less the same, there is little room for specialization
in their theory. They presented evidence that the empirical consis-

ANTECEDENTS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

tency within one class of criminal and analogous acts is not

substantially higher than that across different types of such acts.
Thus, they concluded that their general construct of self-control
accounted for such a large portion of variance within the entire
behavioral domain that there is little to be added by more specific
alternative theories. As mentioned in the introduction, we are not
convinced that the differences between the different types of GCB
are empirically or conceptually so trivial that we would subscribe
to the same point of view with respect to our topic. However, it
also seems obvious that almost any kind of counterproductive act
shares the defining feature of possible long-term negative consequences with self-control. If self-control is the tendency to consider the long-term consequences of ones behavior and GCB is
essentially behavior with negative long-term consequences, lack of
self-control should be the core explanatory construct for GCB at
the general level, according to Gottfredson and Hirschis theory.
Self-control is as much at the core of the theory that we refer to
it as self-control theory in the remainder of this article. It is not the
only important variable in the theory, however. Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990) also emphasized that there is a postadolescence
decline in deviant behavior that is due to natural maturation and is
independent of self-control, and they held that a situational variable, opportunity, or lack of situational control is necessary for
crime to occur. Thus, there is at least one element of interactionism
embedded in this primarily personalistic theory.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) were not very reserved in criticizing alternative theories, and they made some apparently grandiose claims about the contribution of their own theory. This
included the assertion that self-control theory would hold for
virtually all kinds of criminal and analogous acts, in all cultures
and at all times, and it included a far-reaching dismissal of alternative approaches, especially those requiring a motivational explanation for crime (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990). It is no surprise
then that self-control theory has become a subject of highly controversial debate, in which critics sometimes take on a tone that is
rarely heard in scientific discussions (e.g., Geis, 2000; Miller &
Burack, 1993). Probably the most influential charge is that of
being tautological (Akers, 1991). The contention that self-control
and crime are merely synonymous has been refuted on the grounds
that they can be measured independently by using noncriminal acts
as indicators of low self-control (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1994) and
that proper use of these indicators would lead to a number of
falsifiable predictions derived from the theory (Marcus, 2004). Put
briefly, the solution proposed by Hirschi and Gottfredson was to
use indicators that are logically independent of the criterion (for
instance, if the criterion were GCB, then self-control should not be
measured by behaviors belonging to that domain) but also share
the defining features of the general class of low self-control
behaviors (wasting money in private life, being aggressive in
social relationships, consuming unhealthy food or narcotics, etc.).
The common element across these various acts should predict the
criterion, or otherwise the theory will be falsified.
Despite all criticisms, this theory has stimulated considerable
research efforts within general criminology (see Pratt & Cullen,
2000, for a meta-analysis) and has also attracted the attention of
many scholars of counterproductive work behaviors. Perhaps the
first reference to the potential value of this theory in organizational
psychology literature can be found in Waneks (1995) study.
Collins and Griffin (1998) later tried to integrate Gottfredson and

649

Hirschis (1990) theory with earlier conceptions of self-control,

different dispositional theories, and some situational approaches.
However, little empirical research seems to have followed these
conceptual notions, with one recent exception by Gibson and
Wright (2001), who were primarily interested in the interaction of
self-control with one specific other variable, peer delinquency. We
attempted a more comprehensive approach in this study, thereby
following Hirschi and Gottfredsons (1994) call for comparative
theory testing, asking how one theory fares relative to its competitors (p. 7). That is, we were not trying to integrate self-control
theory with other approaches but rather we stayed within its
authors original concepts and claims, which are dismissive of any
integrative paradigms, do not mention earlier conceptions of selfcontrol, and explicitly call for competition rather than integration
with rival theories. The conceptual limitation to this claim is that
whereas self-control is held to generalize to differences in deviant
behavior within any group, culture, or historical period, it appears
to be less readily applicable to differences across such situations.

Alternative Theories of GCB

Like the study of deviant behavior in general, the field of GCB
and its subcomponents is one of multidisciplinary activities, occupied by psychologists as well as sociologists, economists, and
others. Even within psychology, theoretical accounts for GCB
cover such diverse areas as social psychology (e.g., Spector, 1997),
cognitive developmental psychology (e.g., Trevino, 1986), and
personality psychology (e.g., Hogan & Ones, 1997). Such a multitude of divergent theories cannot be reviewed in detail here, but
we give an account of some of the core ideas as they relate to
self-control in the context of a general taxonomic framework
(Marcus, 2001). Marcus (2001) proposed a very simple taxonomy
at the most general level of abstraction, which was meant to
organizeas opposed to integratea large number of possible
antecedents of GCB. These independent variables were derived
from multiple theories, which, according to Marcus (2001), can be
ordered along two dimensions, both of which are characterized by
paradigmatic or fundamental distinctions.
The first dimension refers to the predominant source of variation
and accounts for the almost ubiquitous distinction between person
and situation approaches, which is mentioned in most reviews of
the field. Despite occasional accounts of Person Situation interactions in empirical research (e.g., Storms & Spector, 1987;
Trevino & Youngblood, 1990) and attempts to integrate both
streams of theorizing (Collins & Griffin, 1998; Martinko et al.,
2002), the bulk of research on GCB still adopts either a situationistic or a personalistic view. As Sackett and DeVore (2001) mentioned, one pragmatic reason for this tendency is that an
intervention-centered focus might lead to varying research interests, which can be aimed at either organization-wide controls or
personnel selection, for example. The almost century-old debate
about to what degree internal dispositions and external forces
determine human behavior has certainly also led to the hardly
bridged trenches between different schools of theorizing in and
beyond contemporary psychology. As a consequence, most approaches to GCB are readily grouped into clusters that emphasized
either internal stable dispositions or the influence of external
variables. The latter may be further differentiated according to
their level of aggregation (variables referring to the workplace, the

650

MARCUS AND SCHULER

work group, the organization, or higher levels of aggregation such

as the general labor market) or to their degree of proximity to the
behavior that they are held to explain (objective features of the
situation, e.g., official organizational procedures; perceptions of
these situations, e.g., perceived procedural injustice; and internal
processes determined by perceptions, e.g., work attitudes like job
satisfaction). In practice, most studies based on situational theories
relied primarily on self-report measures at the level of the individual and on more proximal variables such as perceptions and
work attitudes. This strategy introduces some interpretational difficulties (e.g., are the situational variables really situational?), but
it has the advantage to allow for an account of within-situation
variance (and thus more statistical power), and it holds the method
factor constant when personality variables are measured in the
same study. These advantages, however, come at the price of
limited comparability at the conceptual level. For example, if the
main research interest is in explaining why some organizations
have higher absence rates than others, then the mean level of
individual differences across these organizations is likely not to
differ substantially, and an account of objective situational features
may be more appropriate. As rightly pointed out in an editorial
comment to our original submission, the conceptual suitability of
situation (and person) variables as explanatory constructs and their
appropriate measurement depends on the level of aggregation on
the criterion side.
The second distinction in Marcuss (2001) framework refered to
the dominant explanatory mechanism and distinguished motivation from control as fundamental classes of antecedents of deviant
conduct. This distinction has engaged criminology as much as the
personsituation debate did in psychology (Blackburn, 1993; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Put briefly, motivation theorists assume
that some kind of external pressure or internal propensity forces or
drives people into a criminal lifestyle. For instance, criminals may
acquire deviant skills and attitudes from their peers (Sutherland,
1947), they may be denied equal access to desired goods by society
(Merton, 1938), or they may be predisposed toward the excitement
of committing crimes by a need to maintain a high level of cortical
arousal (Eysenck, 1964). The common theme of these certainly
diverse theories is that there is some forceful power pushing
criminals toward deviant behavior that is absent or less powerful
for those who do not commit crimes. Contrary to motivation
theorists, control theorists assume that it is not crime that needs to
be explained but rather the absence of crime. The desired outcomes
of crime are seen as largely attractive to anybody (thereby not
denying the importance of motivation but rather denying the
importance of variance in motivational variables), so the crucial
difference is sought in the presence and power of effective barriers
between the individual and an act of deviance. For example, this
restraint can be a sufficient level of consideration for the long-term
consequences of ones behavior (as in self-control theory), the
internalization of social norms not overridden by techniques of
neutralization (Sykes & Matza, 1957), a social bond (Hirschi,
1969), or other external circumstances inhibiting the behavior. In
all of these cases, it is emphasized that an act of deviance has not
occurred because of some kind of restraint, whereas motivational
theories try to explain why it actually took place.
Most hypothetical antecedents of GCB as derived from multiple
theories can be organized within this simple framework. Crossing

the two dichotomous distinctions gives the following four quadrants, or rubrics:

Triggers (SituationMotivation)
Triggers are external events or internal perceptions of such
events that can provoke GCB as a response. An example for such
an event is a temporary pay cut as in the now-classical field
experiment by Greenberg (1990), in which pay cuts led to higher
theft rates in two industrial plants. Greenberg demonstrated experimentally that an adequate communication of the legitimacy of pay
cuts can substantially reduce their costs, thereby showing indirectly that perceptions of inequity can be as important as the
triggering events themselves. More direct evidence comes from
studies using self-report measures of perceived injustice as predictors of GCB (e.g., Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Examples of processed triggers also include the large bodies of literature on job
satisfaction (e.g., Boye & Jones, 1997; Hackett, 1989), frustration
(e.g., Spector, 1997), and perceived stress (e.g., Boye & Jones,
1997; Farrell & Stamm, 1988) as predictors of counterproductive
behaviors. Thus, a significant portion of the entire GCB research
falls under this rubric.

Opportunity (SituationControl)
Opportunities are conceptualized as any situation or perception
of the situation that facilitates (or inhibits) the exertion of an act of
GCB by enhancing (or restricting) access to desired outcomes or
by making the negative consequences for the actor less (or more)
likely or costly. Examples range from job autonomy at the individual workplace over perceived norms and sanctions by the work
group (e.g., Hollinger & Clark, 1983; Robinson & OLeary-Kelly,
1998), to organizational climate and measures (policies, monitoring devices, sanctions) taken to combat GCB (e.g., Hollinger &
Clark, 1983; Traub, 1996), up to macroeconomic variables such as
unemployment rate (which has consistently been found to be
inversely related to absence rates; Leigh, 1985; Schnabel &
Stephan, 1993). This type of variable is typically at the core of
sociological and economic theories viewing individuals as calculators of costs and benefits in order to maximize utility. Selfcontrol theory also includes opportunity as an auxiliary condition.

Internal Control (PersonControl)

This label summarizes all stable individual differences that can
act as a barrier against the occurrence of GCB. Of course, selfcontrol as defined by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) falls under
this rubric, but so do a number of related personality constructs,
which have been highlighted in dispositional approaches to the
explanation of GCB (e.g., Collins & Griffin, 1998; Hogan &
Hogan, 1989). Among these are subcomponents of conscientiousness and emotional stability, which are typically included in
personality-based integrity tests (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Ones,
1993). The nonmotivational conscientiousness facet of dependability (Hough, 1992) strengthens norm adherence and thus acts as a
restraint against GCB. Similarly, some facets of emotional stability
(Costa & McCrae, 1995) and the related trait of high self-esteem
have been described as protective factors against deviant behavior
(Reckless, Dinitz, & Murray, 1956), as has been cognitive ability

ANTECEDENTS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

(e.g., White, Moffitt, & Silva, 1989). Other examples for internal
controls include stable attitudes toward GCB, as they are typical
parts of overt integrity tests (Jones, 1991) such as rationalizations
and projections of dishonesty on others. These themes are closely
related to Sykes and Matzas (1957) classic theory of neutralization. Thus, the category of internal control includes Gottfredson
and Hirschis self-control but is not restricted to this construct.

Propensity (PersonMotivation)
The final category of propensities refers to any stable individual
difference that drives people toward GCB by making the desired
outcomes or the course of action itself appear more attractive to
those at the high end of the disposition. One recurring theme in
personality-based integrity tests, as well as in criminological theories, that belongs to this category is the trait of excitement or
sensation seeking. Sensation seekers are held to value risky activities because they appreciate the arousal connected with this experience (e.g., Eysenck, 1964). Also included in personality-based
integrity tests are elements of agreeableness, such as trouble avoidance or sensitivity to other peoples interests (Hogan & Hogan,
1989). These traits can be conceptualized as the low poles of
aggressiveness and need for power (or Machiavellianism, for that
matter), which have been assumed to motivate violent behavior
(e.g., Toch, 1969). One widespread element in overt integrity tests,
ruminations, or behavioral intentions to act counterproductively
may also be seen as a propensity, because forming a concrete
intention can strongly motivate actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975).
To summarize, the framework of person versus situation and
motivation versus control distinctions may serve as a taxonomy for
organizing most of the theories and antecedents in previous research on GCB. The main objective of our own study was to
evaluate the claim of one theory, which highlights only one variable within one quadrant of the taxonomy, that it outperforms the
explanatory power of all alternative approaches that make up the
entire scope of the remaining taxonomy in predicting GCB. This
strong claim was tested involving 24 different independent variables from all four quadrants, only one of which is the core
predictor in self-control theory. Triggers were represented by
perceptions of frustration, distress, payment inequity, interactional
injustice, position marginality (lack of opportunity for advancement), and job dissatisfaction. Opportunities included job autonomy, perceived group norms of GCB, anticipated group sanctions,
perceived organizational monitoring, organizational sanctions, organizational awareness of GCB, and finally, perceived risk of
unemployment. Internal controls were investigated including selfcontrol (according to Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), dependability,
positive self-concept, general trust, (lack of) rationalizations for
GCB, (lack of) projection of GCB on others, and cognitive ability.
Propensity was measured by stimulus seeking, low trouble avoidance, manipulativeness (or Machiavellianism), and behavioral intentions. In addition, the effect of age was controlled for. This is by
no means an exhaustive list, but we hope it is sufficiently representative and comprehensive to allow for a rigorous but fair test of
the strong predictions made by self-control theory in the context of
alternative approaches.
It is essential to make clear that the four categories within the
taxonomic framework were not meant to be factors in the sense

651

of homogeneous constructs. They are outlined to organize possible

predictors of GCB on purely logical grounds. For example, there is
little reason to expect the variables of low job autonomy and
perceived risk of unemployment to be positively related. One who
experiences a low degree of autonomy may even be inclined to
think that she or he will easily find a similarly attractive job
elsewhere. Both variables, however, refer to the degree of external
control in that (a) low autonomy directly curtails opportunities of
behaving counterproductively and (b) a high risk of losing ones
job makes the consequences of GCB more costly if it is detected.
Both variables may contribute independently and even alternatively to the prediction of GCB but through a conceptually similar
mechanism. There is better reason to believe that low autonomy
and organizational monitoring are positively related, but this is not
a precondition for them to fall under the same rubric within the
taxonomy. Similarly, the four categories are not held to be mutually exclusive in the sense of being uncorrelated among each other.
An employee who is closely monitored may also feel dissatisfied
and unfairly treated but the former variable still clearly refers to
external control, whereas the latter two constructs are held to
trigger GCBtwo theoretically distinguishable mechanisms. We
therefore do not assume the four categories to empirically form
latent constructs. In terms of a distinction introduced by Bollen and
Lennox (1991), the factor-analytic view is referred to as an effect
indicator model, whereas the present taxonomy resembles what
these authors called a causal indicator model. In the latter case,
internal consistency or higher within- than between-construct correlations were shown to be neither necessary nor desirable (Bollen
& Lennox, 1991).
In accordance with Gottfredson and Hirschis (1990) theory,
we expected self-control to be the strongest predictor of GCB
when alternative predictors were controlled for. We were a little
more hesitant, however, to expect that it would be the only main
effect holding in a full model. Prior research on GCB has
revealed the significance of a large number of predictors apart
from self-control. Thus, Hypothesis 1 stated that self-control
will outperform any other single predictor but that variables
from all four quadrants will contribute to the prediction of
GCB.
In addition, the design of the study allowed for a test of the
effects of interactions between different independent variables on
GCB. We do not present an exhaustive test of all possible interactions for the entire set of 24 predictors but rather restrict our
analyses to the aggregate level as described in the taxonomic
framework. Two interactional hypotheses can be derived from
self-control theory. As explicitly mentioned by Gottfredson and
Hirschi (1990), opportunity is a necessary precondition for crime
and deviance to occur. Hypothesis 2 thus held that effects of a
composite of internal control on GCB will be stronger the weaker
a composite of situational constraints is. Further, whereas Gottfredson and Hirschi did not explicitly refer to triggers as predictors
of crime, they mentioned, among other temptations, that only
persons low in self-control will respond to irritating events in a
violent or self-destructive way. Hence, Hypothesis 3 stated that an
effect of a composite of triggers on GCB will occur only when
internal control is low. No other meaningful interactions were
predicted for this study.

MARCUS AND SCHULER

652
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for All Study Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

GCB
Frustration
Distress
Payment inequity
Interactional injustice
Position marginality
Dissatisfaction
Job autonomya
GCB group normsa
Group sanctions
Org. sanctions
Org. monitoring
Org. awareness
Unemployment risk
Self-control
Dependability
Positive self-concept
Trust
Rationalizationsa
Pervasivenessa
Cognitive ability
Stimulus seeking
Trouble avoidancea
Manipulativeness
Behavioral intentions
Ageb

SD

No.

33.2
3.1
4.3
4.2
24.6
4.2
3.0
3.6
0.0
3.8
2.9
5.0
5.2
4.1
264.0
56.5
57.4
46.5
73.5
28.1
18.7
21.8
20.8
22.6
74.7
2.1

32.1
1.2
1.2
1.7
6.0
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.6
36.6
7.1
8.0
6.1
10.0
5.4
7.4
4.4
4.0
3.6
10.3
0.7

50
3
3
1
11
2
1
5
3
5
5
6
3
1
67
15
19
16
19
10
50
7
7
7
15
1

(.88)
.30*
.21*
.18*
.21*
.01
.08
.06
.31*
.17*
.05
.20*
.24*
.20*
.63*
.27*
.31*
.27*
.40*
.26*
.09
.27*
.14
.09
.37*
.24*

(.65)
.47*
.22*
.55*
.28*
.63*
.35*
.31*
.19*
.07
.04
.37*
.30*
.30*
.31*
.40*
.33*
.36*
.14
.06
.09
.14
.14
.22*
.07

(.58)
.26*
.36*
.18*
.38*
.26*
.21*
.07
.00
.12
.13
.17*
.11
.21*
.31*
.17*
.23*
.08
.05
.08
.07
.20*
.17*
.14

.21*
.01
.27*
.08
.10
.11
.06
.10
.07
.06
.17*
.20*
.20*
.12
.27*
.08
.05
.18*
.05
.08
.23*
.15

(.89)
.47*
.57*
.18*
.21*
.20*
.10
.11
.28*
.21*
.21*
.20*
.29*
.26*
.26*
.19*
.17*
.01
.03
.00
.14
.05

(.66)
.36*
.06
.09
.11
.22*
.20*
.19*
.00
.05
.11
.13
.00
.08
.07
.10
.20*
.11
.21*
.04
.17*

.17*
.20*
.09
.12
.00
.19*
.14
.17*
.19*
.34*
.18*
.20*
.07
.03
.13
.14
.11
.21*
.12

(.70)
.19*
.15
.10
.37*
.02
.15*
.02
.24*
.26*
.19*
.17*
.13
.21*
.03
.00
.10
.09
.03

(.60)
.23*
.01
.01
.22*
.31*
.25*
.10
.10
.36*
.29*
.33*
.07
.14
.12
.22*
.08
.23*

Note. Triggers are measured by variables 27; opportunities, by variables 8 14; internal controls, by variables 1521; and propensities, by variables
2225. Cronbachs reliability estimates appear in parentheses. N ranges from 145 to 174. GCB general counterproductive behavior; Org.
organizational.
a
Variables were reverse scored. b Age was measured by three categories (see text); Spearmans rho correlations are reported for this variable.
* p .05.

Method
Sample and Procedure
Our sample consisted of 174 employees from two organizations in
Germany. Respondents were selected by the management in both cases but
were free to withdraw participation. The first organization (n 76) was a
manufacturing firm delivering drilling supplies for the petrol industry.
Participants were spread over all levels of the hierarchy, except for the
company owner, with the majority (62%) being blue collar workers.
Because anonymity was crucial with this sensitive topic and women were
clearly underrepresented in this company, data on gender were not collected. For similar reasons, age was studied with three broad categories,
yielding a distribution of 9% being age 25 or younger, 53% being between
age 26 and 40 years, and 37% being 40 years or older. The second
organization (n 98) was a large retail chain selling do-it-yourself articles.
Participants came from four different branches with the large majority
being sales clerks, but some back office personnel were included. (We did
not obtain exact data on this, but the management estimated the proportion
of administrative staff to be less than 10%.) Fifty-three percent of the
participants in this organization were men, 22% were age 25 years or
younger, 50% were between age 26 and 40 years, and 28% were age 40
years or older. Because no meaningful differences were found for the level
or structure of GCB between the two organizations with the measure we
used (cf. Measures section), data were collapsed for all analyses.
In both companies, participants were invited by the management to the
respective lunchrooms and were administered all materials in group sessions of 3 to 12 participants each. At the beginning of each session, the test
instructor informed participants about the research objectives, the purely

scientific nature of the project, and the fact that none of the researchers
were assigned by or paid by the employers of the participants. Participants
were further assured both orally and in signed writings that all information
would be kept confidential and that their employers would receive only
anonymous summaries of the results. Finally, they were informed about the
voluntary nature of their participation and that they were free to terminate
the session whenever they wanted. Only 1 person chose this option during
all sessions. The information was presented using written prompts as a
guideline, but no formal script was read aloud. Then, the battery of
instruments described below was administered. The cognitive ability test
was always administered first because it is time limited. The personality
tests were administered next, which provided participants with general
information on tests and reminded them to read the standard instructions.
The GCB measure was always administered last because it was held to be
the potentially most invasive scale in our study and because we did not
want it to affect responses to the remaining measures. The entire procedure
took approximately 60 100 min for each session.

Measures
GCB. GCB was measured by a 50-item scale described in detail in
Marcus, Schuler, Quell, and Hu mpfners (2002) study. Items tapped into a
wide variety of different counterproductive acts, including but not restricted to theft, fraud and deception, absenteeism and lateness, substance
use, sabotage, verbal and physical aggression toward coworkers and clients, and uncooperative acts. Marcus et al. reported a series of confirmatory
factor analyses that were based on the same samples as was the present
study. According to these analyses, the best fit was obtained for a model
with one higher order factor of GCB loading on several more specific

ANTECEDENTS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

(.71)
.40*
.30*
.28*
.10
.27*
.16*
.26*
.11
.32*
.21*
.08
.01
.07
.11
.09
.15

(.55)
.23*
.26*
.08
.07
.07
.01
.04
.08
.09
.00
.07
.11
.09
.09
.05

(.68)
.10
.07
.26*
.10
.11
.10
.04
.26*
.35*
.10
.07
.06
.04
.06

(.31)
.26*
.15
.20*
.21*
.27*
.38*
.22*
.10
.05
.05
.10
.20*
.00

.20*
.14
.04
.26*
.17*
.08
.00
.24*
.29*
.43*
.29*
.11

(.94)
.24*
.33*
.33*
.35*
.30*
.15*
.36*
.32*
.21*
.42*
.19*

(.78)
.64*
.43*
.58*
.10
.19*
.20*
.11
.02
.56*
.01

(.80)
.52*
.53*
.16*
.12
.15
.06
.04
.55*
.10

(.70)
.52*
.40*
.22*
.17*
.09
.10
.50*
.19*

(.82)
.39*
.12
.20*
.06
.02
.56*
.11

subcomponents, and a multisample analysis revealed no indication of

different structures or means across the two organizations. Application of
the measure requires a pretest with subject matter experts in the organization for warranting that the items are applicable to all participants and for
obtaining organization-specific severity ratings that later serve as item
weights. The weights represent the differential severity of the single items
according to organizational policies. They warrant that an act that is seen
as relatively tolerable in one organization (e.g., drinking beer in the
industrial plant) could be coded as less counterproductive as the same act
in a different environment where it is regarded as more severe (drinking
beer in customer service). They also warrant that mild forms of GCB
committed at high rates can receive the same weight as could single
incidents of more serious acts within as well as across organizations. This
procedure may help to explain why there were no differences found in
either mean or structure of the scale across these certainly divergent
organizations. Items asked for the frequency with which the respective act
was executed during the last 12 months and were coded on a 5-point scale
ranging from never 0, once 1, two or three times 2, several times
3, often 4. This raw item score is then weighted by the mean of the
severity ratings obtained from the internal experts for each item and
summed up for the final score.
Triggers. Interactional justice was measured by the 11-item Supervisor
Treatment subscale of the Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment
scale (Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998). This scale measures perceptions of (in)justice on a 3-point scale anchored by the options yes, ?, and
no. Payment inequity was measured with one item (All in all, I think my
work is paid fairly). The 3-item measure of frustration was adapted from
Peters and OConnors (1980) study and has been extensively used in prior
GCB research. Distress was also measured by three items developed for

20

21

(.70)
.14

.19*
.05
.18*
.22*
.04
.06
.24* .01
.25* .12

653

22

23

24

(.62)
.40* (.58)
.43*
.32* (.54)
.42*
.22*
.30*
.24* .11 .14

25

26

(.78)
.14

this study but modeled after similar instruments from previous studies (e.g.,
This work is very stressful; see Chen & Spector, 1991, 1992). Position
marginality was measured using two newly developed items (e.g., There
is practically no chance for getting ahead in this position). One item (taken
from Neuberger & Allerbeck, 1978), which is widely used in German
industrial-organizational psychology, was chosen to measure job satisfaction. The item taps into overall satisfaction with all aspects of work and is
presented using a 7-point scale anchored by nonverbal emoticons.
Opportunities. Job autonomy was measured by the 5-item subscale of
the Subjektive Arbeitsanalyse (Martin, Ackermann, Udris, & Oegerli,
1980), using a 7-point Likert-type scale. The same scale was used for the
one-item measure of perceived risk of unemployment (I could easily find
a job like this somewhere else), an item tapping into the subjective cost
rather than the probability of losing ones job. Perceived group norms of
GCB was measured using a standardized index composed of three items,
which asked participants to estimate the average proportion of days absent,
days worked under the influence of alcohol, and of thefts among their
colleagues in their immediate work group. The remaining measures of
social controls were adapted and partially extended from Hollinger and
Clarks (1983) study. Anticipated group sanctions were measured by the
expected coworker reactions to five forms of GCB (theft, absenteeism,
working while drunk, attacking coworkers, disregard for safety instructions), using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 showing approval to 5
reporting the event to supervisors. Similarly, anticipated organizational
sanctions were investigated for the same types of GCB but with a 5-point
scale that ranged from 1 nothing at all to 5 reporting the instance to
the police. Six items (e.g., Adherence to rules is strictly monitored here)
tapped into perceived organizational monitoring, whereas organizational
awareness was measured by three items (e.g., Supervisors are hardly

MARCUS AND SCHULER

654

concerned when one is absent for a day). The latter two measures
employed a 7-point Likert-type scale of endorsement.
Internal control. Our measure of self-control was the Retrospective
Behavioral Self-Control Scale (RBS, Marcus, 2003), a scale specifically
designed after Gottfredson and Hirschis (1990) definition of that construct. The 67-item RBS taps into noncriminal and nonoccupational behavioral manifestations of low self-control, which are ordered along the life
periods of childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Marcus (2003) reported
evidence that the RBS measures the intended general factor of self-control,
whereas the most popular alternative measure of that construct does not.
This finding was replicated across three independent samples. Evidence on
convergent validity with non-self-report measures (delay of gratification,
academic performance) was reported in the same study. Items were coded
on a frequency scale that ranged from never to often. Cognitive ability was
measured using the German version of the 50-item Wonderlic Personnel
Test (Wonderlic, 1996), a measure of general mental ability widely used
for personnel selection in the United States. The remaining person variables were measured by subscales from the Fragebogen zu Einstellungen
und Selbsteinscha tzungen (FES; Marcus, 2000; Marcus & Schuler, 2004),
a German integrity test that has both an overt and a personality-based part.
The FES is predominantly modeled after the prototypical content of prior
U.S. integrity tests, as revealed through factor analyses, and possesses nine
subscales. All items are coded on a 5-point Likert-type endorsement scale.
With respect to internal control variables, the scales for dependability (15
items, e.g., I bring to an end what I start to do.), positive self-concept (19
items, e.g., I dont think Im a particularly worthy member of society,
reverse scored), general trust (16 items; e.g., You fare better in life if you
trust nobody but yourself, reverse scored), rationalizations (19 items; e.g.,
Of course it is not allowed to steal from your boss, but at least it wont be
a poor man you hurt), and perceived pervasiveness of GCB (or projection
on others, 10 items; e.g., Almost everyone has committed some petty theft
or fraud when the opportunity was on), were selected for this study.
Propensities. Motivational dispositions were measured by a different
set of FES subscales. These were the scales for behavioral intentions or
fantasies (15 items; e.g., I would never buy stolen merchandise, even if it
were very cheap, reverse scored), stimulus seeking (7 items; e.g., I prefer
ease and comfort over thrill and excitement, reverse scored), manipulativeness (or Machiavellianism, 7 items; e.g., In the end, most people do
what I want them to do), and trouble avoidance (7 items; e.g., I walk
away from trouble whenever I can).

Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all study
variables are presented in Table 1. Predictors were scored in such
a way that relationships between motivational predictors and GCB
were expected to be positive, and correlations between control
variables and GCB were predicted to be negative. As can be seen
in the table, the strongest correlate of GCB was self-control (r
.63), but all sets of predictors contained at least moderately strong
correlates of GCB, and all but three correlations lay in the expected
direction (the exceptions occurred for position marginality, job
autonomy, and cognitive ability, and all were small and not statistically significant). Age was measured on only an ordinal scale
for reasons of anonymity as described in the Method section, but
inspection of the GCB results for the three age groups (M 45.2,
SD 40.0 for ages 25 years and below; M 33.8, SD 28.0 for
ages 26 40 years; M 25.2, SD 25.8 for ages 40 years and
above) supported the assumption of a linear trend. Thus, results
from the correlational analyses were largely consistent with
expectations.
Hypothesis 1, which stated that self-control would be the main

predictor of GCB, was tested using hierarchical multiple regression analyses. For that purpose, predictors were combined into sets
representing either the personsituation distinction or the
motivation control distinction. After controlling for age in Step 1,
one set (e.g., person variables) was entered in Step 2, and the
remaining set of predictors (in this case, situation variables) was
entered in the Step 3. Age was entered first because it is the only
variable in self-control theory that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
regarded as an independent predictor of crime (or GCB, for that
matter). The order of the last two steps was then reversed with the
situation variables entered in Step 2 and the person variables
entered in Step 3. The same procedure was then applied to the sets
of motivation and control variables, giving a series of four hierarchical regression analyses. Results of these four analyses are
shown in Table 2. As can be seen, person variables added substantially to the prediction of GCB when age and situational
variables were controlled for (R2 .365). The gain obtained by
adding the situational variables in Step 3 was comparatively trivial
(R2 .047) and not statistically significant. A similarly clear-cut
difference occurred when control variables were compared with
motivational variables. Control variables predicted GCB by an
increment of R2 .321 above all other variables, whereas
motivational variables added only a nonsignificant R2 .039 to
the prediction of the criterion when they were entered last. If age
is dropped from these analyses, the total variance accounted for
drops by a trivial R2 .014, and the change in R2 for the final
set of predictors varies between .000 (situation variables) and .015
(person variables). Thus, whether age is controlled for does not
appear to affect the results substantially. Similarly, substituting the
unweighted GCB scale for the weighted measure as the criterion
raises the total amount of variance accounted for by only R2
.013. The difference between the two organizations when separate
analyses were carried out was somewhat higher (R2 .061 in
favor of the manufacturing company), but this difference seemed
likely to be due to chance, given the small sample sizes. Taken
together, the results appear to generalize across organizations,
scoring procedures, and whether age is controlled for.
Alternatively to the dichotomized sets of variables described
above, one may reiterate the same procedure for sets representing
the four quadrants in the framework: triggers, opportunity, internal
control, and propensity. Entering age first in each analysis and
permuting the sequence of the remaining predictor sets gave 24
different five-step hierarchical regressions, which are not reported
in detail here. However, when internal control was entered last in
these analyses, it accounted for 24% of criterion variance above
the remaining variables, whereas triggers accounted for 2.9%,
opportunities accounted for 2.9%, and propensities accounted for
1.5% of GCB when entered in the final step. Thus, when controlling for the entire set of alternative predictors, the incremental
validity of internal controls was approximately 10 times as high as
that of the other predictor sets. In addition, the only variable that
obtained a significant beta weight (.63; p .001) in the full
model was self-control, whereas all other single predictors failed to
reach even levels of marginal statistical significance (all ps .10).
Thus, there is clear evidence from hierarchical regressions that
self-control was by far the best predictor of GCB among all
variables under research in this study.
To test the interactional Hypothesis 2, which stated that the
effect of internal control on GCB depends on opportunity, and

ANTECEDENTS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

655

Table 2
Hierarchical Multiple Regressions of GCB on Age and Sets of Antecedents
Step and predictor

R2

R2

.043*
.549***
.596***

.043*
.506***
.047

.043*
.231**
.596***

.043*
.188*
.365***

.043*
.557***
.596***

.043*
.514***
.039

.043*
.275***
.596***

.043*
.232***
.321***

Person versus situation

Step 1. Age
Step 2. Person variables
Step 3. Situational variables

.207
.741
.772
Steps 2 and 3 reversed

Step 1. Age
Step 2. Situational variables
Step 3. Person variables

.207
.480
.772
Control versus motivation

Step 1. Age
Step 2. Control variables
Step 3. Motivational variables

.207
.746
.772
Steps 2 and 3 reversed

Step 1. Age
Step 2. Motivational variables
Step 3. Control variables

.207
.525
.772

Note. N 122 because of listwise deletion of missing cases. GCB general counterproductive behavior.
* p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.

Hypothesis 3, which held that triggers would have an effect only

when self-control is low, we conducted moderated hierarchical
regression analyses. We computed composites of the variables
belonging to each of the four quadrants in the taxonomy for that
purpose, because testing for interactions with a set of 24 predictors
would have led to an awkward degree of complexity that may have
obscured theoretically meaningful results. In computing the composites, all variables were first z standardized. They were then
weighted by their individual validities (zero-order correlations
with GCB; cf. Table 1) and summed up within each of the four
categories. We dropped the three variables in which the sign of the
correlation with GCB lay in the unexpected direction (position
marginality, job autonomy, and cognitive ability), because negative weights would have hampered the interpretation of the com-

posites. For the same reason, no regression weights or other more

complex empirically based procedures were considered in computing the composites. However, we assume that simpler methods
such as unit weighting would have obscured the apparent differences of the variables within composites in their value for predicting GCB. The validity weights thus represent a compromise between ease of interpretation and consideration of complexity. The
composites should not be interpreted as measures of latent factors.
They represent aggregates of different predictors with shared explanatory mechanisms. Next, the weighted composites were z
standardized, thereby centering them to the mean to avoid problems of collinearity (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). Finally, product
terms between all pairs of standardized composites were created.
Table 3 shows the correlations between GCB, the predictor com-

Table 3
Intercorrelations Between Variables Entered Into Moderated Regression Analyses
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

GCB
Triggers
External controls
Internal controls
Propensities
Triggers External Controls
Triggers Internal Controls
Triggers Propensities
External Controls Internal Controls
External Controls Propensities
Internal Controls Propensities

10

11

.32*
.41*
.57*
.35*
.26*
.26*
.07
.32*
.17*
.23*

.42*
.47*
.24*
.22*
.24*
.19*
.03
.05
.08

.47*
.27*
.22*
.04
.04
.16*
.19*
.07

.56*
.02
.13
.09
.17*
.08
.22*

.04
.07
.17*
.06
.10
.28*

.51*
.12
.52*
.26*
.08

.59*
.56*
.27*
.50*

.23*
.18*
.58*

.59*
.47*

.42*

Note. All variables are standardized (M 0, SD 1); N 152 because of listwise deletion of missing cases.
* p .05.

MARCUS AND SCHULER

656

posites, and their interactions. Results for the moderated multiple

regressions are presented in Table 4.
Hypothesis 2, which predicted an interaction between internal
control and opportunity, was tested in Model 5 presented in Table
4. Results show that this interaction accounted for 4.9% of criterion variance above the simple composites, which corresponds to
an effect size of f 2 .082 (f 2 R2 / (1 R2), which is equivalent
to the proportion of incremental systematic variance accounted for
relative to the proportion of unexplained variancea small to
moderate effect according to Cohens (1988; as cited in Aiken &
West, 1991) classification. Hypotheses 3 predicted an interaction
between triggers and internal control and was tested by Model 3.
Again, a statistically significant effect of moderate size (f 2 .063)
was found for this interaction. The form of these interactions is
illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1A shows that the slope for internal
control became steeper as the strength of external controls decreased. This slope, however, retained statistical significance at all
levels of opportunity. As shown in Figure 1B, the slope for triggers
predicting GCB became flatter and eventually even canted over as
internal control became stronger. The gradient for triggers reached
statistical significance only for the lowest level of internal control
here, indicating that the effect of situational events triggering GCB
was conditional upon the absence of effective internal controls.
Thus, empirical support was found for both interactional
hypotheses.
Of the remaining four interactions, only that between triggers
and opportunities reached conventional levels of statistical and
practical (f 2 .082) significance. This interaction took the form
that situations with high levels of triggers in connection with low
levels of external constraints are particularly vulnerable to GCB.
This interaction was not predicted but appeared to make intuitive
sense. As in the simple hierarchical regression analyses reported
earlier, the only statistically significant predictor in the full model
was internal control.

Discussion
In the present study, we tried to adopt a general perspective to
a largely fragmented field of research. We applied a general theory
of deviant and delinquent behavior to the phenomenon of counterproductive work behavior at a high level of aggregation and
tested it in comparison with a wide variety of alternative theories.
All in all, our results strongly support the self-control theory at the
core of this investigation and provide very limited evidence in
favor of the incremental value of alternative predictors. More
specifically, in Hypothesis 1 we expected self-control to be the
most important predictor of GCB but also predicted that other
variables derived from alternative theories would add substantially
to the prediction of the criterion. This hypothesis was partially
confirmed in the sense that self-control was found to be not only
the dominant predictor within a set of 25 independent variables but
also virtually the only one that accounted for substantial portions
of criterion variance above that of other variables. Moreover,
predictions on interactions of internal control with other types of
antecedents, as specified in Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3, were
also confirmed by means of hierarchical moderated regression
analyses. It would appear, then, that self-control exerts an influence on GCB the size of which may vary with the values of other
parameters, particularly opportunity, but is present at practically
all levels of other person and situation variables. However, the
effects of any other antecedents we investigated appear to depend
on the absence of effective internal constraints inhibiting GCB.
Thus, our results point to the conclusion that developing a workforce consisting of sufficiently self-controlled individuals would
be a highly effective countermeasure for problems associated with
acts of GCB.
From a practical perspective, one consequence of this general
finding would be that organizational policies aimed at selecting
self-controlled employees may prove to be more efficient than
situational interventions that take place after an individual had
already entered the workforce. In their theory, Gottfredson and

Table 4
Hierarchical Moderated Regressions of GCB on Antecedent Composites and Their Interactions
Models estimated
Variable
Triggers
External controls
Internal controls
Propensities
Triggers External Controls
Triggers Internal Controls
Triggers Propensities
External Controls Internal Controls
External Controls Propensities
Internal Controls Propensities
R
R2
R2 (as compared with Model 1)
Effect size (f 2) for interactions

1
.02
.18*
.44***
.05

2
.03
.13
.47***
.07
.24**

3
.03
.20*
.44***
.04

4
.02
.18*
.44***
.04

5
.05
.15
.40***
.06

6
.04
.16
.44***
.04

7
.03
.19*
.43***
.02

.20**
.02
.23**

.597
.357***

.637
.405***
.049**
.082

.628
.395***
.038**
.063

.598
.357***
.000
.000

.637
.406***
.049**
.082

.10
.605
.366***
.010
.016

.11
.607
.369***
.012
.019

8
.00
.14
.42***
.07
.13
.12
.13
.11
.04
.07
.657
.431***
.074**
.130

Note. Entries corresponding to single variables are regression coefficients. Values for theoretically relevant parameters are in italics. N 152. GBC
general counterproductive behavior.
* p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.

ANTECEDENTS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

657

and, second, an organization typically pursues a multitude of

different goals only one of which is the avoidance of GCB (but see
Lee & Allen, 2002, for evidence that GCB and organizational
citizenship behavior are negatively related). Given a workforce
made up of individuals with presumably varying levels of selfcontrol, both organizational controls and the avoidance of provocative acts and policies triggering GCB may still prove to have a
profound effect on the average or total level of GCB within an
organization. This has perhaps most convincingly been demonstrated in the field experiment by Greenberg (1990) mentioned
earlier, which showed that an interfering event can trigger
organization-wide GCB but can also be effectively counteracted
by means of appropriate communication. Greenbergs findings at
the aggregate level are in accordance with our own test of Hypothesis 3, which showed that triggers had an effect for those
people low in self-control. The moderated regression analyses
further support the notion that external restraints can help to reduce
GCB even when self-control is low and that ineffective external
controls plus triggers are an especially undesirable combination of
situational conditions. However, overly invasive organizational
controls such as electronic performance monitoring can also have
undesirable side effects (see, e.g., Aiello & Kolb, 1995). Such
measures may be unnecessary or less invasively designed when
employees are preselected on the basis of appropriate personality
variables. Discussions on test fairness and invasion of privacy
surrounding selection procedures are therefore incomplete without
considering likely consequences at later stages of employment.
Organizations are well advised to evaluate the costs and benefits of
their policies and programs aimed at reducing GCB within a
comprehensive context.
Coming to the implications of this study for theory and research
on GCB, we have to admit that, even after having developed quite
optimistic expectations about the value of self-control theory for
predicting GCB, we are surprised by the extent to which selfcontrol outperforms alternative predictors in the present study.1
Some of these alternatives fill substantial portions of the current
literature on GCB and have received remarkable empirical support
Figure 1. Regression plots probing hypothesized moderator effects. Top:
External controls moderating the effects of internal controls. Bottom:
Internal controls moderating the effects of triggers. GCB general counterproductive behavior.

Hirschi (1990) held that self-control develops during socialization

in childhood and is hard, though not impossible, to acquire beyond
the age of about 8 years. Other findings point to the conclusion that
stable individual differences in conduct problems are already manifested in early childhood and may even be genetically determined
(e.g., Lynam, 1996; Miles & Carey, 1997). In any event, organizations that had once hired adult persons low in self-control may
have a hard time changing them through measures of personnel
development.
This certainly does not mean that interventions aimed at work
groups or the entire workforce are useless and will not result in
reductions of GCB. It seems illusory and perhaps even undesirable
to screen out any person with impulsive and short-sighted tendencies by means of personnel selection procedures. First, even the
validity of effective tools such as integrity tests is not unlimited

1
An anonymous reviewer proposed that we conduct confirmatory factor
analyses to provide evidence that our measures of GCB and self-control tap
into different constructs. Below the general level, our measure of GCB has
five categories of different content (e.g., theft, absenteeism, substance use;
cf. Marcus et al., 2002), whereas the RBS has eight such categories (e.g.,
school misconduct, wastefulness, physical aggression; cf. Marcus, 2003).
Using these categories as parcels of indicators, we conducted two confirmatory factor analyses, specifying either one common factor or two correlated but separate factors for both scales, respectively. The two-factor
model, 2(64, N 174) 114.6; root-mean-square error of approximation .07, comparative fit index .90 fit the data considerably better than
did the one-factor model, 2(65, N 174) 212.8; root-mean-square error
of approximation .12, comparative fit index .82. This suggests that the
two scales indeed measure different constructs despite their high intercorrelation (which was .73 at the level of latent constructs). On a more
negative note, this finding can be taken as evidence that self-control theory
has not been fully supported in the present study. The theory would predict
that both should form a common construct, although they are logically
independent. We would tentatively ascribe this result to the fact that the
RBS taps into behaviors conducted in the private sphere, whereas GCB by
definition takes place on the job.

658

MARCUS AND SCHULER

from earlier studies. However, it seems also noteworthy that to our

best knowledge, no prior study used a comparatively comprehensive set of predictors and none has used a measure of self-control
that was specifically designed after Gottfredson and Hirschis
(1990) theory. Following these authors call for comparative theory testing, we found that many previous findings on relationships
between GCB and a variety of predictors were replicated in terms
of bivariate correlations, but few if any of them survived tests in
which self-control is controlled for. Not in all cases would this
finding lead to a dismissal of alternative theories as has been
illustrated by the example of the Greenberg (1990) study. Situational variables of both a motivational and an inhibitory nature can
and do have an effect on GCB according to our results, but this
effect is conditional on the individual level of self-control. This
finding implies that situational theories would either have to be
restricted to aggregates of persons with constant average levels of
self-control, thereby limiting their scope, or they would have to
take interindividual differences into account. Until now, scholars
of GCB belonging to the situationist camp have paid relatively
little attention to personality and to self-control in particular. Some
have dismissed the explanatory value of personality altogether
(e.g., Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999; Tucker, 1989) despite all
evidence pointing to the contrary. At the very least, the present
study provides one more piece of evidence that such ignorance is
no longer tenable.
With respect to personality variables other than self-control in
this study, it is striking that most of them showed substantial
bivariate correlations with GCB but that these relationships disappeared almost entirely when self-control was taken into account.
This finding points to the conclusion that all dispositions under
research here obtained their predictive value largely from their
overlap with self-control. It is noteworthy that the composite we
computed for internal control was a less valid predictor than was
self-control alone and that propensities added virtually nothing
above this composite, either as a main predictor or in interactions.
A parsimonious personality theory of GCB would therefore have
to take self-control into account, but not much more than selfcontrol, according to our results. Future studies may investigate the
incremental value of other individual difference variables in predicting more specific forms of GCB. For instance, motivational
constructs may prove to have effects independent of self-control
when harm is an intended outcome (e.g., as in sabotage), or when
the exciting nature of an act can be properly varied (e.g., the use
of sedative vs. stimulating drugs). Variables not under investigation in the present study (e.g., locus of control, see Perlow &
Latham, 1993) may also show incremental validity.
There are several potential shortcomings of the present study,
however, that may qualify the conclusions drawn so far. First, the
study is based on a relatively small sample of 174 participants.
Because of partially missing data and listwise deletion of cases,
sample size was reduced to 122 for the simple hierarchical regressions and to 152 for the moderated regression analyses. (The
difference between these two figures is due largely to the exclusion
of age in the latter analyses, because many participants did not
report their age.) According to a table presented in Aiken and West
(1991, p. 159), we were able to detect relatively small effects
around f 2 .06 with a power of .80 at an alpha level of .05 with
these sample sizes. Nevertheless, a larger sample would have been
desirable as would be a replication of our results. Given the limited

power of our study, we would attach a somewhat greater value to

the predictions that were confirmed than to those that were apparently falsified. That is, the findings supporting self-control theory
are hardly qualified by considerations of sampling error, but rejection of alternative theories that received little to no support in
this study may be premature. A second flaw that may have contributed to this potential problem is the fact that whereas selfcontrol was measured by a long questionnaire with high reliability,
our measures of some other variables were short, some were even
one-item measures, and reliabilities were not always satisfactory.
However, there were measures with acceptable reliabilities included in all sets of variables.
Another potential drawback that may have affected the measurement of situational theories in particular was our exclusive use
of self-report measures. We would concur with arguments that
self-reports are not adequate measures of situations when the
effects of objective external events are at the core of interest. The
present study, however, was mainly concerned with the effects of
variables more proximal to the behavior in question, which were
supposed to be compared among each other. Situational features
by definition need to go through internal processes before they can
affect behavior, and interindividual differences may be confounded with these perceptions. The predictive value of perceptions of situations may thus in part be due to stable individual
differences. Further, self-reports have the advantage of allowing
one to keep the method factor constant across all points of measurement but also allowing for more interindividual variation than
is actually attributable to objective features of the situation. Thus,
we assume that using self-reports for both situational and personality variables provides the basis for a fairly conservative test of a
personality theory like that of self-control in comparison with
situational approaches. The results of this study appear even more
striking in this light.
A second concern with self-reports raised by one anonymous
reviewer applies to the criterion side. The validity of self-reports
for measuring deviant behavior has often been called into question
because of a lack of convergence with objective measures (e.g.,
Hessing, Elffers, & Weigel, 1988). However, it is not clear
whether this nonconvergence is due to the impaired validity of
self-reports or to the severe range restriction in objective measures
caused by low detection rates (see Sackett, Burris, & Callahan,
1989). If objective measures of broad coverage are obtained,
integrity tests have been shown to predict them with comparable
validity as they predict self-reports (Ones, Viswesvaran, &
Schmidt, 1993). Moreover, there is evidence from both general
criminological research (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981) and
research on workplace absenteeism (Johns, 1994) that self-reports
and official records of undesirable behaviors show remarkable
convergence if properly designed and matched. For instance, the
raw average correlation between self-reported absenteeism and
company records of absences was .68 across six samples in the
review by Johns (1994). Absenteeism is a special case within the
domain of GCB because it is much more easily detected than, say,
theft or sabotage and therefore does not suffer from problems of
range restriction to the same extent. Thus, when there is a reliable
objective measure, self-reports of GCB appear to demonstrate
satisfactory levels of convergent validity.
Taken together, the present study implies that self-control theory
has the potential of making a profound contribution to our under-

ANTECEDENTS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

standing of GCB. It further shows that there may be a kernel of

common mechanisms underlying counterproductive acts that has
not been revealed by the more narrow approaches currently dominating the field. Understanding this problem and deriving practical solutions require a more comprehensive approach than the kind
of study that, say, relates job satisfaction to absenteeism. There are
hundreds, if not thousands of such single-predictor studies investigating some specific type of GCB. More than further studies of
this type, we need a quantitative integration of the literature under
the conceptual umbrella of an organizing framework. We would
also call for a more comprehensive approach in future primary
studies in the field, allowing researchers to evaluate the findings
within the context of approaches competing to that the very researcher is mainly devoted to. One conservative conclusion from
our results is that any theory, taxonomy, or primary study not
considering self-control as an antecedent of GCB would be seriously flawed and limited in scope. Ironically, this is one of the
least researched theories in the field, so some work appears to lie
ahead.

References
Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring and
social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 339 353.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Akers, R. L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 7, 201211.
Blackburn, R. (1993). The psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research, and practice. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
305314.
Boye, M. W., & Jones, J. W. (1997). Organizational culture and employee
counter-productivity. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 172184). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job
performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313
333.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying
cause of correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 398 407.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with
aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance abuse: An exploratory study.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177184.
Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Changes in the most-cited
scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between
1990 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 345359.
Collins, J. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1998). The psychology of counterproductive job performance. In R. W. Griffin, A. OLeary-Kelly, & J. M.
Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Part B. Nonviolent dysfunctional behavior (pp. 219 242). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical
personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 2150.
Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). Perceptions of Fair
Interpersonal Treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure
of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683 692.
Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Crime and personality. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.

659

Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). Meta-analysis of the correlates of

employee absence. Human Relations, 41, 211227.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Geis, G. (2000). On the absence of self-control as a basis for a general
theory of crime: A critique. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 3553.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1997). Antisocial behavior in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gibson, C., & Wright, J. (2001). Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 483 492.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
561568.
Griffin, R. W., OLeary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. M. (Eds.). (1998). Dysfunctional behavior in organizations. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A
synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62,
235248.
Hessing, D. J., Elffers, H., & Weigel, R. H. (1988). Exploring the limits of
self-reports and reasoned action: An investigation of the psychology of
tax evasion behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
405 413.
Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1990). Substantive positivism and the
idea of crime. Rationality and Society, 2, 412 428.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1994). The generality of deviance. In T.
Hirschi & M. R. Gottfredson (Eds.), The generality of deviance (pp.
122). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L.
Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 195230). Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. T. (1989). How to measure employee reliability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 273279.
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work.
In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology (pp. 849 870). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The Big Five personality variables construct
confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139
155.
Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the
dimensions of entry-level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychology, 49, 51 84.
Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of
self-reported absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 574 591.
Jones, J. W. (1991). Attitude behavior relations: A theoretical and empirical analysis of preemployment integrity tests. In J. W. Jones (Ed.),
Preemployment honesty testing: Current research and future directions
(pp. 89 98). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Koslowsky, M., Sagie, A., Krausz, M., & Singer, A. D. (1997). Correlates
of employee lateness: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 79 88.
Latham, L. L., & Perlow, R. (1996). The relationship of client-directed
aggressive and nonclient-directed aggressive work behavior with selfcontrol. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 10271041.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and

660

MARCUS AND SCHULER

workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 131142.
Leigh, J. P. (1985). The effects of unemployment and the business cycle on
absenteeism. Journal of Economics and Business, 37, 159 170.
Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the
fledgling psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209 234.
Marcus, B. (2000). Kontraproduktives Verhalten im Betrieb: Eine individuumsbezogene Perspektive [Counterproductive behavior in organizations: An interindividual perspective]. Go ttingen, Germany: Verlag fu r
Angewandte Psychologie.
Marcus, B. (2001). Erkla rungsansa tze kontraproduktiven Verhaltens im
Betrieb [Approaches to the explanation of counterproductive behaviors
in organizations]. In R. K. Silbereisen (Ed.), Psychologie 2000 (pp.
414 425). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
Marcus, B. (2003). An empirical examination of the construct validity of
two alternative self-control measures. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 63, 674 706.
Marcus, B. (2004). Self-control in the general theory of crime: Theoretical
implications of a measurement problem. Theoretical Criminology, 8,
3355.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Fragebogen zu Einstellungen und
Selbsteinscha tzungen (FES) [Attitudes and Self-Evaluations Questionnaire]. Manuscript in preparation.
Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Hu mpfner, G. (2002). Measuring
counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German
self-report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 18 35.
Martin, E., Ackermann, U., Udris, I., & Oegerli, K. (1980). Monotonie in
der Industrie [Monotony in the industry]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an
integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal
reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36 50.
Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological
Review, 3, 672 682.
Miles, D. R., & Carey, G. (1997). Genetic and environmental architecture
of human aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
207217.
Miller, S. L., & Burack, C. (1993). A critique of Gottfredson and Hirschis
general theory of crime: Selective (in)attention to gender and power
positions. Women & Criminal Justice, 4, 115134.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Neuberger, O., & Allerbeck, M. (1978). Messung und Analyse von Arbeitszufriedenheit [Measurement and analysis of job satisfaction]. Bern,
Switzerland: Huber.
Normand, J., Salyards, S. D., & Mahoney, J. J. (1990). An evaluation of
preemployment drug testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 629
639.
Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Ones, D. S. (Ed.). (2002). Counterproductive Behaviors at Work [Special
issue]. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2).
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection
and theories of job performance [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679 693.
Perlow, R., & Latham, L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus
of control and gender: A longitudinal study in mental retardation facilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831 834.
Peters, L. H., & OConnor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work
outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy
of Management Review, 5, 391397.

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and
Hirschis general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38,
931964.
Pulkinnen, L. (1986). The role of impulse control in the development of
antisocial and prosocial behavior. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. RadkeYarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behaviors:
Theory, research, and issues (pp. 149 175). New York: Academic
Press.
Reckless, W. C., Dinitz, S., & Murray, E. (1956). Self concept as an
insulator against delinquency. American Sociological Review, 21, 744
746.
Robinson, S. L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do:
The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658 672.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for
personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491529.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at
work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 145164). London: Sage.
Schnabel, C., & Stephan, G. (1993). Determinanten des Krankenstandes:
Eine Untersuchung mit Betriebs und Zeitreihendaten [Determinants of
sick leaves: A study with organizational and time series data]. Jahrbuch
fu r Sozialwissenschaft, 44, 132147.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 434 443.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work.
In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in
organizations (pp. 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational
frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of
locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227234.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Chicago:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664 673.
Toch, H. (1969). Violent men. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Traub, S. H. (1996). Battling employee crime: A review of corporate
strategies and programs. Crime and Delinquency, 42, 244 256.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person
situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11,
601 617.
Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A
causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 378 385.
Tucker, J. (1989). Employee theft as social control. Deviant Behavior, 10,
319 334.
Wanek, J. E. (1995). The construct of integrity: Item level factor analysis
of the dimensions underlying honesty testing and big-five measures of
personality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis.
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1989). A prospective replication
of the protective effects of IQ in subjects at high risk of juvenile
delinquency: A longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 57, 719 724.
Wonderlic. (1996). Wonderlic Personal Test (WPTGerman Version,
Forms A and B). Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Personnel Test.

Received April 23, 2003

Revision received July 31, 2003
Accepted September 16, 2003