annotatedbib

Negative Affect and Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: The Moderating Role of Moral Disengagement and Gender

Al-Karim Samnani • Sabrina Deutsch Salamon •

Parbudyal Singh

Received: 20 May 2012 / Accepted: 20 January 2013 / Published online: 30 January 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract There has been growing scholarly interest in

understanding individual-level antecedents of counterpro-

ductive workplace behavior (CWB). While researchers have

found a positive relationship between individuals’ negative

affect and engagement in CWB, to date, our understanding of

the factors which may affect this relationship is limited. In this

study, we investigate the moderating roles of moral disen-

gagement and gender in this relationship. Consistent with our

hypotheses, we found that individuals with a greater tendency

to experience negative emotions were more likely to engage in

CWB when they had a higher propensity to morally disen-

gage. Moreover, we found that this interacting relationship

varied across men and women. We discuss the theoretical and

practical implications of our findings and offer avenues for

future research.

Keywords Counterproductive workplace behaviors � Moral disengagement � Gender � Deviance

Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been growing attention

devoted to the study of counterproductive workplace behavior

(CWB) (Jones 2009; Spector 2011; Yang and Diefendorff

2009). Also referred to as workplace deviance, anti-social

behaviors and organizational misbehaviors, researchers have

described CWB to include behaviors such as theft, drug and

alcohol abuse, sabotage, vandalism, and disciplinary prob-

lems, among others (Ones 2002; Roberts et al. 2007). More-

over, estimates suggest that as many as 75 % of employees

engage in CWB (Harper 1990; Jones 2009), while up to 95 %

of organizations are affected by behaviors such as theft and

fraud (Case 2000). Indeed, researchers have found that CWB

is very costly for organizations (Mount et al. 2006). Research

suggests that CWB costs U.S. employers nearly $50 billion on

an annual basis and may explain up to 20 % of failed busi-

nesses (Coffin 2003).

Researchers have dedicated significant attention to

investigating antecedents of CWB. Much of this research

has focused on situational variables that are theorized to

provoke employee CWB. For example, researchers have

found that perceived injustice/unfairness (Cohen-Charash

and Mueller 2007; Hershcovis et al. 2007; Jones 2009),

desire for revenge (Jones 2009), and abusive supervision

(Detert et al. 2007) are associated with CWB. Since situ-

ational stressors typically evoke negative emotions among

employees (Fox et al. 2001), the experience of negative

emotions appears to be a significant precursor of CWB.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, one dispositional variable that

has received a significant amount of attention in the CWB

literature is negative affectivity (Yang and Diefendorff

2009), which represents a dispositional tendency toward

experiencing negative emotions (Watson et al. 1988;

Watson and Clark 1984).

While there is evidence that negative affect is positively

associated with engagement in CWB (e.g., Hershcovis et al.

2007; Penney and Spector 2005; Yang and Diefendorff

2009), to date, we have a limited understanding of possible

A.-K. Samnani (&) � P. Singh School of Human Resource Management, York University,

4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

A.-K. Samnani

Odette School of Business, University of Windsor,

401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada

S. D. Salamon

School of Administrative Studies, York University,

4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada

123

J Bus Ethics (2014) 119:235–244

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1635-0

boundary conditions of this relationship. In this paper, we

investigate the role played by moral disengagement, a cog-

nitive mechanism which deactivates moral self-regulatory

processes (Bandura 1986; Detert et al. 2008) in the rela-

tionship between negative affect and CWB. We also exam-

ine whether this relationship is further complicated when

considering the role of gender. Specifically, we draw on

relational theory (Miller 1976) to suggest that the moderating

effect of moral disengagement will differ across men and

women. We thus contribute to the CWB literature by

investigating important boundary conditions in the rela-

tionship between negative affect and CWB.

In the following section, we provide a brief overview of

the relevant CWB literature. We then theorize negative

affect, moral disengagement, and gender affect CWB,

which enable us to generate our hypotheses. Thereafter, we

discuss the methods and analyses we used to test our

hypotheses, and present our results. Finally, we conclude

by discussing the theoretical and practical contributions of

our study, presenting its limitations and offering areas for

future research.

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors (CWBs)

CWB refers to employee behaviors that are harmful toward

the organization and/or other employees (Robinson and

Bennett 1995). Hence, there are two major types of CWB

identified in the literature: individual- and organization

directed (Bennett and Robinson 2000). CWB that is

directed at other employees can include physical or verbal

aggression and other forms of interpersonal mistreatment

that can be described as harmful. CWB directed toward the

organization includes theft, sabotage, withdrawal of work

efforts, and any other type of behavior that is harmful to the

organization (e.g., Mount et al. 2006). We are particularly

interested in the latter type of behavior: organization-

directed CWB.

As mentioned, a significant amount of research has

found that negative affect is positively correlated with

CWB (e.g., Hershcovis et al. 2007; Penney and Spector

2005; Yang and Diefendorff 2009). To date, however, we

lack sufficient understanding of the conditions that may

affect this relationship. Avenues that may offer insight into

this relationship are morals and ethics. Surprisingly, there

has been a paucity of research examining the role of morals

and ethics in predicting CWB (Andreoli and Lefkowitz

2009; Henle et al. 2005), as evident in reviews of the CWB

literature (e.g., Bennett and Robinson 2003; Judge et al.

2006; Spector 2011), although some researchers have

suggested that individual-level constructs related to morals

may help explain engagement in CWB (e.g., Dilchert et al.

2007). In this paper, we examine individuals’ propensity to

morally disengage as a moderator of the negative affect-

CWB relationship. We contend that individuals with high

negative affect will be more likely to engage in CWB when

their propensity to morally disengage is high. Furthermore,

we investigate how this moderating effect differs across

men and women. We present our diagrammatic model and

hypotheses in Fig. 1 (below).

Negative Affect

Negative affect represents a dispositional tendency toward

experiencing negative emotions (Watson et al. 1988;

Watson and Clark 1984), such as anxiety, fear, sadness,

and anger. A number of studies that examined the rela-

tionship between negative affect and CWB (e.g., Aquino

et al. 1999; Fox et al. 2001; Hershcovis et al. 2007; Penney

and Spector 2005; Yang and Diefendorff 2009) have found

that individuals with high levels of negative affect are more

likely to engage in CWB than those with low levels of

negative affect.

Several explanations have been suggested to explain the

impact of negative affect on engagement in CWB.

Employees with high negative affect tend to perceive the

world more negatively (Penney and Spector 2005) and may

therefore have greater motivation to engage in behaviors

that they believe will help them reduce, or cope with, these

negative emotions (Cropanzano et al. 2003). An explana-

tion for the relationship between negative affect and CWB

is thus offered through the concept of ‘‘affect manage-

ment’’ (Dalal et al. 2009, p. 1053), whereby employees

who experience negative emotions will seek to repair their

affective state through engagement in CWB. For example,

employees who believe that the organization is a source of

their negative emotions will tend to reciprocate by

engaging in negative behaviors toward the organization to

feel a sense of retribution (Blau 1964). Another example is

employees who engage in withdrawal forms of CWB so as

to repair their affective state by avoiding the problem

(Dalal et al. 2009).

Even when employees do not view their organization as

the source of their negative emotions, they may nonetheless

H3

H2

H1 Negative Affect CWB

Moral Disengagement

Gender

Fig. 1 CWB: a three-way interaction

236 A.-K. Samnani et al.

123

view it as an easy target on which they can diffuse their

frustration (Cropanzano et al. 2003). With employees

spending a significant portion of their day at work, the

organization becomes a likely target for diffusing frustra-

tion. Hence, employees may engage in CWB as a way of

managing their negative emotions regardless of the specific

source of these emotions.

Furthermore, employees with high negative affect tend

to have greater sensitivity and emotional reactivity to

experiences at work than those with low negative affect

(Larsen and Ketelaar 1991). This greater reactivity will

make individuals with high negative affect more likely to

convert their emotions into CWB than individuals who

have low emotional reactivity. This is because emotional

reactivity entails a stronger translation of affect into actual

behavior (Larsen and Katelaar 1991). This is consistent

with Spector and Fox’s (2002) voluntary work behavior

model. Their model suggests that work situations can

produce greater affect, which energizes employee action

tendencies through voluntary work behaviors such as CWB

(Spector and Fox 2002). Therefore, employees who have a

strong tendency to experience negative emotions will more

likely engage in CWB directed toward the organization

than those with a lower tendency to experience negative

emotions. Based on the above discussion, we derive our

first hypothesis below.

Hypothesis 1 There will be a positive relationship

between individuals’ negative affect and their CWB.

The Moderating Role of Moral Disengagement

Moral disengagement refers to an individual’s ability to

deactivate moral self-regulation and self-censure, which

allows individuals to engage in behavior that is inconsistent

with moral standards without the associated self-sanctions

and guilt (Bandura et al. 1996; Detert et al. 2008). More

specifically, individuals deactivate moral self-regulation by

reframing the situation in a way that allows them to

rationalize and justify certain behaviors that are inconsis-

tent with moral standards.

Moral disengagement is a relatively new construct

applied in organizational research. Detert et al. (2008,

p. 374) assert that in relation to its consequences, ‘‘our

understanding of moral disengagement remains at an early

stage.’’ Extending prior research that investigated moral

rationalizing and justification as a mechanism to justify

previous actions, they found support for moral disengage-

ment as a predictor of future unethical behaviors. Further-

more, in concluding, they ‘‘speculate’’ (p. 384) that moral

disengagement may influence behaviors such as CWB.

Employees may use one of several rationalizations as a

reflection of their moral disengagement. To illustrate,

employees may rationalize and justify their behaviors in a

way that make these behaviors appear more acceptable

(Bandura 1986). This can include explanations that justify

the behaviors, such as theft in response to false promises

from the organization or perceptions of inequity. Indeed,

research has associated increased theft with perceptions of

inequity about monetary compensation (Dilchert et al.

2007; Greenberg 1990). Conversely, employees may use

advantageous comparisons to justify their unethical

behaviors (Detert et al. 2008). Another way through which

employees may rationalize behaviors that are inconsistent

with moral standards is to displace responsibility onto

others. For example, employees may convince themselves

that certain organizational practices are responsible for

their misuse of company time; thus, the organization

should be blamed for employee actions. Employees may

similarly attempt to diffuse responsibility by suggesting

that they engage in fraud because other employees commit

fraud, thereby diffusing responsibility from any single

employee (Ashforth and Anand 2003; Murphy and Dacin

2011). Finally, employees may distort the consequences by

suggesting that their acts of theft do not significantly affect

the organization because of its strong revenue stream

(Detert et al. 2008). Overall, there are a number of ways in

which employees may rationalize their behaviors, which

allow them to cognitively disassociate themselves with

acting in an unethical or immoral manner (Claybourn

2011).

We contend that the ability of employees to morally

disengage through various rationalization and justification

mechanisms will tend to make it easier for them to engage

in CWB because of fewer self-sanctions and less feeling of

guilt. Because CWB is viewed as inconsistent with moral

standards (Roberts et al. 2007) such behavior may be

associated with initial feelings of guilt. However, individ-

uals who can minimize feelings of guilt may be more likely

to engage in CWB. Specifically, we suggest that employees

who have high levels of moral disengagement may be more

likely to act upon their negative emotions in a manner that

is inconsistent with moral standards than those with low

levels of moral disengagement. In other words, when

employees have a tendency to experience negative emo-

tions and morally disengage, they will engage in more

CWB than those without a tendency to morally disengage.

Thus, for example, employees with high moral disen-

gagement may use one or more of many potential expla-

nations to rationalize and justify their immoral behaviors

(e.g., advantageous comparison, displacing responsibility)

(Bandura 1986). Employees may convince themselves

that engaging in a CWB such as theft or vandalism rep-

resents a more effective way of coping with their emotions

than more aggressive behaviors such as violence (i.e.,

using advantageous comparison as a rationalization).

Negative Affect and Counterproductive Workplace Behavior 237

123

Similarly, employees may rationalize that engaging in

CWB such as spending company time on personal issues or

daydreaming and fantasizing is justified when considering

that other employees arrive to work late on a regular basis.

Alternatively, employees may rationalize their CWB by

displacing responsibility. For instance, employees may

convince themselves that the organization is responsible

for their negative emotions (e.g., sadness, anger) and thus

are deserving of the CWB. We therefore derive the fol-

lowing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 Moral disengagement will moderate the

relationship between negative affect and CWB, whereby

employees with higher levels of moral disengagement will

be more likely to engage in CWB than those with lower

levels of moral disengagement.

The Moderating Role of Gender

Given extant literature on gender in the context of morality

and ethics (O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005; Schminke et al.

2003), we believe that it is important to consider the role of

gender in the negative affect-CWB relationship. Investi-

gating ethics and morals provokes gender-related questions

given the ongoing debate and conflicting views on the role

of gender. More specifically, a significant amount of debate

has occurred over the past few decades about the presence

of gender differences in unethical behaviors and moral

reasoning (Detert et al. 2008; Schminke et al. 2003). On

one hand, several researchers have found empirical support

for women being more ethical than men (e.g., Ameen et al.

1996; Singhapakdi 1999). On the other hand, other

researchers have found little to no differences across gen-

der in ethical behaviors (e.g., Jones and Kavanagh 1996;

Robin and Babin 1997). Nevertheless, some more recent

empirical evidence suggests that gender differences may be

pronounced when considering the role of moral disen-

gagement on unethical behaviors (Detert et al. 2008).

We draw upon relational theory (Miller 1976) to predict

that high negative affect females with high moral disen-

gagement engage in less CWB than similar males. Rela-

tional theory suggests that connectedness and relationship

building represent central and desired aspects of women’s

development (Miller and Stiver 1997; Schminke et al.

2003). Moreover, this theory suggests that females possess

a unique desire to develop and maintain personal relations

with others (Schminke et al. 2003). Such desires and goals

will tend to make women more hesitant than males to

engage in behaviors such as CWB because these behaviors

may likely compromise positive relations with others, such

as supervisors and peers. Hence, females’ desire for posi-

tive personal relations may tend to limit their engagement

in CWB even when they have a high proneness to moral

disengagement. For men, on the other hand, a relatively

lower desire for connectedness and relationship building

will be associated with a lower perceived cost of engage-

ment in CWB and, in turn, greater engagement in such

behavior. Hence, according to relational theory, moral

disengagement will not strengthen the negative affect-

CWB relationship for females as much as it will for males.

Furthermore, some research has demonstrated that

females pay greater attention to distinguishing between

ethical versus unethical behaviors (Frank et al. 1997).

Researchers have also contended that females tend to be

more accurate than males in their assessments of whether

they are actually engaging in ethical versus unethical

behaviors (Fiske and Taylor 1984; Schminke et al. 2003).

This suggests that even when high negative affect females

have a strong propensity to morally disengage, their ability

to more clearly recognize unethical behaviors such as

CWB will tend to result in lower CWB than males who

have high negative affect and a strong propensity to mor-

ally disengage. Therefore, based on the above argumenta-

tion, we develop the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 There will be a three-way interaction

between negative affect, moral disengagement, and gender

to predict CWB, such that the two-way interaction between

negative affect and moral disengagement will be stronger

for males whereby high negative affect males who have

high levels of moral disengagement will be more likely to

engage in CWB than high negative affect females who

have high levels of moral disengagement.

Method

Participants

We conducted a survey-based study in a large university in

Canada. The project was evaluated and approved by the

university’s research ethics board according to the guide-

lines of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct

for Research Involving Humans (Canadian Institutes of

Health Research et al. 2005). The department from which

these respondents were drawn offers many evening and

night classes. Approximately 70 % of students in this

department are employed full-time. Only students who

were working were included in the sample. Hence,

respondents who were not working were removed from the

study. The students were pursuing majors in business/

management disciplines (e.g., general management, mar-

keting, human resource management) and were senior

students completing their undergraduate degree.

In total, 274 surveys were completed of which 221 were

useable (81 %). Because we restricted our sample to

238 A.-K. Samnani et al.

123

senior-level students, the number of respondents with full-

time work experience in our particular sample was higher

than the 70 % at the departmental-level. With respect to

years of full-time work experience, 26 % of respondents

had between 1 and 2 years, 29 % had 3–4 years, 23 % had

5–6 years, 12 % had 7–8 years, 5 % had 9–10 years, and

5 % had more than 10 years of work experience. In terms

of age, approximately 22 % of respondents were

18–20 years old, 49 % were 21–23 years old, 14 % were

24–26 years old, 6 % were 27–29 years old, and 9 % were

30 years of age or older. With respect to gender, 28 % of

respondents were male.

Procedures

Respondents from several classes were invited to complete the

survey during class time (students were told not to complete the

survey if they did so in another class but there were no cases like

this). A research assistant administered the surveys and assured

respondents that their responses will remain anonymous. While

the respondents completed hard copy surveys, they were

instructed not to write their name anywhere on the survey to

allow for full anonymity. The respondents submitted their

completed survey directly to the research assistant and were

made aware at the outset that the surveys would not be seen by

their course instructors. Respondents were told that participa-

tion in the study was voluntary. A number of researchers

investigating CWB have similarly used working samples of

students (e.g., Jones 2009; Penney and Spector 2005; Spector

et al. 2010; Yang and Diefendorff 2009).

Measures

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors (CWBs)

In line with suggestions made in previous research (e.g.,

Detert et al. 2007), we took a broad approach to CWB by

measuring a composite of behaviors, rather than single

specific behaviors (e.g., theft). We measured CWB using a

scale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000). Since we

were specifically interested in CWB directed toward the

organization, we used the organization-directed CWB scale

consisting of twelve items. The items were assessed on a

5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Never’’ to ‘‘Often.’’

Sample items included ‘‘taken property from work without

permission,’’ ‘‘spent too much time fantasizing or day-

dreaming instead of working,’’ and ‘‘littered your work

environment.’’ Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.79.

We used a self-report of CWB, consistent with a number

of studies measuring this construct (e.g., Cohen-Charash

and Mueller 2007; Jones 2009; Marcus and Schuler 2004;

Yang and Diefendorff 2009). Moreover, recent meta-ana-

lytic evidence suggests that self-rater reports of CWB are

in fact more predictive of employees’ actual engagement in

these behaviors than other reports (Berry et al. 2011). As

Yang and Diefendorff (2009) similarly contend, CWB is

reasonable to measure based on self-report data. Other

potential sources of information about employee behaviors

(e.g., peers, supervisors, subordinates) would tend to be

less aware of their co-worker’s engagement in various

forms of CWB (e.g., fantasizing, daydreaming, intentional

slowing down of work, discussion of confidential company

information with outsiders, and dragging out of work for

the purpose of increasing overtime pay) than the actual

perpetrator (see Bennett and Robinson 2000).

Negative Affect

We used a 10-item scale to measure negative affect,

developed by Watson et al. (1988). Respondents were

asked to indicate the extent to which they generally

experience certain negative emotions and feelings. The

items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

‘‘Very slightly or not at all’’ to ‘‘Extremely.’’ Sample

emotions and feelings included ‘‘distressed,’’ ‘‘upset,’’ and

‘‘scared.’’ Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.85.

Moral Disengagement

We used a 24-item scale that was developed by Bandura

et al. (1996) and later modified by Detert et al. (2008) to

measure moral disengagement. Respondents were asked to

indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with

each statement. The items were assessed on a 7-point

Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Disagree strongly’’ to ‘‘Agree

strongly.’’ Sample items include ‘‘it is alright to fight to

protect your friends,’’ and ‘‘if people are living under bad

conditions, they cannot be blamed for behaving aggres-

sively.’’ Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.90.

Gender

We used a one-item question requesting respondents to

indicate whether they are male or female.

Control Variables

We controlled for work experience by asking participants

to indicate the number of years that they have worked in an

organization. We also controlled for age by asking partic-

ipants to indicate their age group (e.g., 18–20; 21–23;

24–26, etc.).

Negative Affect and Counterproductive Workplace Behavior 239

123

Results

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 (above) presents the means, standard deviations,

and intercorrelations between the variables. Moral disen-

gagement, negative affect, and gender are all significantly

correlated with CWB. Work experience was essentially

unrelated to CWB and weakly correlated with moral dis-

engagement. Age was weakly correlated with both CWB

and moral disengagement. Finally, the mean (2.50) and

standard deviation (0.78) for moral disengagement, along

with the mean (1.87) and standard deviation (0.52) for

CWB, suggest that such tendencies and behaviors are not

particularly high among employees. Moreover, the mean

and standard deviation found for moral disengagement in

this current study are similar to those found by Detert et al.

(2008).

Moderators: Interactions Between Negative Affect,

Moral Disengagement, and Gender

In order to test our hypotheses, we used hierarchical

ordinary least squares regression analyses, following the

moderated regression procedures recommended by Aiken

and West (1991) (see Table 2 above). We centered the

independent variables when testing interactions. In Model

1, we included only the control variables. Work experience

and age accounted for approximately 4 % of the variance

in CWB. Furthermore, the results indicated that older

respondents were less likely to engage in CWB (b = - 0.26, p \ 0.01). Work experience was not significantly related to CWB.

In Model 2, the control variables (work experience and

age) were entered, followed by each of the independent

variables (negative affect, moral disengagement, and gen-

der). As predicted in Hypothesis 1, negative affect was

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of study variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age 3.40 1.40 –

2. Work experience 4.80 3.59 0.62** –

3. Negative affect 2.16 0.71 -0.15* -0.12 (0.85)

4. Moral disengagement 2.50 0.78 -0.10 -0.11 0.12 (0.90)

5. Gender 0.71 0.45 0.00 0.02 0.02 -0.22** –

6. CWB 1.87 0.52 -0.16* -0.01 0.32** 0.43** -0.24** (0.79)

N = 221

* p \ 0.05 ** p \ 0.01

Table 2 Results of hierarchical moderated regression analyses

for counterproductive

workplace behavior

Reported values are

standardized regression

coefficients

Gender: female = 1; male = 0

* p \ 0.05 ** p \ 0.01 *** p \ 0.001

Variables Counterproductive workplace behaviors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Control variables

Work experience 0.16 0.21** 0.19** 0.20**

Age -0.26** -0.22** -0.21** -0.23**

Independent variables

Negative affect 0.28*** 0.39*** 0.30**

Moral disengagement 0.36*** 0.44*** 0.47***

Gender -0.17** -0.15** -0.12*

Moderator variables

Negative affect 9 moral disengagement 0.18** 0.40***

Negative affect 9 gender -0.15 -0.08

Moral disengagement 9 gender -0.11 -0.12

Negative affect 9 moral disengagement 9 gender -0.27**

R 2

0.04 0.32 0.37 0.39

Adjusted R 2

0.03 0.31 0.35 0.37

Change in R 2

0.04 0.28 0.05 0.02

F change 4.66* 29.53*** 5.47** 7.57**

240 A.-K. Samnani et al.

123

significantly related to CWB (b = 0.28; p \ 0.001), indi- cating that individuals with higher levels of negative affect

would be more likely to engage in CWB than those who

have lower levels of negative affect. Thus, Hypothesis 1

was supported.

In Model 3, along with the control variables and the

independent variables, we entered the three two-way inter-

action terms. As predicted in Hypothesis 2, the interaction

between negative affect and moral disengagement was sig-

nificant (b = 0.18; p \ 0.01). There was also a statistically significant increase in variance explained in R

2 in Model 3

(F = 5.47, p \ 0.01). By means of the procedure outlined by Aiken and West (1991), in Fig. 2, we plotted this interaction.

As illustrated, consistent with our hypothesis, individuals

with high negative affect were more likely to engage in CWB

when they had high moral disengagement.

In Model 4, we added the proposed three-way interaction.

The three-way interaction between negative affect, moral

disengagement, and gender was significant (b = -0.27; p \ 0.01). Model 4 in Table 2 shows that the addition of the three-way interaction increases the overall variance

explained by 0.02 (F = 7.57, p \ 0.01). By means of the procedure outlined by Aiken and West (1991), we plotted

this three-way interaction (Fig. 3). As hypothesized, the

highest level of CWB is found for men with high levels of

both negative affect and moral disengagement.

To investigate this three-way interaction further, we

conducted post hoc analyses and calculated slope differ-

ence tests (Dawson and Richter 2006). The results are

reported in Table 3 (see above), which show that slope 2,

representing males with high moral disengagement, is

significantly different than the other three slopes. Together,

the above findings lend support to hypothesis 3. Interest-

ingly, no significant difference was found between slopes 3

and 4, representing females with low moral disengagement

and men with low moral disengagement, respectively.

Discussion

Our study illustrated that the relationship between negative

affect and CWB is indeed fairly complex. More specifi-

cally, individuals with high negative affect were more

likely to engage in CWB when their propensity to morally

disengage was high. Furthermore, consistent with our

hypothesis, this relationship was moderated by gender. We

found that males were likely to engage in CWB more

frequently than females with similar high negative affect

and high moral disengagement. Our findings, therefore,

reveal a complex three-way interaction between negative

affect, moral disengagement, and gender in predicting

CWB. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low NA High NA

C W

B s

Low MD

High MD

Fig. 2 The moderating effect of moral disengagement on the negative affect–CWB relationship

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Low NA High NA

C W

B s

(1) High MD, FEMALE

(2) High MD, MALE

(3) Low MD, FEMALE

(4) Low MD, MALE

Fig. 3 A three-way interaction between negative affect, moral disengagement, and gender to explain CWB

Table 3 Slope differences for the three-way interaction

Pair of slopes t value for

slope difference

p value for

slope difference

(1) and (2) -2.826 0.005

(1) and (3) 0.243 0.808

(1) and (4) 1.338 0.182

(2) and (3) 3.381 0.001

(2) and (4) 4.232 0.000

(3) and (4) 1.205 0.230

Negative Affect and Counterproductive Workplace Behavior 241

123

contributions of this study while providing directions for

future research, the practical implications of our findings,

and outline some limitations of our study.

Theoretical Contributions and Directions for Future

Research

Our analysis demonstrates the telling role played by

moral disengagement in explaining the negative affect-

CWB relationship. Negative emotions are more likely to

trigger engagement in CWB when individuals have a

tendency to morally disengage. Moreover, we found that

experiencing negative emotions may itself not be suffi-

cient to explain why employees engage in CWB.

Employees with high levels of negative affect who were

not prone to morally disengaging were less likely to

engage in CWB than those who were prone to morally

disengaging. Building on our study, future research

should further explore the role of morality and ethics in

explaining CWB. For instance, does the ability to mor-

ally disengage predict whether individuals who perceive

injustice retaliate with organization-directed CWB? Does

an employee’s proneness to morally disengage explain

his/her engagement in aggression or bullying behavior

toward others? These are interesting questions that can

help us understand the mechanisms that individuals use

to engage in such types of behaviors. Moreover, our

analysis focused on the cognitive aspects of morals and

ethics, whereby individuals’ ability to rationalize uneth-

ical behaviors was used as a predictor. These cognitive

mechanisms add an important piece to our understanding

of CWB and researchers should investigate other possible

cognitive mechanisms that may explain employee

engagement in such behaviors.

We also investigated the role of gender in predicting

CWB, which allowed us to contribute to the ongoing

debate regarding gender and unethical behaviors. The

interaction between negative affect and moral disengage-

ment varied across gender as men tended to be more likely

than women to engage in CWB when they both had high

moral disengagement and negative affect. Investigating the

varying effects of certain relationships across men and

women may indeed tell us that such relationships are sig-

nificantly different for women than for men. Accounting

for these differences can enable us to more closely capture

the effects of various phenomena. Therefore, we encourage

researchers to investigate how important relationships

about organizational phenomena may differ across gender,

work experience, and so on. While capturing these vari-

ables as controls is certainly important in many cases, we

believe—and illustrated—that investigating their direct and

interacting effects can also add value to our understanding

of phenomena.

Implications for Practice and Policy

There are some important implications from this study for

organizations. First, this study indicated that negative

emotion itself did not provide a complete picture of

employees’ engagement in CWB. While prior research has

emphasized the role of negative affect, our study revealed

that negative emotions were more likely to translate into

CWB when employees also had high levels of moral dis-

engagement. Hence, while organizations may take prior

findings to suggest that they should resist hiring employees

with high negative affectivity, such resistance toward hir-

ing these individuals may not be necessary. Instead, orga-

nizations should focus on employee history or other

characteristics that may signal their proneness or willing-

ness to justify engaging in behaviors that are inconsistent

with moral standards.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. First, given that all

the measures in the study were captured through a single

source, it is possible that there is a common method vari-

ance issue. To examine whether common method variance

was a problem in this study, we conducted a post hoc

Harman’s single factor test which revealed multiple factors

(13 factors) versus a single dominant factor (see Podsakoff

and Organ 1986). By running a factor analysis, this test

allowed us to identify whether there was the presence of a

single factor solution. If there is the presence of one gen-

eral factor, this would suggest substantial common method

variance since this factor would explain the majority of

variance in the variables (Chiaburu and Baker 2006).

Running this test revealed that one single factor did not

explain the majority of original variance in the variables.

Moreover, common method variance is generally less

likely to be a problem for complicated interaction effects

(Chang et al. 2010). Furthermore, with gender playing an

important role in our model, we believe that its objective

nature further alleviates potential common method issues.

While self-reports may be problematic in certain con-

texts, it was important to measure the variables in this

study from the employee’s perspective. For instance, sev-

eral researchers have used and/or indicate preference for

self-reports of CWB since other sources of information

(e.g., co-workers, supervisors) would be less likely to know

whether their colleague is engaging in CWB such as

spending significant time on personal emails, daydreaming,

or stealing (e.g., Cohen-Charash and Mueller 2007; Jones

2009; Marcus and Schuler 2004; Yang and Diefendorff

2009). Notably, recent meta-analytic research in fact rec-

ommends self-reports of CWB over other-reports (Berry

242 A.-K. Samnani et al.

123

et al. 2011). Finally, self-reports also more accurately

capture individuals’ ability to morally disengage through

moral justification and rationalization, and for indicating

their tendency to experience negative emotions than

information from other sources.

This study gathered the data using a cross-sectional

research design, which therefore does not allow us to infer

causality. We believe, however, that the nature of the

relationships we have tested intuitively lend themselves to

a single direction. For instance, we find it difficult to the-

orize how CWB would causally lead to varying levels of

negative affect, moral disengagement, or gender. Instead,

theory has tended to suggest that moral disengagement

(Detert et al. 2008; Dilchert et al. 2007) and negative affect

(Hershcovis et al. 2007; Penney and Spector 2005; Yang

and Diefendorff 2009) causally lead to CWB.

Finally, we used a sample of working students. Working

student samples have been commonly used when investi-

gating CWB (e.g., Jones 2009; Penney and Spector 2005;

Spector et al. 2010; Yang and Diefendorff 2009). Never-

theless, we recognize and acknowledge the weaknesses

associated with this research design. A study in a single

organization may have isolated the effects of contextual

factors. Nevertheless, we balanced this with the benefits of

gathering responses from participants from multiple orga-

nizations, which led us to choose the latter design. In doing

so, we can infer that factors inherent in the culture or cli-

mate of the organization are less likely to have inflated our

results than if we had investigated our research question in

a single organization.

Conclusion

There has been growing scholarly interest on CWB in the

workplace as a result of the negative consequences these

behaviors have for organizations. We contribute to this

growing literature by investigating a more complex model

focused on the base relationship between negative affect and

CWB. In our model, we investigated the interacting roles of

moral disengagement and gender in the negative affect-

CWB relationship. We found empirical support for our

hypotheses. Moral disengagement helped explain the psy-

chological and cognitive mechanisms used by those who

convert their negative emotions into CWB. Moreover, we

found that this interacting relationship was stronger for men

in comparison to women. This study provides a strong

foundation to guide further efforts in exploring the powerful

role of morality and ethics in predicting those who are more

likely to engage in behaviors such as CWB. In addition, we

hope our contribution will stimulate further debate and

investigation about the role of gender in ethics and CWB.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Gender

differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future

accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5),

591–597.

Andreoli, N., & Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and organizational

antecedents of misconduct in organizations. Journal of Business

Ethics, 85(3), 309–332.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs,

negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model

and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7),

1073–1091.

Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption

in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25,

1–52.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996).

Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral

agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2),

364–374.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure

of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),

349–360.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future

of workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organi-

zational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 247–281).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2011). Do other-

reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incre-

mental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic compar-

ison. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0026739.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:

Wiley. [Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences

and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: 1998

with 2000, 2002 and 2005 Amendments, Tri-Council Policy

Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans

(Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa)].

Case, J. (2000). Employee theft: The profit killer. Del Mar, CA: John

Case & Associates.

Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors:

Common method variance in international business research.

Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Baker, V. L. (2006). Extra-role behaviors

challenging the status-quo: Validity and antecedents of taking

charge behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7),

620–637.

Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships between moral disengagement,

work characteristics and workplace harassment. Journal of

Business Ethics, 100(2), 283–301.

Coffin, B. (2003). Breaking the silence on white collar crime. Risk

Management, 50, 8.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived

unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproduc-

tive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(3), 666–680.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship

of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 88(1), 160–169.

Negative Affect and Counterproductive Workplace Behavior 243

123

Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L.

(2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and

performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counter pro-

ductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and

overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal,

52(5), 1051–1066.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way

interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development

and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(4), 917–926.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).

Managerial modes of influence and counter productivity in

organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 993–1005.

Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral

disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of anteced-

ents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2),

374–391.

Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007).

Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproduc-

tive work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3),

616–627.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work

behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational

justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and

emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309.

Frank, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differences

in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory

perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920–934.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment

inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.

Harper, D. (1990). Spotlight abuse–save profits. Industrial Distribu-

tion, 79(3), 47–51.

Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role

of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business

Ethics, 56(3), 219–230.

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K.

E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238.

Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s

organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for

revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525–542.

Jones, G. E., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1996). An empirical examination of

the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical

intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5),

511–523.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Illies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes,

and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91(1), 126–138.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to

positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 61(1), 132–140.

Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive

behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(4), 647–660.

Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston:

Beacon Press.

Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1997). The healing connection. Boston:

Beacon Press.

Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of

personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The

mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,

59(3), 591–622.

Murphy, P. R., & Dacin, T. M. (2011). Psychological pathways to

fraud: Understanding and preventing fraud in organizations.

Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 601–618.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the

empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.

Ones, D. S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on counterpro-

ductive behaviors at work. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 10(1/2), 1–4.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and

counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role

of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

26(7), 777–796.

Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational

research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management,

12(4), 532–544.

Roberts, B. W., Harms, P. D., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2007). Can

we predict the counterproductive employee? Evidence from a

child-to-adult prospective study. Journal of Applied Psychology,

92(5), 1427–1436.

Robin, D., & Babin, L. (1997). Making sense of the research on

gender and ethics in business: A critical analysis and extension.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(4), 61–90.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant

workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Miles, J. A. (2003). The impact of

gender and setting on perceptions of others’ ethics. Sex Roles,

48(7/8), 361–375.

Singhapakdi, A. (1999). Perceived importance of ethics and ethical

decisions in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 45(1),

89–99.

Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterpro-

ductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives.

Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 342–352.

Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts

in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and

organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think

we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781–790.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of

voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterpro-

ductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior.

Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269–292.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The

disposition to experience negative aversive emotional states.

Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 465–490.

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(6), 1063–1070.

Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily

counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational

antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong

Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259–295.

244 A.-K. Samnani et al.

123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.