Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 87, No. 1, 131–142 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.131

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance:

The Role of Affect and Cognitions

Kibeom Lee and Natalie J. Allen

University of Western Ontario

To investigate the role of affect and cognitions in predicting organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
and workplace deviance behavior (WDB), data were collected from 149 registered nurses and their
coworkers. Job affect was associated more strongly than were job cognitions with OCB directed at
individuals, whereas job cognitions correlated more strongly than did job affect with OCB directed at the
organization. With respect to WDB, job cognitions played a more important role in prediction when job
affect was represented by 2 general mood variables (positive and negative affect). When discrete
emotions were used to represent job affect, however, job affect played as important a role as job cognition
variables, strongly suggesting the importance of considering discrete emotions in job affect research.

Although job performance is one of the major criteria in indus-
trial and organizational psychology, other forms of employee
behavior have also received much research attention. Likely be-
cause of its contribution to overall organizational functioning
(Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), organizational citizenship be-
havior (OCB), in particular, has been researched so extensively
that its literature is large enough to yield a comprehensive meta-
analysis (Organ & Ryan, 1995). More recently, the recognition of
the prevalence, importance, and costs of counterproductive— or
deviant— behavior in the workplace has led to a significant in-
crease in research interest in this type of behavior (e.g., Bennett &
Robinson, 2000; Fox & Spector, 1999; Giacalone & Greenberg,
1997; Greenberg, 1990, 1993; Murphy, 1993; Robinson & Ben-
nett, 1995, 1997; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector, 1997). It is
clear that both sets of work behaviors are very important to
organizations, their customers, and their employees. Moreover,
existing theory and research suggest that employees’ thoughts
about work (cognitions) and their feelings about work (affect) are
likely to influence these behaviors.
Our distinction between cognition and affect at work draws
largely from the research of Organ and Near (1985). By cognitions
Kibeom Lee and Natalie J. Allen, Department of Psychology, University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 2000, New
Orleans, Louisiana. The research was based on Kibeom Lee’s dissertation,
completed at the University of Western Ontario under the supervision of
Natalie J. Allen and supported by Grants 410-95-1062 and 410-99-1113
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and
by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship.
We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the College of Nurses of
Ontario in this project. We also thank members of the dissertation com-
mittee (Victoria Esses, Donald Gorassini, John Meyer, Clive Seligman, and
Tony Vernon) and the external examiner, Sandra Robinson, for their
helpful comments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kibeom
Lee, who is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Western
Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia 6907, Australia. E-mail: kibeom@
psy.uwa.edu.au
at work, we refer to employees’ considered judgments about
aspects of the work situation; thus, they represent employees’
“appraisal, assessment, or evaluation of the composite external
circumstances of life [at work] as made available to the individual,
relative to some standard” (Organ & Near, 1985, p. 243). Affect at
work, in contrast, is less deliberative in nature, representing “not so
much the cool appraisal of what is out there but what the individual
feels [at work], in terms of hedonic tones” (Organ & Near, 1985,
p. 243). Although not completely independent, affect and cogni-
tion are sufficiently different to show a differential pattern of
relations with other variables (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske,
1982). Given the importance of OCB and workplace deviance
behavior (WDB), it is critical that we understand the relative
contribution that cognition and affect make to each set of behav-
iors. Accordingly, the overarching question that we addressed here
is which has greater influence on OCB and WDB— employees’
cognitive evaluations of their work or their feelings at work?
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggested that some work behav-
iors are direct reactions to employees’ affective experiences at
work, whereas others are primarily influenced by employees’
cognitive evaluations and judgments of the work. Although it
seems likely that the underlying motive for a particular behavior
can be understood best when one considers the context of the
behavior, we see merit in this suggestion. Some work behaviors do
seem inherently more affect-driven (or cognition-driven) than oth-
ers. For example, both voluntary turnover and early retirement
might be better understood as the results of thoughtful evaluations
of one’s job than as the results of immediate affective experiences
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In contrast, unexcused absence is
more likely to be influenced by job affect than job-related cogni-
tions (see George, 1989).
It is arguable that the two most widely studied types of social
behavior are helping behavior and harmful (or aggressive) behav-
ior. The strong role played by affect in the enactment of both
behaviors has been amply discussed and documented (e.g.,
Berkowitz, 1998; George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991;
Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). When one considers the “instrumen-
tal nature of joining and remaining in an organization and the
opportunities for appraisals of work conditions and outcomes”

131
132 LEE AND ALLEN
(Organ & Konovsky, 1989, p. 158), cognitive factors (e.g.,
thoughts about job features, perceptions of workplace justice)
seem likely to play an equal, or perhaps greater, role in shaping
both helpful and harmful behavior. Organizations are obviously
better off when helpful behavior is optimized and harmful behav-
ior minimized. Without a clear understanding of the bases of such
behavior, however, we cannot hope to effectively manage it.
Within the OCB literature, where this issue has received the
most attention (e.g., George, 1991; Organ & Konovsky, 1989),
consensus has not been reached on the relative contribution of
affect and cognition. Thus, one purpose of this study was to revisit
the “affect versus cognition” issue with respect to OCB and to
extend it to WDB. In examining this issue, we drew on a target-
based conceptualization of both OCB and WDB and, thus, differ-
entiated between behaviors that are directed to individuals and
those that are directed to the organization. Furthermore, we de-
parted from the typical approach to this issue by examining affect
through the lens of the hierarchical model (Watson & Clark, 1991,
1994, 1997). Affect research typically focuses on two broad mood
variables (positive and negative affect) while giving little attention
to discrete emotions such as anger, guilt, or sadness. Using the
hierarchical model allowed us to address the second purpose of the
study: to examine the contribution to OCB and WDB that is made
by both the general factors of positive and negative affect and the
discrete emotions that make up these general factors. The two
purposes of the study are described more fully below.
Predicting OCB and WDB: Relative Roles
of Affect and Cognition
OCB
OCB has been defined variously within its extensive literature
(e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988, 1997). Central to
all definitions, however, is the idea that OCBs are employee
behaviors that, although not critical to the task or job, serve to
facilitate organizational functioning. Thus, examples of OCB in-
clude helping coworkers, attending functions that are not required,
and so on. It is not surprising that understanding why employees
engage in OCB is of considerable interest. Several researchers
have demonstrated that OCB is related to job satisfaction (see
Organ, 1988, 1990), and two different theoretical explanations for
this relationship have been forwarded. One explanation, provided
by Organ and his colleagues, emphasizes the role of cognitions
(Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990; Moorman, 1991; Organ &
Konovsky, 1989) and, in particular, perceptions of fairness (Organ,
1988, 1990). In making this argument, Organ suggested that OCB
represents an input for the employee’s equity ratio and one that can
be more easily and safely altered than can inputs that involve the
employee’s formal job duties. Employees who feel fairly treated
are likely to engage in OCB to maintain equilibrium between them
and the organization; those who feel that they are treated unfairly
will withhold OCB behavior. This perspective views OCB as
controlled and deliberate behavior that is primarily influenced by
cognitive, rather than affective, factors.
A second explanation of the relation between OCB and job
satisfaction suggests the primacy of affective over cognitive fac-
tors in influencing OCB. This position is based on the well-
established social psychological finding that people in positive
moods are more likely to help others than are those in negative or
neutral moods (see Isen & Baron, 1991). In addition to helping
behaviors, George and Brief (1992) suggested that a positive mood
can also lead to such extrarole behaviors as protecting the organi-
zation, making constructive suggestions, developing oneself, and
spreading goodwill.
The relative contribution of affect and cognition to OCB has
been examined in several studies. Organ and Konovsky (1989)
found that pay and job cognitions (overall evaluation of pay and
job) predicted OCB above and beyond negative and positive affect
at work but that negative and positive affect failed to increment the
prediction of OCB over cognitions. Williams and Anderson (1991)
and Moorman (1993) also found that cognitions about intrinsic and
extrinsic job characteristics played a more powerful role in pre-
dicting OCB than did affect variables.
Other studies suggest a quite different conclusion. In a study of
retail employees, George (1991) found that positive mood pre-
dicted altruism and customer service above and beyond cognitions
(supervisor fairness, store management fairness, distributive jus-
tice, pay cognitions), but not vice versa. Kemery, Bedeian, and
Zacur (1996) found that both cognitions and affect contributed
uniquely to the prediction of OCB, supporting a partial mediation
model. Given the conflicting findings about the relative impor-
tance of affect and cognition in determining OCB, further exam-
ination of this issue seems warranted.
WDB
A few years ago, Robinson and Bennett (1995) provided what
we consider a comprehensive definition of WDB: “voluntary be-
havior of organizational members that violates significant organi-
zational norms, and in so doing, threatens the well-being of the
organization and/or its members” (p. 556). More recently, they
outlined a typology of WDB and developed a measure of these
behaviors (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). As with OCB, it seems
reasonable to examine the relative contributions of cognitions and
affect to the domain of WDB. Indeed, the suggestion that two
motives, instrumental and expressive, underlie WDB sets the stage
for both cognition- and affect-oriented explanations of this behav-
ior (Greenberg & Scott, 1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Shep-
pard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992).
Instrumental motivation reflects “attempts to reconcile the dis-
parity by repairing the situation, restoring equity, or improving the
current situation” (Robinson & Bennett, 1997, p. 18).1 For exam-
ple, Greenberg and Scott (1996; Greenberg, 1990) suggested that
employee theft is likely to be a deliberate reaction to underpay-
ment inequity. Theft is, in fact, a direct way to compensate an
employee’s underpayment inequity, hence, potentially leading to a
more balanced economic exchange between an employee and the
organization. Deviant behaviors that have no such direct implica-
tions for economic exchange (e.g., doing personal things at work,
taking excessive breaks) can also be conceived as instrumental to
the extent that they are deliberate behaviors that are enacted to
1
The definition of instrumental aggression provided in organizational
research is somewhat narrower in scope than that of instrumental aggres-
sion used in the literature on human aggression. In the latter, instrumental
aggression refers to aggressive behaviors that are “motivated primarily by
concerns other than the harm doing itself ” (Geen, 1998, p. 2).
 COGNITIONS VERSUS AFFECT
restore equitable transactions between employees and the organi-
zation (“I am not paid enough, so I will work less”). This
exchange-based explanation of deviant behavior requires employ-
ees to think about their work and hence suggests an emphasis on
cognition.
In contrast, expressive motivation for WDB reflects “a need to
vent, release, or express one’s feelings of outrage, anger, or frus-
tration” (Robinson & Bennett, 1997, p. 18). Behaviors induced by
an expressive motive may be directed at coworkers, clients, or the
organization and may be enacted both at work and outside of work
(e.g., aggressive behavior at home). In fact, social psychological
evidence does suggest that affective states influence aggression
(see Baron, 1993, for a review). For example, Baron (1971, 1979)
found that subjects who were given unpleasant stimuli tended to
deliver high levels of pain to other subjects. Other evidence comes
from Anderson (1989), who reviewed studies that showed a rela-
tion between temperature and aggression. In a review, Berkowitz
(1998) concluded that an intense negative affect arising from
stressful conditions (e.g., pain, temperature, insults) is “responsible
for the affective aggression recorded in these [previously re-
viewed] studies” (p. 65). Taken together, this evidence suggests a
direct link between job affect (especially negative affect) and
WDB, behavioral manifestations of which are very close to the
types of “aggression” proposed by Buss (1961; see also Bushman
& Anderson, 1998; Folger & Baron, 1996).
In sum, similar to OCB, both affect- and cognition-oriented
explanations for WDB have been suggested by researchers. Unlike
OCB, however, there has been no empirical investigation regard-
ing the relative role of affect and cognition in determining WDB.
Target-Based Conceptualization of Work Behaviors
McNeely and Meglino (1994) suggested that OCBs directed to
individuals (OCBI) and those directed to the organization (OCBO)
should be distinguished (see also Organ, 1997; Williams & Ander-
son, 1991). This distinction has implications for the issue of
concern in the present research. Specifically, the relative impor-
tance of affect and cognition might depend on whether OCBI or
OCBO is being considered. If we assume that OCB is a deliberate
attempt to maintain the balance in a social exchange between
employees and the organization (i.e., a cognition-oriented expla-
nation), it is reasonable to suggest that this behavior is more
directly intended to benefit the organization. Hence, OCBO is
more likely to be a direct function of what employees think about
their work characteristics. In contrast, OCBI, primarily involving
helping individuals at work, seems to have only indirect implica-
tions, at best, for maintaining balance in the organization–
employee transaction.2 Such behaviors might indeed reflect a
natural expression of employees’ affect at work, as many social
psychological studies have suggested (e.g., Isen, 1970; Isen &
Levin, 1972), rather than reflecting employees’ deliberate attempt
to restore the balance with the organization.
Consistent with this view is evidence suggesting that OCBO is
more strongly related to employees’ beliefs than is OCBI. Mc-
Neely and Meglino (1994) demonstrated that employees’ job cog-
nitions, such as reward equity and recognition, were associated
with OCBO but not with OCBI. Skarlicki and Latham (1996,
1997) reported that fairness perceptions (cognitions) were more
strongly related to OCBO than to OCBI. On the basis of these
133
findings, it seems reasonable to suggest that OCBs that benefit the
organization are more cognition-driven than affect-driven. In con-
trast, behavior that is beneficial to individuals might have a stron-
ger affective, than cognitive, underpinning.
Although the empirical findings mentioned above were found in
the context of OCB, there is no reason why this logic cannot be
applied to WDB. Indeed, Bennett and Robinson (2000) found
factor analytic evidence that WDB can be distinguished in terms of
its target (interpersonal [WDBI] vs. organizational [WDBO]). On
the basis of the literature, therefore, we proposed the following
hypotheses about the relative contributions of affect and cognitions
to both OCB and WDB:
Hypothesis 1a: Job affect contributes more to the prediction of OCBI
than does job cognition.
Hypothesis 1b: Job cognition contributes more to the prediction of
OCBO than does job affect.
Hypothesis 2a: Job affect contributes more to the prediction of WDBI
than does job cognition.
Hypothesis 2b: Job cognition contributes more to the prediction of
WDBO than does job affect.
Predicting Behavior Using Affect: General Moods
Versus Discrete Emotions
The second purpose of this study was to examine affect–
behavior relations in a more fine-grained manner. Specifically, we
were interested in the relative roles, in predicting OCB and WDB,
played by general mood factors and the discrete emotions they
comprise. Affect is used here as a broad and generic term to
encompass both emotion and mood (George, 1996; Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996). The distinction between the two reflects his-
torically different approaches to the examination of affective
states. Emotion theorists (e.g., Ekman, 1982, 1992; Izard, 1977;
Plutchik, 1980, 1994) deal with specific and discrete affect vari-
ables, such as anger, fear, sadness, and joy. These are considered
to be more intense and shorter lived than mood and to be caused
by specific precipitating events. Mood theorists, in contrast, are
interested in a few broader and nonspecific affect variables that are
related to various facets of emotion (e.g., Diener, Larsen, Levine,
& Emmons, 1985; Russell, 1979, 1980; Watson, Clark, & Telle-
gen, 1988; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Moods are considered to be
less intense and longer lived than emotions and to have less
specific causes. Attempting to integrate the two approaches,
Watson and Clark (1991, 1992, 1994, 1997) proposed a hierarchi-
cal model of affect in which discrete emotions (e.g., anger, fear,
joy) are nested in higher order mood factors (positive affect and
negative affect). The higher level represents the valence of affect,
whereas the lower level represents its content.
The hierarchical model of affect raises an important research
question about the level at which affect should be measured. Past
2
As conceptualized here, the OCBI construct excludes help directed to
one’s supervisor. This exclusion reflects concerns regarding ambiguity
about the true beneficiary of such help (the supervisor or the organization)
and the motivational complexity that arises because supervisors often
control rewards such as pay and promotion. In a similar manner, no
“helping supervisor” items appeared in OCBI measures used by McNeely
and Meglino (1994) or Skarlicki and Latham (1996, 1997).
134 LEE AND ALLEN
organizational studies that included affect as a major variable
typically measured it at the higher order level (e.g., Brief &
Roberson, 1989; George, 1989; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). By
measuring only higher order factors of mood, however, one might
ignore potentially useful variance associated with discrete emo-
tions. Watson and Clark (1992) showed that specific emotions
such as sadness– depression, fear–anxiety, and anger– hostility
have nontrivial specific variance that cannot be explained by their
higher order factors. The specific variance of these emotions is
potentially useful in predicting important behavioral conse-
quences. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that discrete
emotions with the same affective valence (especially in the nega-
tive affect domain) exert different effects on social judgment and
behavior (e.g., Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993; Raghunathan
& Pham, 1999; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994). For example,
Keltner et al. found that people who were induced to be angry
tended to blame others for negative events more than did those
who were induced to be sad. Baumeister and Boden (1998) noted
that such negative states as guilt and empathic stress, unlike anger,
may even reduce aggression. In this study, we investigated
whether discrete emotions can increase the predictability of work
behaviors (OCB and WDB) above and beyond their higher order
general factors. In cases in which discrete emotions did increment
prediction, the discrete emotions were used to represent affect. No
specific hypotheses were forwarded regarding this more explor-
atory aspect of the study.
Before leaving this issue, we should note that the idea that
positive affect and negative affect represent two major axes of
affect—a cornerstone of the hierarchical model of affect—is not
without controversy (Barrett & Russell, 1999; Weiss & Cropan-
zano, 1996). Other researchers believe that the pleasure and acti-
vation dimensions can provide a clearer understanding of human
affective experiences (e.g., Barrett & Russell, 1999). This debate
awaits further empirical and conceptual research before it is fully
resolved. In the present study, we adopted Watson and Tellegen’s
(1985) model for two reasons. First, the positive affect–negative
affect conceptualization has been dominant in the literature on the
relative effect of affect and cognition on work behavior. Maintain-
ing the same structure, therefore, facilitates the comparison of
findings between the present study and previous studies. Second,
our particular interest in this research was in exploring the possible
roles played by the discrete factors comprising positive affect and
negative affect, and the hierarchical model of affect can provide a
basis for examining this issue.
To summarize, in this study we investigated the relative ability
of job cognitions and affect to predict both OCB and WDB. In
doing so, we examined work behaviors with respect to their
intended target and examined affect not only in terms of the two
general factors (positive affect and negative affect) that have
dominated the literature but also in terms of the discrete emotions
that make up these factors.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Survey packets that included self-report measures of job affect and job
cognitions were mailed to 1,000 registered nurses in Ontario, Canada. Each
packet also included another sealed survey packet that we asked each nurse
to forward to the coworker who, in the nurse’s opinion, could best observe
his or her behavior at work. In this packet, each coworker was told the
name of the nurse who provided the self-rating and was asked to rate him
or her using OCB and WDB scales. Both self- and peer respondents
returned their surveys by mail. To encourage responses, all respondents
were given the opportunity to enter a lottery with modest prizes (one $100
and five $20 prizes).
Self-report surveys with usable data were returned by 218 respondents
(21.8% response rate). Most were female (95.4%) with an average orga-
nizational tenure of 13.6 years (SD ⫽ 8.0 years) and an average age of 45.5
years (SD ⫽ 7.7 years). Most worked in a general hospital (71.7%); others
did home or extended care (8.7%) or worked in a nursing home (4.0%),
psychiatric hospital (3.5%), doctor’s office (2.3%), or educational setting
(2.9%). To determine if our nursing sample differed from its population,
we obtained demographic information from the College of Nurses of
Ontario, which represents all registered nurses in the province. Although
the sample and the population did not differ with respect to job settings,
␹2(6, N ⫽ 173) ⫽ 6.62, ns, or gender, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 217) ⫽ 1.38, ns, there was
a significant age difference (43.8 years for the population vs. 45.5 years for
the sample), z ⫽ 3.25, p ⬍ .01. This significant age difference raises
questions about the generalizability of the present findings, an issue that we
consider in the Discussion section.
Peer-report surveys with usable data were returned by 155 coworkers
(97% women; average age ⫽ 42.6 years), resulting in 149 matched self–
peer cases. The average length of time that the peers had known the nurses
whom they rated was 9.5 years (SD ⫽ 7.3 years).
Measures
Job affect. The 60-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—
Expanded Form (PANAS–X; Watson & Clark, 1994) was used to measure
affect at work. Developed explicitly to reflect the hierarchical structure of
self-reported affect, it has acceptable psychometric properties in terms
of reliability, factorial validity, and convergent– discriminant validity
(Watson & Clark, 1991, 1992, 1994). Respondents used 5-point scales
(1 ⫽ very slightly or not at all, 5 ⫽ extremely) to indicate how they
generally felt at work using mood-expressive adjectives. The PANAS–X
consists of four specific emotion scales related to negative affect (Fear,
Hostility, Guilt, and Sadness), three related to positive affect (Joviality,
Attentiveness, and Self-Assurance), and four related to both positive affect
and negative affect (Shyness, Fatigue, Serenity, and Surprise). In this
study, only the seven specific emotion scales that unambiguously represent
either positive affect or negative affect were used in analyses. Scale
reliabilities were .85 for Fear, .87 for Hostility, .77 for Guilt, .83 for
Sadness, .92 for Joviality, .78 for Attentiveness, and .77 for Self-
Assurance. Consistent with Watson and Clark’s (1994) findings, confir-
matory factor analysis (N ⫽ 218) showed that the two-factor model (one
factor defined by Fear, Hostility, Guilt, and Sadness and the other factor
defined by Joviality, Attentiveness, and Self-Assurance) provided a signif-
icantly superior fit over the one-factor model, and hence replicated the
structure of these emotion scales.
In the present study, positive affect and negative affect were defined as
the first unrotated component from the principal-components analysis
involving the corresponding discrete emotion scales (e.g., positive affect
was defined as the first unrotated factor from the factor analysis involving
Joviality, Attentiveness, and Self-Assurance). Positive affect and negative
affect defined in this way were almost identical to both the unit-weighted
aggregation scores of the relevant scales and the two oblique factor scores
obtained from factor analysis with all the emotion scales (all the corre-
sponding correlations exceeded .99). In addition, the positive affect and
negative affect scores defined in this way were highly correlated with the
original measures of positive affect and negative affect (Watson et al.,
1988); the correlations were .95 for positive affect and .94 for negative
affect. Finally, these positive affect and negative affect scores correlated
 COGNITIONS VERSUS AFFECT
with each other to the degree reported previously (see Connolly & Viswes-
varan, 1999).
Job cognitions. We used the 20-item Job Cognition Scale (Brief &
Roberson, 1989), which, according to Dawis and Lofquist (1984), repre-
sents a comprehensive set of job characteristics. In addition, justice cog-
nitions were assessed to reflect their importance within the OCB and WDB
literatures. Three types of justice— distributive (5 items), procedural (6
items), and interactional (9 items)—were measured using scales developed
by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Responses to all job cognition items were
made on 7-point scales (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree).
Principal-components analysis with Harris–Kaiser oblique rotation was
performed for the 40 job cognition items to define job cognition variables
used in subsequent analyses (N ⫽ 218). Four interpretable factors could be
identified. The first factor, labeled Intrinsic Cognitions, involved job
cognitions related to intrinsic satisfaction, such as meaningfulness and
variety of the job (␣ ⫽ .85). The second factor, labeled Procedural Justice,
was almost exclusively defined by procedural and interactional justice
cognitions (␣ ⫽ .97). The third factor, labeled Pay Cognitions, mainly
involved pay and reward cognitions (␣ ⫽ .83). Finally, the fourth factor,
labeled Work Schedule–Load, involved fairness cognitions with respect to
responsibility and workload (␣ ⫽ .80).
Organizational citizenship behavior. As we indicated earlier, OCB
was conceptualized here in terms of the intended target or beneficiary of
the citizenship behavior. Although the altruism and compliance subscales
developed by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) have been used to represent
OCBI and OCBO (Farh et al., 1990), McNeely and Meglino (1994) noted
that using these two subscales to distinguish intended beneficiaries may be
problematic. For example, the altruism scale of this measure (supposed to
measure OCBI) contains items that clearly tap OCBO (e.g., making sug-
gestions to improve the department). Williams and Anderson (1991) also
distinguished between OCBI and OCBO. Unfortunately, their measure
contains some items that potentially tap WDB as well (e.g., undeserved
breaks, time spent on personal phone calls).
Items used in the present study were selected from a pool created by
previous OCB scales. Those items tapping behaviors that are clearly
beneficial to individuals and to the organization were selected to avoid
possible overlap with WDB. Eight items reflecting OCBI and OCBO were
selected (see the Appendix). Coworkers were asked to indicate, using
7-point scales (1 ⫽ never, 7 ⫽ always), how often the target person
engaged in these behaviors. Confirmatory factor analysis (N ⫽ 155) clearly
showed that the two-factor model is preferred to the one-factor model and
hence confirmed an empirical distinction between OCBI and OCBO.
Reliabilities were .83 (OCBI) and .88 (OCBO).
Workplace deviance behavior. We used 27 items from Bennett and
Robinson’s (2000) workplace deviance measure.3 Responses to these items
were made on 7-point scales (1 ⫽ never, 7 ⫽ always). In a factor analytic
study using self-ratings of these items, Bennett and Robinson found two
correlated, but distinct, scales reflecting the distinction in the intended
target of the harmful behavior. Thus, both interpersonal deviance (harmful
to people in the organization) and organizational deviance (harmful to the
organization) were assessed.
In the present study, 4 WDB items had too little variance (more than
90% responded “never”) and hence were dropped from the analysis (“Play
a mean prank on someone at work,” “Falsify a receipt to get reimbursed for
more money than you spent on business expenses,” “Use an illegal drug or
consume alcohol on the job,” and “Drag out work in order to get over-
time”). Neither exploratory nor confirmatory factor analysis (N ⫽ 155) of
the remaining 23 items suggested the target-based distinction found in
earlier research. It is not surprising, therefore, that the two dimensions were
highly correlated (latent r ⫽ .96). Given this correlation, we opted to treat
this as a single WDB variable by aggregating across items (␣ ⫽ .82).4
Unfortunately, this aggregation prevented us from testing Hypotheses 2a
and 2b.
135
Results
General Moods Versus Discrete Emotions
Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, and correlations
among the variables included in this study. Before investigating
the issue of the relative contributions of affect and cognition in
predicting OCB and WDB, we examined the predictive utility that
discrete emotions have above and beyond their higher order mood
factors (i.e., positive affect and negative affect). For these analy-
ses, we followed a procedure suggested by Ree and his colleagues
(e.g., Ree & Earles, 1991; Ree, Earles, & Teachout, 1994). Spe-
cifically, the three scales making up positive affect were submitted
to principal-components analysis. As we mentioned earlier, the
first unrotated factor from the principal-components analysis was
used to define the higher order factor of Positive Affect. The two
other unrotated factors that accounted for all the variance left
behind by the Positive Affect factor were used to represent the
unique variances of the discrete emotions. (The same analysis was
also conducted using the four scales making up negative affect.)
For each of the three work behaviors (OCBI, OCBO, and WDB),
hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to evalu-
ate incremental effects that were uniquely associated with specific
emotions. Specifically, age, organizational tenure, and education
entered the equation as control variables in the first step. Then the
first unrotated factor representing positive affect entered the equa-
tion, followed by the remaining unrotated factors representing
specific variance associated with the positive discrete emotions.
This same set of analyses was conducted, for each work behavior,
using negative affect and the discrete emotions associated with it.
Results of these analyses are presented in Table 2. Over and
above control variables, positive affect significantly contributed to
the prediction of both OCBI (⌬R2 ⫽ .034, p ⬍ .05) and OCBO
(⌬R2 ⫽ .050, p ⬍ .01) and marginally significantly to the predic-
tion of WDB (⌬R2 ⫽ .019, p ⬍ .10). The specific variances in
positive discrete emotions (Attentiveness, Joviality, and Self-
Assurance), however, failed to increase prediction over and above
positive affect for all three criteria. The pattern was somewhat
different for analyses involving negative affect. Over and above
control variables, negative affect only marginally significantly
increased the prediction of WDB (but not OCBI or OCBO). The
specific variances in negative discrete emotions (Fear, Hostility,
Sadness, and Guilt), however, increased the predictability of OCBI
and WDB above and beyond negative affect (⌬R2 ⫽ .044, p ⬍ .10,
for OCBI and ⌬R2 ⫽ .075, p ⬍ .05, for WDB). These results are
interesting because they suggest that some negative discrete emo-
tions contain useful variance that is not taken into account by
3
Unfortunately, due to a clerical error, one of the items from Bennett
and Robinson’s (2000) measure was omitted from the survey (“Publicly
embarrass someone at work”).
4
To further examine this factor structure, we conducted confirmatory
factor analysis using the subset of 19 items that were finally selected by
Bennett and Robinson (2000). Fourteen items were included in the analysis
(9 organizational WDB items and 5 interpersonal WDB items). Again, the
two-factor oblique model failed to increase various fit indices beyond the
levels that the one-factor model provided, and the resulting latent correla-
tion between the two subscales was .91. The results of these analyses are
available from Kibeom Lee on request.
 136

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables

Variable N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1. Age (in years) 217 45.5 7.7 —

2. Organizational
tenure (in years) 216 14.0 7.8 .39** —
3. Education 217 2.4 0.6 ⫺.07 ⫺.14* —
4. Positive affect 217 0.0 1.0 .10 ⫺.04 .06 —
5. Attentiveness 217 3.9 0.6 .09 ⫺.04 .00 .85** —
6. Joviality 217 3.2 0.8 .11 ⫺.07 .02 .88** .63** —
7. Self-assurance 217 2.9 0.7 .07 .00 .14* .85** .56** .62** —
8. Negative affect 217 0.0 1.0 ⫺.06 .04 .19** ⫺.29** ⫺.23** ⫺.38** ⫺.15* —
9. Fear 217 1.3 0.5 ⫺.09 .04 .13 ⫺.19** ⫺.15* ⫺.23** ⫺.11 .80** —
10. Hostility 217 1.6 0.6 ⫺.11 .05 .16* ⫺.30** ⫺.22** ⫺.44** ⫺.11 .83** .50** —
11. Sadness 217 1.6 0.7 .01 .04 .13* ⫺.25** ⫺.18** ⫺.36** ⫺.11 .85** .58** .65** —
12. Guilt 217 1.3 0.4 ⫺.01 .01 .18** ⫺.21** ⫺.19** ⫺.20** ⫺.15* .80** .54** .56** .54** —
13. Intrinsic
LEE AND ALLEN

cognitions 218 5.7 1.0 .06 ⫺.18** .12 .43** .30** .47** .32** ⫺.40** ⫺.31** ⫺.42** ⫺.33** ⫺.25** —
14. Procedural
justice 218 4.8 1.5 .09 ⫺.11 .07 .38** .29** .44** .25** ⫺.49** ⫺.36** ⫺.48** ⫺.43** ⫺.32** .74** —
15. Pay cognitions 218 5.2 1.4 .07 .04 ⫺.07 .33** .27** .29** .28** ⫺.36** ⫺.25** ⫺.39** ⫺.29** ⫺.25** .35** .41** —
16. Work schedule–
load 218 5.1 1.6 .07 .00 ⫺.01 .24** .16* .32** .14* ⫺.41** ⫺.38** ⫺.39** ⫺.30** ⫺.28** .47** .50** .48** —
17. OCBI 155 5.3 0.8 ⫺.05 ⫺.14 .02 .18* .12 .18* .19* ⫺.02 .10 ⫺.07 ⫺.08 .00 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .11 ⫺.05 —
18. OCBO 155 5.4 0.9 .08 .06 .18* .24** .15 .25** .23** ⫺.05 ⫺.01 ⫺.08 ⫺.05 ⫺.03 .30** .20* .15 .10 .45** —
19. WDB 155 1.6 0.5 .00 .10 ⫺.02 ⫺.14 ⫺.11 ⫺.17* ⫺.09 .14 .07 .27** .09 .05 ⫺.12 ⫺.05 ⫺.24** ⫺.10 ⫺.47** ⫺.33** —

Note. N ⫽ 149 –155 for correlations involving OCBI, OCBO, and WDB; N ⫽ 215–217 for the other correlations. OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals; OCBO ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors
directed at the organization; WDB ⫽ workplace deviance behavior.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
 COGNITIONS VERSUS AFFECT 137

Table 2 increase in prediction of OCBI (⌬R2 ⫽ .035, p ⬍ .05). The

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses With Work Behaviors direction of the effect, however, unlike other negative discrete
Regressed on Control and Job Affect Variables emotions, was positive (see also the zero-order correlations in
Table 1). Because this finding was not expected a priori, it should
Equation OCBI OCBO WDB be interpreted with caution and needs to be replicated in subse-
(1) R2Control .019 .041 .011 quent research. One possible explanation is that those employees
(2) R2Control ⫹ PA .052† .091† .030 who are fearful and anxious about something at work (e.g., layoff)
⌬R2(2) ⫺ (1) .034* .050** .019† behave carefully and prudently and, hence, may be seen by their
(3) R2Control ⫹ PA ⫹ s .060* .105† .038 peers as being particularly helpful.
⌬R2(3) ⫺ (2) .008 .014 .008 With respect to WDB, a single discrete negative emotion was
(4) R2Control ⫹ NA .019 .049 .031 almost entirely responsible for the predictive increase in WDB.
⌬R2(4) ⫺ (1) .000 .008 .020† Specifically, Hostility accounted for 7.1% of the variance associ-
(5) R2Control ⫹ NA ⫹ s .062 .054 .106* ated with WDB over and above the higher order Negative Affect
⌬R2(5) ⫺ (4) .044† .005 .075* factor (and control variables). Therefore, if Hostility had not been
measured separately from its higher order affect, it would be
Note. OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individ-
concluded that employee affect and WDB were only weakly
uals; OCBO ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors directed at the orga-
nization; WDB ⫽ workplace deviance behavior; PA ⫽ positive affect; s ⫽ correlated. This result, coupled with that found for Fear and OCBI,
the remaining unrotated factors (i.e., specific variances in discrete emo- suggests that general mood factors may not be an ideal level of
tions); NA ⫽ negative affect. measurement for predicting some work behavior criteria. Keeping
† p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. this in mind, the issue of the relative contribution of cognition
versus affect to the prediction of OCB and WDB was examined.
negative affect and that a failure to measure discrete emotions
could result in a loss in predictive ability. Cognitions Versus Affect in Predicting OCB and WDB
We should note that these analyses involved the unrotated
factors; thus, meaningful interpretations as to which emotions were Multiple regression analyses were performed in a hierarchical
mainly responsible for this increase in prediction could not be fashion to determine whether job affect (or job cognitions) in-
made. Consequently, post hoc analyses involving semipartial cor- creased the predictability of work behaviors above and beyond job
relations were conducted. In these analyses, each negative emotion cognitions (or job affect). As with previous studies (e.g., George,
was evaluated in terms of the increase in R2 when it entered the 1991; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Williams & Anderson, 1991),
equation after the control variables and negative affect, its general general moods (positive affect and negative affect) were used to
mood factor (i.e., squared semipartial correlation). From these represent job affect for these analyses. Results of these analyses
analyses, we found that Fear was primarily responsible for the are shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Multiple Regression Analyses With Work Behaviors Regressed on Control, Job Affect, and Cognition Variables
(Job Affect Defined as Positive Affect and Negative Affect)

OCBI OCBO WDB

Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted

R2 R2 ␤ R2 R2 ␤ R2 R2 ␤

Equation
Control ⫹ Cognitions (1) .048 .001 .129** .086 .092† .047
Control ⫹ Affect (2) .054 .021 .092* .060 .041 .007
Control ⫹ Cognitions ⫹ Affect (3) .080 .021 .148** .093 .101† .042
⌬R2
Cognitions over affect (3) ⫺ (2) .026 ⫺.001 .057* .033 .060* .035
Affect over cognitions (3) ⫺ (1) .032† .020 .019 .007 .009 ⫺.004
Predictor
Age ⫺.02 .01 .00
Organizational tenure ⫺.16 .10 .13
Education .02 .13 ⫺.04
Intrinsic cognitions ⫺.05 .32* ⫺.12
Procedural justice ⫺.09 ⫺.06 .24
Pay cognitions .16 .06 ⫺.26**
Work schedule–load ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.01
Positive affect .20* .14 ⫺.07
Negative affect .02 .08 .08

Note. The beta values are based on Equation 3. OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals; OCBO ⫽ organizational citizenship
behaviors directed at the organization; WDB ⫽ workplace deviance behavior.
† p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
138 LEE AND ALLEN

With respect to OCBI, job affect marginally significantly in- important as job cognitions in predicting WDB (⌬R2 ⫽ .041, p ⬍
creased the explained variance in OCBI over and above job cog- .05, for job affect vs. ⌬R2 ⫽ .047, p ⬍ .10, for job cognitions). One
nitions (⌬R2 ⫽ .032, p ⬍ .10), whereas job cognitions failed to do implication of this result is that, at least with respect to predicting
so over and above job affect (⌬R2 ⫽ .026, ns). Although net gains workplace deviance, measuring job affect only at the level of the
in R2 seemed comparable across job affect and cognitions, note higher order factors could lead to some misleading conclusions
that job cognitions were represented by four variables, whereas job about the relative importance of cognitions and affect. At a min-
affect was represented by two variables. Taking this into account, imum, both higher order factors and lower order specific emotions
job affect appeared to play a greater role than did job cognitions should be considered when one is examining the role played by
(adjusted R2 ⫽ .02 vs. .00). The pattern of zero-order correlations affect.
generally supports this interpretation. Hence, Hypothesis 1a re-
ceived partial support. In predicting OCBO, job cognitions were Discussion
found to play a more important role than affect (⌬R2 ⫽ .057, p ⬍
.05, for job cognitions vs. ⌬R2 ⫽ .019, ns, for job affect). Intrinsic One purpose of this research was to shed some light on the
cognitions, in particular, were found to be the primary predictor of relative importance of job cognitions and job affect in predicting
OCBO. Hence, Hypothesis 1b received support. OCB and WDB. It must be acknowledged first, however, that any
When the criterion was WDB, however, there was almost no attempt to contrast constructs that are as “psychologically large” as
gain associated with job affect (⌬R2 ⫽ .009, ns), whereas job affect and cognition is fraught with complexities. Critical among
cognitions showed a considerable incremental effect (⌬R2 ⫽ .060, these complexities is the difficulty of ensuring that reasonable
p ⬍ .05). Consistent with a finding reported by Greenberg (1990), similarity exists between the intensity of the particular affective
pay was found to be most strongly related to WDB. From these and cognitive variables under examination. Should one of these
findings, one might conclude that job cognitions are more impor- variables be considerably more intense than the other, it is possible
tant predictors of WDB than is job affect. The finding that one that its impact will overshadow that of the other and produce a
discrete emotion (Hostility) contributed significantly to WDB over finding that might say more about intensity than the constructs in
and above its general mood factor (Negative Affect) suggests, question. A fair comparison of any two constructs also requires, of
however, that this conclusion might well be premature. To further course, that measures of both constructs are adequate and provide
examine the role of affect played in predicting WDB, we con- equivalent “coverage” of the constructs. This was a particular
ducted an additional hierarchical multiple regression analysis in- challenge in this case, given the content breadth of affect and
volving WDB as the criterion. This analysis was identical to the cognition, the constructs in question. For these reasons, it is
analysis reported above except that Hostility, instead of negative important that any set of data used to examine this issue be put in
affect, was used to represent job affect. context, described with circumspection, and seen as but one
Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. It appears that job glimpse of the relative role played by the particular affect and
affect (represented now by positive affect and Hostility) was as cognition variables under examination.
In the present study, similar to McNeely and Meglino’s (1994)
findings that OCBO is primarily correlated with job cognitions
Table 4 (fairness, recognition) but not so much with dispositional variables
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses With Work Deviance (concern for others, empathy), we have provided additional evi-
Regressed on Job Cognition Variables, Positive Affect, dence that OCBO is more closely linked to job cognitions than to
and Hostility affect at work. For OCBO at least, the results appear consistent
with the argument made by Organ (1990; Organ & Konovsky,
Workplace deviance
1989) that OCB reflects planned and deliberate behavior, moti-
Adjusted vated by reciprocity needs, rather than expressive emotional
R2 R2 ␤ behavior.
In contrast, OCBI appears to be slightly more strongly corre-
Equation
Control ⫹ Cognitions (1) .092† .047 lated with job affect than with job cognitions. This finding is
Control ⫹ Affect (2) .086* .054 consistent with the view that OCBI can be understood, at least
Control ⫹ Cognitions ⫹ Affect (3) .133* .077 partly, as expressive emotional behavior. There is good reason,
⌬R2 however, to consider this only a tentative interpretation of the
Cognitions over affect (3) ⫺ (2) .047† .023
Affect over cognitions (3) ⫺ (1) .041* .030
finding. In this study, as in previous studies (George, 1991; Organ
Predictor & Konovsky, 1989; Williams & Anderson, 1991), those work
Age .01 characteristics that are most likely to be relevant to OCBI were
Organizational tenure .11 somewhat underrepresented (e.g., social aspects of work charac-
Education ⫺.07 teristics). Hence, the effects of cognitions on OCBI might be
Intrinsic cognitions ⫺.09
Procedural justice .25 underestimated. It would be interesting to see, for example,
Pay ⫺.22* whether the results involving OCBI in the present study would be
Work schedule–load .01 altered if the scope of job cognitions was extended to social
Positive affect ⫺.05 surroundings (e.g., coworker relations).
Hostility .24*
This issue aside, it is puzzling that the present findings about the
Note. The beta values are based on Equation 3. relative importance of job cognition and affect in predicting OCBI
† p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. differed from those of Williams and Anderson (1991). Although
 COGNITIONS VERSUS AFFECT
their study included very similar job affect and cognition variables,
they reported that job affect added little incremental variance over
and above job cognitions for both OCBI and OCBO. One potential
explanation for this inconsistency might lie in the sources of the
behavioral ratings. In the present study, peer ratings of OCB were
used, whereas Williams and Anderson used supervisor ratings. It is
possible that employees might behave in a more discreet manner
and more carefully monitor their behavior when they are being
observed by supervisors (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995) than when
they are being observed by peers. Indeed, peers might have better,
and less restricted, opportunities to observe their coworkers’ be-
haviors than supervisors have. Similar to this explanation, Organ
and Konovsky (1989) suggested that supervisory ratings of OCB
likely reflect an instrumental form of behavior and, thus, recom-
mended that future research adopt different sources of OCB
ratings.
Unfortunately, we were not able to address the target-based
distinction with respect to WDB because the expected factor
structure (WDBI–WDBO) was not clearly observed in this sample.
The failure to find a clear distinction between WDBI and WDBO
is possibly due to the different rating sources used here (peer
ratings) and elsewhere (self-ratings; Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Lee, Ashton, and Shin (2001) recently observed this distinction
based on self-reports, made by Korean employees, to a translated
version of Bennett and Robinson’s measure. Furthermore, they
found that effects of personality traits differed for WDBO and
WDBI. Specifically, socially oriented traits such as agreeableness
and extraversion were more strongly associated with WDBI than
WDBO, whereas work-oriented traits such as conscientiousness
showed the opposite pattern. The target-based view of WDB,
therefore, appears to be useful and merits further research
attention.
The findings regarding the relative importance of cognition and
affect in predicting WDB, however, are still interesting. When
negative affect (the higher order factor) was used as a predictor
representing job affect, it was primarily job cognitions (especially
pay cognitions) that predicted WDB. Therefore, one could argue
that instrumental motives appear to play a predominant role in
WDB. When negative affect was replaced with Hostility—the only
one of its specific emotions shown to have incremental effects over
negative affect in the previous analysis—job affect was as impor-
tant as job cognitions in predicting WDB. This finding is consis-
tent with the idea that instrumental and expressive motives under-
lie WDB (Greenberg & Scott, 1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1997).
Furthermore, it highlights the importance of multilevel measure-
ment of affect. Indeed, ignoring discrete emotions might not only
decrease prediction but also lead to inaccurate conclusions.
Importance of Discrete Emotions
The present findings regarding discrete emotions are particu-
larly interesting and merit further discussion. We found that some
specific negative emotions did contribute to the prediction of
OCBI and WDB over and above negative affect. One specific
negative emotion (Hostility), in particular, contributed greatly to
the prediction of WDB over and above negative affect. This
finding is consistent with the suggestion made by Baumeister and
Boden (1998) that other negative emotions such as Fear, Guilt, and
Sadness are only weakly related to aggressive behavior. In a
139
similar manner, Fox and Spector (1999) also found that anger (i.e.,
hostility) correlated more strongly with self-ratings of counterpro-
ductive behavior than did anxiety (i.e., fear).
It is also interesting to note that positive discrete emotions
uniformly failed to increase the prediction of the criteria included
in this study over and above positive affect. Although it is possible
that they have specific variances that are useful in predicting other
work criteria that were not included in the present study, it is also
true that, within social psychological research, differential roles of
discrete emotions have been demonstrated more often in the do-
main of negative affect than positive affect (Keltner et al., 1993;
Raghunathan & Pham, 1999; Roseman et al., 1994). Moreover,
Watson and Clark (1991, 1992) reported that positive discrete
emotions are empirically less distinguishable than are negative
discrete emotions. Taken together, these results suggest that fur-
ther investigation of negative discrete emotions may turn out to be
more fruitful than investigation of positive discrete emotions.
The demonstrated differential relations of specific emotions
within the same affective valence with work behaviors might have
implications for why equally dissatisfied workers sometimes be-
have differently. Until now, cognition-oriented views of this issue
have been dominant. For example, Fisher and Locke (1992) sug-
gested that dissatisfied employees select any feasible work behav-
ior that is useful in correcting the dissatisfying situation. As
suggested in the present study, different aspects of negative affect
(e.g., sadness, anger, and fear) can lead to different behaviors;
hence, this partly explains different behavioral manifestations dis-
played by “unhappy” employees. In the future, the possible dif-
ferential effects of specific emotions on other important organiza-
tional variables such as voluntary turnover, absence, and tardiness
should be examined.
The present findings suggest that we have to pay more attention
to discrete emotions; they may well provide a richer understanding
of employees’ feelings at work. In this study, however, the focus
was on discrete emotions as predictors of work behaviors. It
appears that discrete emotions may have different implications for
work behaviors even if they belong to the same affective domain.
In a similar manner, it could well be that these discrete emotions
are influenced by different work characteristics. Although only a
few studies have examined this “antecedents of emotions” issue,
an interesting pattern of results has emerged. For example, Broad-
bent (1985) found that job demand had only a small impact on
depression (Sadness) but a large impact on anxiety (Fear). In
contrast, social support was found to have a greater effect on
depression than anxiety. Weiss, Suckow, and Cropanzano (1999)
hypothesized and found that different combinations of outcomes
and procedures were associated with different emotions. Specifi-
cally, positive outcomes with procedures that favored oneself led
to guilty feelings, and negative outcomes with procedures favoring
others led to feelings of anger. Although the issue awaits further
study in field settings, these data illustrate how examining discrete
emotions might improve our understanding of diverse organiza-
tional phenomena.
Limitations
First, as Cooper and Richardson (1986) pointed out, a different
predictive strength of two variables depends not only on a true
difference but also on other factors such as the psychometric
140 LEE AND ALLEN
quality of the measures used. For example, there might exist an
imbalance between job affect and cognition in terms of the range
of information collected, the quality of operationalization, or both.
Furthermore, as we mentioned earlier, differences in the level of
intensity associated with the affect and cognition variables exam-
ined in this type of research could also distort results. Although it
is possible that one, or both, of these factors influenced the present
results somewhat, the differential pattern of relations reported here
between affect– cognition variables and the two OCB variables
suggests that they did not present a serious interpretive threat in
this study. Nonetheless, both concerns are worthy of attention by
future researchers examining this issue.
Second, the low overall response rate in this study may raise
some concerns that our sample differed from its population on
various characteristics (Fowler, 1988). Indeed, it did differ signif-
icantly from the population on one of the demographic variables
(age) that we examined. As Schalm and Kelloway (2001) pointed
out, however, most organizational researchers are concerned about
the effect of low response rates on the pattern of covariations
among variables, rather than on mean scores of the variables. Their
meta-analysis showed that there is very little systematic relation
between response rate and effect sizes in organizational survey
research, and they argued that “response rate is not likely to
adversely affect the validity of findings” (Schalm & Kelloway,
2001, p. 163). This interesting finding aside, we believe that it
would be prudent to exercise caution in generalizing our results.
Third, in this study, behavior was rated by peers who the
to-be-rated nurses selected themselves. It is hard to know exactly
how this selection affected our results. On the one hand, because
the peers were likely to be the nurses’ friends, it is possible that the
peers rated the nurses in a more positive manner than would
randomly selected raters. On the other hand, the method might
have increased the familiarity that peers had with the nurses’
behavior and, in turn, improved rating accuracy (Wherry & Bart-
lett, 1982). Nevertheless, it would be desirable in future research to
obtain ratings from peers who are chosen independently of the
target persons or ratings that are aggregated across several peers.
Finally, we reiterate our concern that comparing the roles played
by affect and cognition in predicting any set of behaviors is a
challenging and complex endeavor. Indeed, it might never be
possible to sort out precisely the relative contribution of these two
multifaceted constructs to work (or any) behavior. Nonetheless, we
believe this to be an important, and consequential, issue and look
forward to future research that attempts to shed additional light
on it.
References
Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. O., & Fiske, S. T. (1982).
Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619 – 630.
Anderson, C. A. (1989). Temperature and aggression: The ubiquitous
effects of heat on the occurrence of human violence. Psychological
Bulletin, 106, 74 –96.
Baron, R. A. (1971). Magnitude of victim’s pain cues and level of prior
anger arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 236 –243.
Baron, R. A. (1979). Aggression, empathy, and race: Effects of victim’s
pain cues, victim’s race, and level of instigation on physical aggression.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 103–114.
Baron, R. A. (1993). Affect and organizational behavior: When and why
feeling good (or bad) matters. In J. K. Murningham (Ed.), Social
psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp.
63– 88). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1999). The structure of current affect:
Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 8, 10 –14.
Baumeister, R. F., & Boden, J. M. (1998). Aggression and the self: High
self-esteem, low self-control, and ego threat. In R. G. Geen & E.
Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and impli-
cations for social policy (pp. 111–137). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360.
Berkowitz, L. (1998). Affective aggression: The role of stress, pain, and
negative affect. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggres-
sion: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 49 –72).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt &
W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personality selection (pp. 71–98). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An explor-
atory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 717–727.
Broadbent, D. E. (1985). The clinical impact of job design. British Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 24, 33– 44.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (1998). Methodology in the study of
aggression: Integrating experimental and nonexperimental findings. In
R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories,
research, and implications for social policy (pp. 23– 48). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Connolly, J., & Viswesvaran, C. (1999, April). The independence of
positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 14th
Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, Atlanta, GA.
Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 179 –184.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work
adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., Levine, S., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Intensity
and frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1253–1265.
Ekman, P. (1982). Emotion in the human face (2nd ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emo-
tion, 6, 169 –200.
Farh, J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for
organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope
versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705–722.
Fisher, C. D., & Locke, E. A. (1992). The new look in job satisfaction
research and theory. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.),
Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects
their performance (Vol. 1, pp. 165–194). New York: Lexington Books.
Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model
of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Bulatao
(Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions
(pp. 51– 85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fowler, F. J. (1988). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration–aggression.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Geen, R. G. (1998). Processes and personal variables in affective aggres-
sion. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression:
 COGNITIONS VERSUS AFFECT
Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 2–21). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 317–324.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial
behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299 –307.
George, J. M. (1996). Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.),
Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 145–171).San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good— doing good: A
conceptual analysis of the mood at work– organizational spontaneity
relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310 –329.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1997). Antisocial behavior in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment in-
equity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
561–568.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and
interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.
Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands
that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 18, pp. 111–156). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Isen, A. M. (1970). Success, failure, attention, and reactions to others: The
warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 15, 294 –301.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organi-
zational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 1–53). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). The effect of feeling good on helping:
Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
21, 384 –388.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple
pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 740 –752.
Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A. G., & Zacur, S. R. (1996). Expectancy based
job cognitions and job affect as predictors of organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 635– 651.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. H. (2001, August). Personality
correlates of workplace anti-social behavior. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and
situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An exami-
nation of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 836 – 844.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence
employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845– 855.
Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job
satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46, 759 –776.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task perfor-
mance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 475– 480.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance
appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator in the
relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.
141
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. New York: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in orga-
nizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct
clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective
determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 157–164.
Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985). Cognition vs. affect in measures of job
satisfaction. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 241–253.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802.
Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York:
Harper & Row.
Plutchik, R. (1994). The psychology and biology of emotion. New York:
Harper Collins.
Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. (1999). All negative moods are not equal:
Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 56 –77.
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much
more than g. Personnel Psychology, 44, 321–332.
Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job
performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
518 –524.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its defini-
tion, its manifestations, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard,
& R. J. Bies (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 7,
pp. 3–27). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behav-
iors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 67, 206 –221.
Russell, J. A. (1979). Affective space is bipolar. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 345–356.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.
Schalm, R. L., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). The relationship between
response rate and effect size. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 6, 160 –163.
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational
justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington
Books.
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.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship within a
union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 81, 161–169.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organiza-
tional justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A
replication. Personnel Psychology, 50, 617– 633.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizen-
ship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 68, 653– 663.
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. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1991). Self- versus peer ratings of specific
142 LEE AND ALLEN
emotional traits: Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 927–940.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On
the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 62, 489 –505.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (Expanded form). Unpublished manuscript, University
of Iowa, Iowa City.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement of
mood: Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 68, 267–296.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070.
Appendix
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Items Used in This Study
OCBI Items
1. Help others who have been absent.
2. Willingly give your time to help others who have work-related
problems.
3. Adjust your work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests
for time off.
4. Go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work
group.
5. Show genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the
most trying business or personal situations.
6. Give up time to help others who have work or nonwork problems.
7. Assist others with their duties.
8. Share personal property with others to help their work.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of
mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219 –235.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of
affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice
conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
786 –794.
Wherry, R. J., & Bartlett, C. J. (1982). The control of bias in ratings: A
theory of ratings. Personnel Psychology, 35, 521–551.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617.
OCBO Items
1. Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational
image.
2. Keep up with developments in the organization.
3. Defend the organization when other employees criticize it.
4. Show pride when representing the organization in public.
5. Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.
6. Express loyalty toward the organization.
7. Take action to protect the organization from potential problems.
8. Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization.
Received June 5, 2000
Revision received March 28, 2001
Accepted April 9, 2001 䡲