Work & Stress Vol. 22, No. 3, JulySeptember 2008, 187200.docx

Work & Stress
Vol. 22, No. 3, July�September 2008, 187�200
POSITION PAPER
Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health
psychology
Arnold B. Bakkera, Wilmar B. Schaufelib, Michael P. Leiterc
and Toon W. Tarisd
aInstitute of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The
Netherlands; bDepartment of Social and
Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, The
Netherlands; cDepartment of Psychology, Acadia
University, Canada; dBehavioral Science Institute, Department
of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
This position paper introduces the emerging concept of work
engagement: a positive, fulfilling, affective-
motivational state of work-related well-being that is
characterized by vigour, dedication, and
absorption. Although there are different views of work
engagement, most scholars agree that engaged

employees have high levels of energy and identify strongly with
their work. The most often used
instrument to measure engagement is the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale, a self-report instrument that
has been validated in many countries across the world. Research
on engagement has investigated how
engagement differs from related concepts (e.g., workaholism,
organizational commitment), and has
focused on the most important predictors of work engagement.
These studies have revealed that
engagement is a unique concept that is best predicted by job
resources (e.g., autonomy, supervisory
coaching, performance feedback) and personal resources (e.g.,
optimism, self-efficacy, self-esteem).
Moreover, the first studies have shown that work engagement is
predictive of job performance and client
satisfaction. The paper closes with an account of what we do
not know about work engagement, and
offers a brief research agenda for future work.
Keywords: burnout; job resources; performance; workaholism;
work engagement
Introduction
Recently, psychology has been criticized as primarily dedicated
to addressing mental illness

rather than mental ‘‘wellness.’’ This prevailing negative bias of
psychology is illustrated by the
fact that the number of publications on negative states exceeds
that on positive states by a
ratio of 14:1 (Myers, 2000). The purpose of Positive Psychology
is ‘‘ . . . to begin to catalyze a
change in the focus of psychology from pre-occupation only
with repairing the worst things in
life to also building positive qualities’’ (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). This
advocated positive turn is also relevant for occupational health
psychology. Failing to
recognize the positive aspects of work is inappropriate and, as
Turner, Barling, and
Zacharatos (2002, p. 715) have argued, ‘‘ . . . it is time to
extend our research focus and
explore more fully the positive sides, so as to gain full
understanding of the meaning and
effects of working.’’
This special issue responds to the call for more research into
positive psychology by
focusing on work engagement: a positive, fulfilling, affective-
motivational state of work-related

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0267-8373 print/ISSN 1464-5335 online
# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02678370802393649
http://www.informaworld.com
http://www.informaworld.com
mailto:[email protected]
188 A.B. Bakker et al.
well-being that can be seen as the antipode of job burnout.
Engaged employees have high levels
of energy, are enthusiastic about their work, and they are often
fully immersed in their job so
that time flies (Macey & Schneider, 2008; May, Gilson, &
Harter, 2004; Schaufeli & Bakker, in
press). Whereas research on burnout has produced thousands of
articles during the past three
decades, research on work engagement has just begun to
emerge. This is curious, in that modern
organizations expect their employees to be proactive and show
initiative, take responsibility for
their own professional development, and to be committed to
high quality performance
standards. Thus, they need employees who feel energetic and

dedicated, and who are absorbed
by their work, i.e., who are engaged with their work (Bakker &
Schaufeli, 2008). As we will see
in this article, work engagement can make a true difference for
employees and may offer
organizations a competitive advantage (see also Bakker, in
press; Demerouti & Cropanzano,
in press).
Different views on work engagement
Interestingly, it is research on burnout that has stimulated most
contemporary research on
work engagement. Contrary to those who suffer from burnout,
engaged employees have a
sense of energetic and effective connection with their work, and
instead of stressful and
demanding they look upon their work as challenging. Two
different but related schools of
thought exist that consider work engagement as a positive,
work-related state of well-being or
fulfilment. According to Maslach and Leiter (1997),
engagement is characterized by energy,
involvement, and efficacy, the direct opposites of the three
burnout dimensions. They argue
that, in the case of burnout, energy turns into exhaustion,

involvement into cynicism, and
efficacy into ineffectiveness. By implication, engagement is
assessed by the opposite pattern of
scores on the three dimensions of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI; Maslach, Jackson,
& Leiter, 1996): low scores on exhaustion and cynicism, and
high scores on professional
efficacy.
The alternative view considers work engagement as an
independent, distinct concept that
is related negatively to burnout. Consequently, work
engagement is defined and operatio-
nalized in its own right as ‘‘ . . . a positive, fulfilling, work-
related state of mind that is
characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption’’
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá,
& Bakker, 2002, p. 74). That is, in engagement, fulfilment
exists in contrast to the voids of life
that leave people feeling empty as in burnout. Vigour is
characterized by high levels of energy
and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest
effort in one’s work, and
persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to
being strongly involved in one’s

work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm,
inspiration, pride, and challenge.
Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and
happily engrossed in one’s work,
whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with
detaching oneself from work.
Accordingly, vigour and dedication are considered direct
opposites of exhaustion and
cynicism, respectively, the two core symptoms of burnout. The
continuum that is spanned by
exhaustion and vigour has been labelled ‘‘energy,’’ whereas the
continuum that is spanned by
cynicism and dedication has been labelled ‘‘identification’’
(González-Roma, Schaufeli,
Bakker, & Lloret, 2006). Hence, work engagement is
characterized by a high level of energy
and strong identification with one’s work, whereas burnout is
characterized by the opposite: a
low level of energy and poor identification with one’s work (see
also Demerouti & Bakker,
2008). In addition, based on in-depth interviews (Schaufeli,
Taris, Le Blanc, Peeters, Bakker,
& De Jonge, 2001), absorption was included as the third
constituting aspect of work

engagement.
189 Work & Stress
Kahn (1990) took a different approach when he conceptualized
engagement as
the ‘‘ . . . harnessing of organization member’s selves to their
work roles: in engagement, people
employ and express themselves physically, cognitively,
emotionally and mentally during role
performances’’ (p. 694). Thus, engaged employees put much
effort into their work because they
identify with it. According to Kahn (1990, 1990) a dynamic,
dialectical relationship exists
between the person who drives personal energies (physical,
cognitive, emotional, and mental)
into his or her work role on the one hand, and the work role that
allows this person to express
him or herself on the other hand. Kahn (1992) differentiated the
concept of engagement from
psychological presence or the experience of ‘‘being fully
there,’’ namely when ‘‘ . . . people feel
and are attentive, connected, integrated, and focused in their
role performance’’ (p. 322). Put
differently, here engagement as behaviour (driving energy in

one’s work role) is considered as the
manifestation of psychological presence, a particular mental
state. In its turn, engagement is
assumed to produce positive outcomes, both at the individual
level (personal growth and
development) as well as at the organizational level
(performance quality).
Inspired by the work of Kahn (1990, 1992), Rothbard (2001)
took a slightly different
perspective and defined engagement as a two-dimensional
motivational construct that
includes attention (‘‘ . . . the cognitive availability and the
amount of time one spends thinking
about a role’’; p. 656) and absorption (‘‘ . . . the intensity of
one’s focus on a role’’; p. 656). It is
important to note that the key reference of engagement for Kahn
(1990, 1992) is the work
role, whereas for those who consider engagement as the positive
antithesis of burnout it is the
employee’s work activity, or the work itself.
Most scholars agree that engagement includes an energy
dimension and an identification
dimension. Work engagement is characterized by a high level of
energy and strong

identification with one’s work. The perspective of this special
issue is that the field is served
best by a consistent construct for work engagement, one that
focuses on employees’
experience of work activity. Unfortunately, the broad
exploration of constructs over the past
decade has not produced consensus about its meaning. In
contrast, a recent review of Macey
and Schneider (2008) documented the proliferation of various
definitions of engagement,
many of them being old wine in new bottles. These authors try
to ‘‘solve’’ the conceptual
confusion by proposing employee engagement as an all-
inclusive umbrella term that contains
different types of engagement (i.e., trait engagement, state
engagement, and behavioural
engagement), each of which entails various conceptualizations;
e.g., proactive personality
(trait engagement), involvement (state engagement), and
organizational citizenship behaviour
(behavioural engagement). In contrast, we advocate the use of
engagement as a specific, well-
defined, and properly operationalized psychological state that is
open to empirical research

and practical application. This special issue documents the
fruitfulness of this approach.
Measurement
There are several instruments that can be used to assess work
engagement (see Schaufeli &
Bakker, in press), but we will concentrate on the instruments
that have been validated more
extensively. Those who follow Maslach and Leiter’s (1997,
2008) approach can use the
MBI (Maslach et al., 1996) to assess energy (low score on
exhaustion), involvement (low
score on cynicism), and professional efficacy (high score on
efficacy). An alternative
instrument for the assessment of work engagement is the
Oldenburg Burnout Inventory
(OLBI; Demerouti & Bakker, 2008; Demerouti, Bakker,
Nachreiner, & Ebbinghaus, 2002).
This instrument was developed originally to assess burnout, but
includes both positively
and negatively phrased items, and hence it can be used to assess
work engagement as well

(see González-Roma et al., 2006). Researchers interested in
assessing work engagement with
the OLBI may recode the negatively framed items. The OLBI
includes two dimensions: one
ranging from exhaustion to vigour and a second ranging from
cynicism (disengagement) to
dedication. The reliability and factorial validity of the OLBI has
been confirmed in studies
conducted in Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, the USA, and
South Africa (Demerouti &
Bakker, 2008). Results of these studies clearly showed that a
two-factor structure with vigour
and dedication (referred to as exhaustion and disengagement in
several of these studies) as
the underlying factors fitted better to the data of several
occupational groups than alternative
factor structures.
The most often used instrument to measure engagement is the
Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker, in press; Schaufeli et al.,
2002) that includes three
subscales: vigour, dedication, and absorption. The UWES has
been validated in several
countries, including China (Yi-Wen & Yi-Qun, 2005), Finland

(Hakanen, 2002), Greece
(Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Kantas, in press), Japan
(Shimazu et al., 2008), South
Africa (Storm & Rothmann, 2003), Spain (Schaufeli et al.,
2002), and the Netherlands
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002). All
investigations used confirmatory factor
analyses and showed that the fit of the hypothesized three-factor
structure to the data was
superior to that of alternative factor models. In addition, the
internal consistencies of the
three subscales proved to be sufficient in each study. It should
be noted, however, that some
studies failed to replicate the three-factor structure of work
engagement (e.g., Shimazu et al.,
2008; Sonnentag, 2003). This may be attributed partly to
translation problems when it comes
to items that contain metaphors (e.g., ‘‘Time flies when I am
working’’). Furthermore,
Schaufeli and Bakker (in press) have argued that the overall
score for work engagement may
sometimes be more useful in empirical research than the scores
on the three separate
dimensions of the UWES. Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova

(2006) developed a 9-item version
of the UWES, and provided evidence for its cross-national
validity. They showed that the
three engagement dimensions are moderately strongly related.
What we know about work engagement
Previous research on work engagement has primarily used the
well-validated UWES, and
focused on the predictors of work engagement (job and personal
resources), outcomes
(performance), and differences from related concepts (e.g.,
workaholism, and organizational
commitment). In this section, we briefly review the available
evidence, and then we turn to a
research agenda for work engagement.
Work engagement is not the same as workaholism
Workaholics spend a great deal of time in work activities when
given the discretion to choose
whether to do so; they are excessively hard workers. In
addition, workaholics are reluctant to
disengage from work and they persistently and frequently think
about work when they are
not at work. This suggests that workaholics are obsessed with
their work; they are compulsive

workers (Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2006; Scott, Moore, &
Miceli, 1997). Engaged employees
work hard (vigour), are involved (dedicated), and feel happily
engrossed (absorbed) in their
work. In this sense, they seem similar to workaholics. However,
in contrast to workaholics,
engaged workers lack the typical compulsive drive. For them
work is fun, not an addiction, as
was concluded from a qualitative study among 15 engaged
workers (Schaufeli et al., 2001).
Engaged employees work hard because they like it and not
because they are driven by a
191 Work & Stress
strong inner urge they cannot resist. For workaholics, their need
to work is so exaggerated
that it endangers their health, reduces their happiness, and
deteriorates their interpersonal
relations and social functioning (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, &
Burke, in press). In short, work
engagement can be discriminated from workaholism (Taris,
Schaufeli, & Shimazu, in press).
Previous studies have also shown that work engagement can be

discriminated from Type-A
behaviour (Hallberg, Johansson, & Schaufeli, 2007), and from
job involvement and
organizational commitment (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). In
addition, Halbesleben and
Wheeler (2008) have shown that work engagement can be
distinguished from job
embeddedness.
Job resources facilitate engagement
Previous studies have consistently shown that job resources
such as social support from
colleagues and supervisors, performance feedback, skill variety,
autonomy, and learning
opportunities are positively associated with work engagement
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2008;
Halbesleben, in press; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Job
resources refer to those physical,
social, or organizational aspects of the job that may: (1) reduce
job demands and the
associated physiological and psychological costs; (2) be
functional in achieving work goals; or
(3) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Job resources either play an intrinsic motivational role because
they foster employees’
growth, learning, and development, or they play an extrinsic
motivational role because they
are instrumental in achieving work goals. In the former case,
job resources fulfil basic human
needs, such as the needs for autonomy, relatedness, and
competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Ryan & Frederick, 1997; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De
Witte, & Lens, 2008). For
instance, proper feedback fosters learning, thereby increasing
job competence, whereas
decision latitude and social support satisfy the need for
autonomy and the need to belong,
respectively. Job resources may also play an extrinsic
motivational role, because work
environments that offer many resources foster the willingness to
dedicate one’s efforts and
abilities to the work task (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). In such
environments it is likely that the
task will be completed successfully and that the work goal will
be attained. For instance,
supportive colleagues and performance feedback increase the
likelihood of being successful in

achieving one’s work goals. In either case, be it through the
satisfaction of basic needs or
through the achievement of work goals, the outcome is positive
and engagement is likely to
occur (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).
Consistent with these notions about the motivational role of job
resources, several studies
have shown a positive relationship between job resources and
work engagement (for a meta-
analysis, see Halbesleben, in press). For example, Schaufeli and
Bakker (2004) found evidence
for a positive relationship between three job resources
(performance feedback, social support,
and supervisory coaching) and work engagement (vigour,
dedication, and absorption) among
four samples of Dutch employees. This study was replicated in a
sample of over 2000 Finnish
teachers (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). Results showed
that job control, information,
supervisory support, innovative climate, and social climate were
all related positively to work
engagement. In addition, Koyuncu, Burke, and Fiksenbaum
(2006) examined potential
antecedents and consequences of work engagement in a sample
of women managers and

professionals employed by a large Turkish bank. Results
showed that of the six areas of work
life (Maslach & Leiter, 1997), particularly job control, rewards
and recognition, and value fit
were significant predictors of all three engagement measures.
Recent longitudinal research has generally confirmed the
positive relationship between
job resources and work engagement. Mauno, Kinnunen, and
Ruokolainen (2007) utilized a 2-
year longitudinal design to investigate work engagement and its
antecedents among Finnish
health care personnel. Job resources predicted work engagement
better than job demands.
Job control and organization-based self-esteem proved to be the
best lagged predictors of the
three dimensions of work engagement, after controlling for
Time 1 scores on the dimensions
of engagement. Further, in their study among managers and
executives of a Dutch telecom
company, Schaufeli, Bakker, and Van Rhenen (2008) found that
changes in job resources

were predictive of engagement over a 1-year time period.
Specifically, results showed that
increases in social support, autonomy, opportunities to learn
and to develop, and
performance feedback were positive predictors of Time 2 work
engagement after controlling
for baseline engagement. The two longitudinal studies included
in the special issue (de Lange,
De Witte, & Notelaers, 2008; Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola,
2008) offer additional evidence
for a causal effect of job resources on engagement.
Job resources become salient in the face of high job demands
Hobfoll (2002) has argued that resource gain acquires its
saliency in the context of resource
loss. This implies that job resources become more salient and
gain their motivational
potential when employees are confronted with high job demands
(Bakker & Demerouti,
2007). Hakanen, Bakker, and Demerouti (2005) tested this
interaction hypothesis in a sample
of Finnish dentists employed in the public sector. It was
hypothesized that job resources (e.g.,
variability in the required professional skills and peer contacts)
are most beneficial in

maintaining work engagement under conditions of high job
demands (e.g., workload,
unfavourable physical environment). The dentists were split in
two random groups in order to
cross-validate the findings. A set of hierarchical regression
analyses showed that 17 out of 40
possible interactions were statistically significant (43%),
showing that variability in
professional skills boosted work engagement when qualitative
workload was high, and
mitigated the negative effect of high qualitative workload on
work engagement.
Conceptually similar findings have been reported by Bakker,
Hakanen, Demerouti, and
Xanthopoulou (2007). In their study among Finnish teachers
working in elementary,
secondary, and vocational schools, they found that job resources
act as buffers and diminish
the negative relationship between pupil misbehaviour and work
engagement. In addition, they
found that job resources particularly influenced work
engagement when teachers were
confronted with high levels of pupil misconduct. A series of
moderated structural equation

analyses showed that 14 out of 18 possible two-way interaction
effects were statistically
significant (78%). Particularly, supervisor support,
innovativeness, appreciation, and
organizational climate were important job resources for teachers
that helped them cope
with demanding interactions with students. Taken together,
these findings clearly show that
job resources may become more salient and gain their
motivational potential when employees
are confronted with high job demands.
Personal resources facilitate engagement
In addition to job characteristics, several studies have focused
on state-like personal resources
as predictors of work engagement. Personal resources are
positive self-evaluations that are
linked to resiliency and refer to individuals’ sense of their
ability to control and impact upon
their environment successfully (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, &
Jackson, 2003). It has been shown
193 Work & Stress
that such positive self-evaluations predict goal-setting,

motivation, performance, job and life
satisfaction, and other desirable outcomes (for a review, see
Judge, Van Vianen, & De Pater,
2004). The reason for this is that the larger an individual’s
personal resources, the more
positive their self-regard and the more goal self-concordance is
expected to be experienced
(Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005). Individuals with goal self-
concordance are intrinsically
motivated to pursue their goals, and as a result they trigger
higher performance and
satisfaction (see also Luthans & Youssef, 2007).
Several authors have investigated the relationships between
personal resources and work
engagement. For example, Rothmann and Storm (2003)
conducted a cross-sectional study
among 1910 South African police officers, and found that
engaged police officers had an
active coping style. They were problem-focused, taking active
steps to attempt to remove or
rearrange stressors. Further, in their study among highly skilled
Dutch technicians,
Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2007)
examined the role of three personal

resources (self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem, and
optimism) in predicting work
engagement. Results showed that engaged employees are highly
self-efficacious; they believe
they are able to meet the demands they face in a broad array of
contexts. In addition, engaged
workers believe that they will generally experience good
outcomes in life (optimistic), and
believe they can satisfy their needs by participating in roles
within the organization
(organizational-based self-esteem; see also Mauno et al., 2007).
These findings were replicated and expanded in a 2-year follow-
up study (Xanthopoulou,
Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008). The findings indicated
that self-efficacy, organiza-
tional-based self-esteem, and optimism make a unique
contribution to explaining variance in
work engagement over time, over and above the impact of job
resources and previous levels of
engagement. As a final example, Bakker, Gierveld, and Van
Rijswijk (2006) in their study
among female school principals found that those with most
personal resources scored highest
on work engagement. Particularly resilience, self-efficacy, and
optimism contributed to work

engagement, and were able to explain unique variance in
engagement scores (in addition to
social support from team members and colleague principals,
opportunities for development,
and social support from the intimate partner). Thus, resilience is
another personal resource
that may facilitate work engagement.
In conclusion, job and personal resources are important
antecedents of work engagement.
Job resources reduce the impact of job demands on strain, are
functional in achieving work
goals, and stimulate personal growth, learning, and
development. These resources particu-
larly have motivational potential in the face of high job
demands. Further, engaged employees
seem to differ from other employees in terms of their personal
resources, including optimism,
self-efficacy, self-esteem, resilience, and an active coping style.
These resources seem to help
engaged workers to control and impact upon their work
environment successfully (see also
Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008).
Relationship with performance

Bakker (in press) mentions four reasons why engaged workers
perform better than non-
engaged workers. Engaged employees: (1) often experience
positive emotions, including
happiness, joy, and enthusiasm; (2) experience better
psychological and physical health; (3)
create their own job and personal resources (e.g., support from
others); and (4) transfer their
engagement to others. Whereas positive emotions broaden
people’s thought-action repertoire
(Fredrickson, 2003), good health facilitates performance
because individuals can use all their
mental and physical resources (skills, abilities, knowledge,
etc.). Further, employees who
create their own resources are better able to deal with their job
demands and to achieve their
work goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Finally, in most
organizations performance is the
result of the combined effort of individual employees. It is
therefore conceivable that the
crossover of engagement among members of the same work

team increases performance.
Only a few studies have examined the relationship between
work engagement and job
performance (see Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Nevertheless, the
results obtained so far look
promising. Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke (2004) showed that
engaged employees received
higher ratings from their colleagues on in-role and extra-role
performance, indicating that
engaged employees perform well and are willing to go the extra
mile. Further, in their survey
among Dutch employees from a wide range of occupations,
Schaufeli, Taris, and Bakker
(2006) found that work engagement is related positively to in-
role performance. These
findings were expanded in another study among secretaries;
Gierveld and Bakker (2005)
found that engaged secretaries scored higher on in-role and
extra-role performance. In
addition, results suggested that engaged secretaries had more
influence on daily business.
They were more often asked to carry out additional tasks,
including personnel pre-selection,
the organization of trade exhibitions and conventions, and

website maintenance.
Salanova, Agut, and Peiró (2005) conducted an important study
among personnel
working in Spanish restaurants and hotels. Contact employees
from over 100 service units
(hotel front desks and restaurants) provided information about
organizational resources,
engagement, and service climate. Furthermore, customers from
these units provided
information on employee performance and customer loyalty.
Structural equation modelling
analyses were consistent with a full mediation model in which
organizational resources and
work engagement predicted service climate, which in turn
predicted employee performance
and then customer loyalty. Finally, Xanthopoulou, Bakker,
Demerouti, and Schaufeli (in
press) conducted a diary study among employees working in a
Greek fast-food restaurant,
and found that daily levels of work engagement were predictive
of objective daily financial
returns.
We can conclude that research supports the link between work
engagement and

performance. Employees who feel vital and strong, and who are
enthusiastic about their
work, show better in-role and extra-role performance. As a
consequence, engaged workers
realize better financial results, and have more satisfied clients
and customers.
What we don’t know about work engagement: a brief research
agenda
Since research on work engagement has just started, there are
many questions that still need
to be answered. Below we discuss five topics that seem highly
relevant for further progress in
the emerging field of work engagement.
Daily work engagement
Most previous studies on work engagement have used a
between-person design and cannot
explain why engaged employees sometimes show below average
or poor performance. Even
engaged employees may have their off-days, and researchers
have therefore begun to examine
daily changes in work engagement. An important advantage of
diary research is that it relies
less on retrospective recall than regular surveys, since the
questions relate to individuals’

perceptions and feelings on a certain day. Additionally, daily
changes in work engagement
within persons can be related causally to daily changes in
performance. Diary research may
195 Work & Stress
also reveal what the day-to-day triggers are of state engagement
(Sonnentag, Dormann, &
Demerouti, in press).
Short- vs. long-term consequences of engagement
The available research evidence suggests that work engagement
has positive effects in the
short- (Sonnentag, 2003; Xanthopoulou et al., in press) and the
long-term (Mauno et al.,
2007; Schaufeli et al., 2008). However, a relevant question is
whether there is also a dark side
of engagement. Can the level of engagement be too high if
employees are in a continuous
state of high engagement (see Sonnentag, Mojza, Binnewies, &
Scholl, 2008)? Engagement
may give new energy, but does it take energy in the end? Can
engaged employees finally burn

out? What is the role of recovery in this process? Future studies
may use multiple waves with
short and longer periods between the waves of data collection to
examine the short- and long-
term consequences of work engagement. There is particularly a
dearth of research on the
relationship between engagement and health.
Interventions
Future research on work engagement would benefit from a
resolute focus on interventions.
This research would make the most valuable contribution by not
only focusing on something
positive, but also working directly on increasing the prevalence
of positive relationships with
work. Moreover, from a theoretical perspective it would be
interesting and important to test
the hypothesis that fostering engagement goes beyond
preventing burnout. A disappointment
of the extensive research on job burnout is the dearth of
research that explicitly tests
interventions to alleviate the syndrome (Maslach, Schaufeli, &
Leiter, 2001). The research
literature is supplied abundantly with cross-sectional studies
demonstrating burnout’s

correlates and too few demonstrating planned change. We urge
researchers to go beyond
investigating work engagement’s causes and consequences. The
greatest contribution will
come from systematic studies that evaluate the impact of new
management procedures or
personal routines on work engagement. Interesting questions are
whether engagement can be
trained, and whether the engagement frame facilitates
interventions.
Self-regulation
How do people manage their own work engagement? According
to self-regulation theories,
individuals use strategies that enable them to guide their goal-
directed activities over time and
across changing circumstances. For instance, regulatory focus
theory (Higgins, 2000)
discriminates between two regulatory foci among individuals.
When promotion focused,
individuals are motivated by growth and development needs,
have strong ideals, and prefer
gain to the avoidance of losses. When prevention focused,
individuals are responsive to
security needs, the responsibility for safety and protection, have

strong emphasis on
obligations, and prefer the avoidance of loss to gains. The
regulatory focus that people
apply is a matter of individual differences but can also be
influenced by the environment
(Higgins, 2000). It would be interesting to examine the impact
of regulatory foci on work
engagement and vice versa. Do work environments that
emphasize growth and resources
foster a promotion focus and work engagement? Promotion-
focused employees may
successfully balance such environments with themselves using
eagerness and approach
strategies (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). In contrast,
environments that emphasize duties and
demands may foster a prevention focus. Prevention-focused
employees may be engaged and
function successfully in such environments using vigilance and
avoidance strategies. In short,
future studies could investigate whether engagement is highest
when people encounter

regulatory fit between their chronic (preferred focus) and task-
induced regulatory state.
Conceptual development and integration
Further progress in research would be more effective if there
were broad agreement on the
meaning of work engagement. As noted above, there is broad
consensus on two dimensions of
work engagement: energy and involvement/identification, both
of which are included in the
OLBI (Demerouti & Bakker, 2008), the MBI (Maslach et al.,
1996), and the UWES
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). As far as the dimensions of work
engagement are concerned, further
work is needed to consider whether absorption is a core aspect
of work engagement or an
outcome of energy and identification, and on the role of
professional efficacy. Resolving these
questions requires further development in theory and
measurement. Based on theoretical
analyses and research on the construct and concurrent validity,
relationships between
engagement and other established constructs such as
satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, and organizational citizenship behaviour should be
specified. In this way, the added

value of the recently emerged concept of work engagement
should be demonstrated.
Conclusion
In this paper we have shown that research on work engagement
may broaden our view of the
meaning and effects of working (see Turner et al., 2002).
Employees with high levels of energy
and identification with their work have many resources
available and seem to perform better.
It is even conceivable that engaged workers create their own job
resources over time. Our
overview suggests that a focus on work engagement may not
only benefit the individual but
also offer organizations a competitive advantage. We hope that
the research agenda that we
have outlined above will be a useful resource for occupational
health psychologists and will
stimulate future research on work engagement.
References
Bakker, A.B. (in press). Building engagement in the workplace.
In C. Cooper & R. Burke (Eds.), The
peak performing organization. London: Routledge.
Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-

resources model: State of the art. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22, 309�328.
Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work
engagement. Career Development
International, 13, 209�223.
Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organizational
behavior: Engaged employees in
flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29, 147�154.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. (in press).
Workaholism and relationship quality: A spillover-
crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the
Job Demands-Resources model to predict
burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43,
83�104.
Bakker, A.B., Gierveld, J.H., & Van Rijswijk, K. (2006).
Succesfactoren bij vrouwelijke schoolleiders in
het primair onderwijs: Een onderzoek naar burnout,
bevlogenheid en prestaties [Success factors among
female school principals in primary teaching: A study on
burnout, work engagement, and

performance]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Right Management
Consultants.
197 Work & Stress
Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. & Xanthopoulou, D.
(2007). Job resources boost work
engagement particularly when job demands are high. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 274�284.
Brockner, J. & Higgins, E.T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory:
Implications for the study of emotions at
work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
86, 35�66.
de Lange, A.H., De Witte, H., & Notelaers, G. (2008). Should I
stay or should I go? Examining
longitudinal relations among job resources and work
engagement for stayers versus movers. Work &
Stress, 22, 201�223.
Deci, W.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.
Demerouti, E. & Bakker, A.B. (2008). The Oldenburg Burnout
Inventory: A good alternative to
measure burnout and engagement. In J.R.B. Halbesleben (Ed.),

Handbook of stress and burnout in
health care. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (in press). Work engagement
and performance. In A.B. Bakker &
M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: Recent developments in
theory and research. New York:
Psychology Press.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. & Ebbinghaus, M.
(2002). From mental strain to burnout.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11,
423�441.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals
in organizations. In K. Cameron, J.
Dutton & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship
(pp. 163�175). San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Gierveld, J.H., & Bakker, A.B. (2005). De invloed van de
secretaresse [The influence of the secretary].
Diemen, The Netherlands: Manpower.
González-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. & Lloret, S.
(2006). Burnout and engagement:
Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68, 165�174.

Hakanen, J. (2002). Työuupumuksesta työn imuun*positiivisen
työhyvinvointikäsitteen ja-menetelmän
suomalaisen version validointi opetusalan organisaatiossa [From
burnout to job engagement*
validation of the Finnish version of an instrument for measuring
job engagement (UWES) in an
educational organization]. Työ ja Ihminen, 16, 42�58.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2005). How
dentists cope with their job demands and stay
engaged: The moderating role of job resources. European
Journal of Oral Sciences, 113, 479�487.
Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Burnout
and work engagement among teachers.
Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495�513.
Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job
Demands-Resources model: A three-year
cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and
work engagement. Work & Stress, 22,
224�241.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (in press). A meta-analysis of work
engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources and consequences. In A.B. Bakker & M.P.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement:

Recent developments in theory and research. New York:
Psychology Press.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Wheeler, A.R. (2008). The relative roles
of engagement and embeddedness in
predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work &
Stress, 22, 242�256.
Hallberg, U. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). ‘‘Same same’’ but
different? Can work engagement be
discriminated from job involvement and organizational
commitment? European Psychologist, 11,
119�127.
Hallberg, U.E., Johansson, G. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2007). Type
A behavior and work situation:
Associations with burnout and work engagement. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 48, 135�142.
Higgins, E.T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit.
American Psychologist, 55, 1217�1230.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and
adaptation. Review of General Psychology,
6, 307�324.
Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N. & Jackson, A.P. (2003).
Resource loss, resource gain, and
emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84,

632�643.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A. & Locke, E.A. (2005). Core
self-evaluations and job and life
satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
257�268.
Judge, T.A., Van Vianen, A.E.M. & De Pater, I. (2004).
Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and
job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for
future research. Human Performance, 17,
325�346.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692�724.
Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at
work. Human Relations, 45, 321�349.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. & Fiksenbaum, L. (2006). Work
engagement among women managers and
professionals in a Turkish bank: Potential antecedents and
consequences. Equal Opportunities

International, 25, 299�310.
Luthans, F. & Youssef, C.M. (2007). Emerging positive
organizational behavior. Journal of Manage-
ment, 33, 321�349.
Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B.J. & Avey, J.B. (2008).
The mediating role of psychological capital
in the supportive organizational climate*employee performance
relationship. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 29, 219�238.
Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee
engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3�30.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M.P. (1997). The truth about burnout:
How organizations cause personal stress and
what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M.P. (2008). Early predictors of job
burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 498�512.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. & Leiter, M. (1996). Maslach
Burnout Inventory manual, 3rd ed. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job
burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
397�422.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U. & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job
demands and resources as antecedents of
work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70, 149�171.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. (2004). The
psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety
and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77, 11�37.
Meijman, T.F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of
workload. In P.J.D. Drenth & H. Thierry
(Eds.), (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational
psychology, Vol. 2: Work psychology (pp. 5�33).
Hove: Psychology Press.
Myers, D.G. (2000). The funds, friends and faith of happy
people. American Psychologist, 55, 56�67.
Rothbard, N.P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of
engagement in work and family roles.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655�684.
Rothmann, S., & Storm, K. (2003, May). Work engagement in

the South African Police Service. Paper
presented at the 11th European Congress of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ryan, R.M. & Frederick, C.M. (1997). On energy, personality,
and health: Subjective vitality as a
dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65,
529�565.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. & Peiró, J.M. (2005). Linking
organizational resources and work engagement to
employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of
service climate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1217�1227.
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). UWES*Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale: test manual.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Utrecht
University.
Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job
resources, and their relationship with burnout
and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293�315.
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (in press). The
conceptualization and measurement of work
engagement: A review. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.),
Work engagement: Recent developments

in theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.
199 Work & Stress
Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An
emerging psychological concept and its
implications for organizations. In S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner
& D.P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in
social issues in management: Vol. 5. Managing social and
ethical issues in organizations. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishers.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66,
701�716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). How
changes in job demands and resources
predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. & Bakker,
A.B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor

analytic approach. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 3, 71�92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. & Bakker, A.B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde: On the differences between
work engagement and workaholism. In R.J. Burke (Ed.),
Research companion to working time and
work addiction (pp. 193�217). Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker,
A.B. & De Jonge, J. (2001). Maakt arbeid
gezond? Op zoek naar de bevlogen werknemer [Does work make
happy? In search of the engaged
worker]. De Psycholoog, 36, 422�428.
Scott, K.S., Moore, K.S. & Miceli, M.P. (1997). An exploration
of the meaning and consequences of
workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287�314.
Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive
psychology: An introduction. American
Psychologist, 55, 5�14.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa,
H., Kato, A., et al. (2008). Work
engagement in Japan: Development and validation of the
Japanese version of the Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 57, 510�523.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and
proactive behavior: A new look at the interface
between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 518�528.
Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (in press). Not all
days are created equal: The concept of
state work engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.),
Work engagement: Recent developments
in theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.
Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E.J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008).
Being engaged at work and detached at
home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological
detachment, and affect. Work & Stress,
22, 257�276.
Storm, K. & Rothmann, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in
the South African police service. South African Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 29, 62�70.
Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Shimazu, A. (in press).
Workaholism versus engagement: What’s the
difference? In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work
engagement: Recent developments in theory and

research. New York: Psychology Press.
Turner, N., Barling, J., & Zacharatos, A. (2002). Positive
psychology at work. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez
(Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 715�730).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens,
W., (2008). Explaining the relationships
between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role
of basic psychological need
satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22, 277�294.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli,
W.B. (2007). The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model. International
Journal of Stress Management, 14,
121�141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli,
W.B. (2008). Work engagement: A cycle of
job and personal resources. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Kantas, A.

(in press). The measurement of burnout
and engagement: A cross-cultural study comparing Greece and
the Netherlands. New Review of
Social Psychology.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli,
W.B. (in press). Work engagement and
financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal
resources. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology.
Yi-Wen, Z. & Yi-Qun, C. (2005). The Chinese version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: An
examination of reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 13, 268�270.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 59, 291–309 (2001)
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803, available online at
http://www.idealibrary.com on
Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in Response to Job
Stressors and Organizational Justice: Some Mediator
and Moderator Tests for Autonomy and Emotions
Suzy Fox

Institute of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Loyola
University Chicago
and
Paul E. Spector and Don Miles
University of South Florida
Relations among job stressors, perceived justice, negative
emotional reactions to work,
counterproductive work behavior (CWB), autonomy, and
affective traits were investi-
gated. Participants representing a wide variety of jobs across
many organizations were
surveyed both inside and outside a university setting. Results
were consistent with a the-
oretical job stress framework in which organizational
constraints, interpersonal confict,
and perceived injustice are job stressors, CWB is a behavioral
strain response, and nega-
tive emotion mediates the stressor–strain relationship. Only
very weak support was found
for the moderating role of affective disposition (trait anger and
trait anxiety), and no
support was found for the expected moderating role of
autonomy in the stressor–CWB
relationship. °C 2001 Academic Press
Recent years have seen an explosion of interest among
organizational research-
ers in counterproductive work behaviors (CWB), such as
aggression, interpersonal
confict, sabotage, and theft. Although most of this work has
been directed toward

validating integrity tests with the objective of devising ways to
identify counter-
productive employees so that companies can avoid hiring them,
two streams of
research have focused on ascertaining the causes of these
behaviors. Spector and
colleagues (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999;
Spector 1975, 1978;
Storms & Spector, 1987) have portrayed CWB as an emotion-
based response to
stressful organizational conditions. Greenberg and colleagues
(e.g., Greenberg,
1990) and Skarlicki, Folger and colleagues (Skarlicki & Folger,
1997; Skarlicki,
We thank Linda Mezydlo Subich for her most helpful
substantive and editorial suggestions through-
out the process of revising this article.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Suzy Fox,
Institute of Human Resources and In-
dustrial Relations, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan
Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. E-mail:
[email protected]
291
0001-8791/01 $35.00
Copyright °C 2001 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.idealibrary.com
292 FOX, SPECTOR, AND MILES

Folger, & Tesluk, 1999) have taken an organizational justice
perspective, viewing
CWB as a cognition-based response to experienced injustice.
These two perspec-
tives are not incompatible, and in fact Spector (1978) noted
links with the equity
(justice) concept, and Greenberg (1990) noted links with
frustration theory. The
current study integrates both perspectives, assessing relations
among job stressors,
perceptions of injustice, and CWB within the framework of job
stress theory. It is
further proposed that, consistent with this theoretical
framework, emotional reac-
tions to job stressors and injustice perceptions, affective
disposition, and perceived
control over work are key links in these relations.
The Nature of Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)
CWB is behavior that is intended to have a detrimental effect on
organizations
and their members. It can include overt acts such as aggression
and theft or more
passive acts, such as purposely failing to follow instructions or
doing work incor-
rectly. CWB has been conceptualized in a number of ways,
including organizational
aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Fox & Spector, 1999),
antisocial behavior
(Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), delinquency (Hogan & Hogan,
1989), deviance
(Hollinger, 1986; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), retaliation
(Skarlicki & Folger,
1997), revenge (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997), and
mobbing/bullying (Knorz &

Zapf, 1996). The common theme is that these behaviors are
harmful to the organi-
zation by directly affecting its functioning or property, or by
hurting employees in
a way that will reduce their effectiveness. A number of
researchers (Fox & Spector,
1999; Robinson & Bennett, 1995) have found evidence that
perceptions of CWBs
and/or relations of CWBs to individual and organizational
variables allow us to
distinguish two categories of behaviors: those targeting the
organization and those
targeting other persons in the organization.
A Job Stress/Emotion/CWB Model
Integrating both the CWB and job stress literatures, Spector
(1998) and Spector
and Fox (in press) developed a job stress/emotion/CWB model
that suggests these
behaviors are responses to job stressors at work. According to
this view, people
monitor and appraise events in the environment (Lazarus, 1991),
and certain events
that are seen as threats to well-being are job stressors that
induce negative emotional
reactions, such as anger or anxiety (Spector, 1998). Common
examples of job
stressors are role confict and ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964),
interpersonal confict
(Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1998), and situational constraints
(Peters & O’Connor,
1990). Strain is an outcome of the job stress process that can be
psychological (e.g.,
job dissatisfaction or turnover intention), physical (e.g., somatic
symptoms such

as headache, physiological changes such as increased blood
pressure, and long-
term pathology), or behavioral (e.g., smoking or withdrawal
from work). CWB is
a manifestation of behavioral strain.
Emotions play a central role in the job stress process. Because
emotions represent
the immediate response to situations that are perceived as
stressful (Lazarus, 1991;
Lovallo, 1997; Payne, 1999), and because they energize and
motivate subsequent
293 COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR
behavior and physiological change (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997;
Spector, 1998),
we can defne their role as a mediator between job stressors and
strains, therefore
serving a mediator role for CWB. In fact, Fox and Spector
(1999) found evidence of
this mediating role for emotions in the relation between
organizational constraints
(a stressor) and CWB. The Spector and Fox (in press) model
suggests a fow from
environment to perception, to negative emotion, to CWB, but
there are several
mitigating factors. Individuals vary in their propensity to
appraise situations as
stressful both among one another and across time, so
perceptions of control and
personality are two important factors to consider.
Much has been written concerning the importance of control as

both an additive
and moderator factor in the job stress process (e.g.,
Frankenhaeuser & Johannson,
1986; Karasek, 1979; Spector, 1986; Thompson, 1981). The
core common to this
literature is that it is not the objective events or stimuli in the
environment that
cause adverse outcomes (strains), but rather the perceptions of
the individual of not
having the control (which Karasek further specifes to include
decision latitude and
task autonomy) to cope with these threats or demands. In the
CWB arena, Allen and
Greenberger (1980) suggested that perceptions of control are an
important determi-
nant of counterproductive work behavior, as nonconstructive
behavioral responses
are more likely when a person perceives low control of the
situation. Support for
this idea in the work context was provided by Storms and
Spector (1987). Yet, it
is not control in general that is important, but rather control
over the job stressor
itself. Having control over specifc tasks (i.e., task autonomy)
may be helpful in
reducing the stressfulness of task-related stressors such as
workload, but it will
not affect the stressfulness of unrelated stressors such as
interpersonal confict.
Personality traits are also relevant factors in CWB, and an
entire integrity test
industry has grown around the idea that personality tests can
predict these behav-
iors (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993). Affective
dispositions, the tendency

to experience similar emotions across situations, seem
particularly relevant. Neg-
ative affectivity (NA), a generalized dispositional tendency for
an individual to
experience negative emotions across time and situations, has
been studied widely
in relation to perceptions of job stressors, injustice, constraints,
and strains (Chen
& Spector, 1991; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999; Spector &
O’Connell, 1994).
Trait anxiety (Spielberger & Sydeman, 1994), the relatively
stable tendency to
perceive stressful situations as threatening, has been used
frequently in stress re-
search in place of NA (Ganster & Schoebroeck, 1991). Fox and
Spector (1999)
found trait anxiety to be associated with CWB.
Another potentially important personality characteristic is trait
anger, the like-
lihood that individuals perceive a wide range of situations as
anger-provoking
(Spielberger, Krasner, & Solomon, 1988). Individuals high in
trait anger have re-
ported experiencing more frequent and intense day-to-day anger
across a wide
variety of provocative situations, stronger tendencies to respond
to provocations
with physical and verbal antagonism, and lower instances of
constructive coping
(Deffenbacher, 1992). Fox and Spector (1999) found trait anger
to be particularly
associated with CWBs targeting persons in the organization.

Organizational Justice as a Stressor
Organizational justice is concerned with employee perceptions
of fair or just
treatment on the job. It fts defnitions of job stressors as being
situations that elicit
an adaptive response (Jex & Beehr, 1991) or situations that
elicit negative emotional
reactions (Spector, 1998). For example, the seminal equity
theory and empirical
work by Adams (1963) suggests that inequity (injustice)
motivates people to make
adaptive responses in a variety of ways, both cognitive and
behavioral. More
recent work on justice has linked perceptions of injustice to
negative emotions
(e.g., Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Zohar (1995) specifcally
demonstrated the role
of organizational justice in the job stress process as a role
stressor, in the elicitation
of both negative emotion and consequent strain responses, but
did not link stress
to counterproductive behavior.
Two major forms of justice have been studied. Distributive
justice relates to
people’s perceptions of the fairness of the outcomes they
receive relative to their
contributions and to the outcomes and contributions of others.
Procedural jus-
tice involves people’s perceptions of the fairness of procedures
used to deter-
mine those distributions (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Levanthal,
Karusa, & Fry,

1980). Several studies have linked both forms of justice
perceptions with coun-
terproductive organizational behaviors. Skarlicki and Folger
(1997) summarized
research that indicates employees may respond to perceptions of
unfair treatment
with negative emotions, such as anger, outrage, and resentment
(Folger, 1993);
desire for retribution; and a range of direct and indirect
behavioral responses
such as theft (Greenberg, 1990), vandalism, sabotage, reduction
of citizenship
behaviors, withdrawal, and resistance (Jermier, Knights, &
Nord, 1994). Skar-
licki, Folger, and Tesluk (1999) further demonstrated that the
relation between
perceived injustice and what they call organizational retaliatory
behavior (ORB)
is moderated by personality factors such as negative affectivity
and agreeable-
ness. Cropanzano and Baron (1991) linked injustice to emotions
and workplace
confict.
Indeed, many parallels have emerged between the job stress and
organizational
justice explanations of counterproductive organizational
behavior, including the
central roles of emotional responses and affective dispositions.
By viewing per-
ceived injustice as a type of job stressor, we arrive at a unifying
framework for
understanding CWB that incorporates constraints, confict,
justice perceptions,
control (autonomy), emotional responses, and affective
dispositions as antecedents

of distinct categories of behavioral responses.
The Current Study
The purpose of the current study was to explore this unifed job
stress/injustice/
emotions approach to counterproductive work behavior. Our
primary objective
was to investigate whether job stressors and organizational
justice relate in a sim-
ilar fashion to CWB. The job stressor/emotion/CWB model
posits a mediating
role for emotions. Thus we set out to investigate the extent to
which relations of
job stressors (interpersonal confict and organizational
constraints) and organiza-
tional justice with CWB are mediated by negative emotions. We
also looked at the
possibility suggested by the job stress literature that employee
control (autonomy)
and affective dispositions moderate the relations between job
stressors/organi-
zational justice and CWB. Throughout, we looked for distinct
patterns of relations
with CWB behaviors targeting the organization versus people.
Specifcally, we
hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1: High levels of confict and organizational
constraints and low levels of per-
ceived justice are associated with high levels of negative

emotions and CWB.
Hypothesis 2: High levels of negative emotions are associated
with high levels of CWB.
Hypothesis 3: Negative emotions mediate the relation between
stressors/injustice and
CWB.
Hypothesis 4: Perceived task autonomy, trait anxiety, and trait
anger moderate the rela-
tions between job stressors/injustice and CWB. Those
individuals perceiving low autonomy
and those individuals who are high in these affective traits are
more likely to respond to job
stressors/injustice with CWB.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 292 employees at a variety of organizations in
southern and
central Florida. Of these, 214 (73%) were University of South
Florida psychology
and management students who also were employed, and 78
(27%) were nonstudent
employees from manufacturing, fnancial, utility, entertainment,
and academic
organizations in Tampa. The nonstudent employees were given
the questionnaire
booklets on a strictly voluntary basis by their supervisors. The
supervisors who
distributed the surveys were part-time graduate students in a
Human Resource
Management class designed for practicing managers.

Participants returned the
surveys directly to the researchers by U.S. mail or in sealed
envelopes in sealed
containers at work. Of the 292 participants, 109 (37%) were
men and 183 (63%)
were women.
Measures
The anonymous self-report survey included measures of job
stressors (auton-
omy, constraints, confict, and justice), affect (positive
emotions, negative emo-
tions, trait anger, and trait anxiety), and counterproductive work
behaviors (CWB).
These measures were ordered following the model from left to
right, that is, stres-
sors, affective responses, and behavioral responses.
Job stressors. Work constraints were measured by the
Organizational Con-
straints Scale (OCS; Spector & Jex, 1998), an 11-item scale
based on constraint
areas identifed by Peters and O’Connor (1980). Respondents
indicated the fre-
quency with which their job performance was hindered by
constraints such as
rules and procedures, availability of resources, co-workers,
interruptions, and in-
adequate training. Spector and Jex (1998) reported a mean
Cronbach’s ® of .85
across eight samples. Predictive validity was demonstrated with
mean correlations
of .26 with physical symptoms across fve studies and ¡.38 with
job satisfaction
across seven studies.

Confict was assessed with Spector and Jex’s (1998) four-item
Interpersonal
Confict at Work Scale (ICAWS), which measures how often the
employee expe-
rienced arguments, yelling, and rudeness in interactions with
co-workers. For the
confict scale (ICAWS), Spector and Jex (1998) reported a mean
Cronbach’s ® of
.74 across 13 samples. Predictive validity was demonstrated
with mean correla-
tions of .26 with physical symptoms across 7 studies and ¡.32
with job satisfaction
across 10 studies. For both the OCS and ICAWS measures, fve
response choices
range from 1 D Less than once per month or never to 5 D
Several times per day.
High scores represent high levels of constraints or confict.
Work autonomy was measured with the Factual Autonomy Scale
(FAS; Fox,
Spector, & Van Katwyk, 1997), which was developed with the
objective of provid-
ing items that are factual in nature and resistant to affective
bias. Six items begin
with “Do you have to ask permission to : : :” and end with an
aspect of scheduling,
such as “take a rest break” or “change the hours you work.”
Three items begin with
“Does someone tell you : : :” and end with “what,” “when,” or
“how” the person
was to work. The fve response choices range from 1 D never to

5 D always. Fox et
al. found a Cronbach’s ® of .81; they found the self-reported
FAS to correlate sig-
nifcantly (r D .22) with supervisory ratings of job performance
(which the more
commonly used autonomy subscale of the Job Diagnostic
Survey failed to do).
Perceptions of organizational justice were assessed with
distributive and proce-
dural justice scales reported in Moorman (1991). The
Distributive Justice Index,
consisting of 6 items tapping the extent to which the employee
is fairly rewarded
considering work inputs, was developed by Price and Mueller
(1986). Five response
choices range from 1 D very unfairly to 5 D very fairly, with a
high score repre-
senting a high level of distributive justice. The 12-item
procedural justice scale,
which Moorman (1991) based on Levanthal’s (1980) rules of
procedural justice,
was designed initially to assess two factors, fairness of formal
procedures and
interactional justice. The present data confrm Moorman’s
(personal e-mail corre-
spondence, February 3, 1999) fndings that these factors are
highly intercorrelated
and lack an interpretable factor structure. Therefore we
combined the 12 items into
a single Procedural Justice scale (as did Moorman et al., 1998).
Response choices
range from 1 D strongly disagree to 5 D strongly agree, with
high scores represent-
ing high levels of procedural justice. Moorman (1991) found
Cronbach’s ®s of .94,

.94, and .93 for the distributive, procedural, and interactive
justice scales. He re-
ported that distributive justice predicted the altruism, courtesy,
sportsmanship, and
conscintiousness components of organizational citizenship
behavior (r D .15, .18,
.22, and .23, respectively); procedural justice predicted
courtesy, sportsmanship,
and conscientiousness (r D .17, .16, and .22, respectively); and
interactive justice
predicted altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and
conscientiousness (r D .16, .32,
.29, and .32, respectively).
Affect. A wide range of emotions experienced in response to the
job was mea-
sured with the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS),
developed by Van
Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway (2000). Items on the JAWS
ask employees
to indicate how often any part of the job has made them feel
each of 30 emotional
states. The fve response choices range from 1 D almost never to
5 D extremely
often or always. High scores represent high levels of each
emotion. A positive
emotions score was obtained by summing the scores on the 13
positive affect
items; a negative emotions score was obtained by summing
scores on the 17 neg-
ative affect items. Only the negative emotions score was used in

the current study.
Van Katwyk et al. (2000) reported a Cronbach’s ® of .95 for the
overall JAWS scale;
this score was related to organizational constraints (r D¡.39),
confict (r D¡.34),
turnover intentions (r D¡.60), and physical symptoms (r D¡.33).
Negative item
subscales (Cronbach’s ® D .80) predicted these variables as
well, with r ’s ranging
from .34 to .58.
Spielberger’s (1979) State-Trait Personality Inventory was used
to measure af-
fective disposition. The 10-item Trait Anxiety scale measures a
generalized ten-
dency to experience anxiety across time and situations. The 10-
item Trait Anger
scale assesses the likelihood of perceiving a wide range of
situations as anger-
provoking. Four response choices range from 1 D almost never
to 4 D almost al-
ways, with high scores representing high levels of trait anxiety
or trait anger.
Spielberger (1979) reported ® coeffcients ranging from .80 to
.92 for Trait Anx-
iety and .82 to .92 for Trait Anger across different ages and
genders. In a prior
study, Fox and Spector (1999) found trait anxiety and trait
anger to be among
the strongest predictors of counterproductive work behavior (r
D .36 and .59,
respectively).
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Counterproductive
work behaviors
were assessed with a behavioral checklist based on a master list

compiled from a
number of existing measures (Fox & Spector, 1999; Hollinger,
1986; Knorz & Zapf,
1996; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Robinson & Bennett, 1995,
Skarlicki & Folger,
1997; Spector, 1975). Our goal was to avoid duplication while
including as many
distinct behaviors as possible. We put the resulting 64-item list
into a scale format,
asking participants to indicate how often they had done each of
the behaviors on
their present job. The fve response choices range from 1 D
never to 5 D every day,
with high scores representing high incidence of
counterproductive behaviors. In
addition to an overall counterproductive behavior score,
subscores were provided
for behaviors targeting the organization or productivity (e.g.,
“Tried to look busy
while doing nothing,” “Put in to be paid for more hours than
you worked,” “Came
to work late without permission,” and “Told people outside the
job what a lousy
place you work for”) and those targeting other persons in the
organization (e.g.,
“Insulted someone about their job performance,” “Made fun of
someone’s personal
life,” “Refused to help a coworker,” and “Started an argument
with a coworker”).
This classifcation was consistent with Robinson and Bennett’s
(1995) taxonomy of
organizational deviance and Fox and Spector’s (1999) earlier
measures of personal
and organizational CWB. Fox and Spector (1999) reported a
Cronbach’s ® of .86
for their earlier version of the CWB measure. Organizational

CWB was related to
constraints, locus of control, job satisfaction and frustration (r
D .37, .32, ¡.45, and
.36, respectively), and Personal CWB was related to constraints,
locus of control,
and frustration (r D .26, .19, and .23, respectively).
RESULTS
To determine if we were justifed in combining the student and
nonstudent
samples, zero-order correlations were run separately for the two
samples. The z
tests comparing the resulting correlations for the two samples
found differences in
only 3 of the 55 correlations among the study variables, perhaps
the level expected
by chance. Differences were found for trait anger and
procedural justice, CWB
targeting the organization and procedural justice, and
constraints and positive
emotion. In all three cases, the relations were stronger for the
nonstudent samples.
The overall consistency between the results for the two samples
was perhaps due
to the nature of the University of South Florida, a primarily
commuter university
with an unusually high proportion of nontraditionally aged,
employed students.
Therefore for this study, the student and nonstudent samples
were combined for
further analysis.

Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and zero-order
correlations for
all study variables are presented in Table 1.
To test Hypothesis 1, we looked at the relations between the
four job stres-
sor variables (confict, constraints, distributive justice, and
procedural justice) and
negative emotion and between the four stressor variables and
the two categories
of CWB. Confict was related signifcantly to negative emotion (r
D .49), organi-
zational CWB (r D .32), and personal CWB (r D .40).
Organizational constraints
were related signifcantly to negative emotion (r D .47),
organizational CWB (r D
.32), and personal CWB (r D .25). Distributive justice was
related signifcantly to
negative emotion (r D¡.38) and organizational CWB (r D¡.17)
but not personal
CWB. Procedural justice was related signifcantly to negative
emotion (r D ¡.44),
organizational CWB (r D ¡.26), and personal CWB (r D ¡.15).
To rule out the
possibility that these results capitalize on chance effects, we
adjusted the alpha
for the number of signifcance tests. Based on a corrected ® of
.004, all the above
relations remained signifcant with the exception of that between
procedural jus-
tice and personal CWB (paralleling the nonsignifcance of
distributive justice to
personal CWB).
To test Hypothesis 2, we looked at correlations between

negative emotion and
the two categories of CWB (organizational and personal). Both
were signifcant
(r D .45 and .30, respectively).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that negative emotion mediates the
relations between
job stressors and CWB. In each case mediation was tested
following the procedure
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) in which three
regression models are
investigated: the CWB on the stressor, the proposed mediator
(negative emotion)
on the stressor, and the CWB on the stressor and negative
emotion together. If
the beta of the stressor variable is signifcant in the frst model
but nonsignifcant
or substantially reduced in the combined model, we have a
pattern consistent
with mediation. Results of this analysis are presented in Table
2. Except for the
nonsignifcant personal CWB–distributive justice relation (for
which a mediation
test is meaningless because it fails Kenny’s frst test of a
signifcant predictor–
criterion relation), mediation of negative emotion in all CWB–
justice relations
was indicated, as the beta of the stressor became nonsignifcant
when emotion was
299
TA
B

LE
1
M
ea
ns
, S
ta
nd
ar
d
D
ev
ia
tio
ns
, R
el
ia
bi
lit
ie
s,
a

nd
C
or
re
la
tio
ns
Va
ria
bl
e
M
ea
n
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
1.
C
on
fi
ct
6.
0
2.
8
(.
76
)
2.
C
on

st
ra
in
ts
22
.0
7.
4
.3
4
(.
84
)
3.
D
is
tr
ib
ut
iv
e

19
.7
6.
3
¡.
23
¡.
42
(.
93
)
Ju
st
ic
e
4.
P
ro
ce
du
ra

l
56
.7
15
.9
¡.
35
¡.
40
.5
4
(.
96
)
Ju
st
ic
e
5.
P

os
iti
ve
36
.7
11
.8
¡.
20
¡.
31
.5
1
.5
0
(.
95
)
E

m
ot
io
n
6.
N
eg
at
iv
e
38
.1
11
.9
.4
9
.4
7
¡.
38
¡.

44
¡.
43
(.
91
)
E
m
ot
io
n
7.
T
ra
it
17
.3
5.
3
.3
0

.2
1
¡.
14
¡.
28
¡.
26
.5
0
(.
87
)
A
nx
ie
ty
8.
T
ra
it

17
.9
5.
7
.2
9
.3
4
¡.
13
¡.
18
¡.
18
.4
1
.4
3
(.
87
)

A
ng
er
9.
A
ut
on
om
y
28
.8
8.
5
¡.
20
¡.
22
.1
8
.2

1
.2
3
¡.
24
¡.
19
¡.
08
(.
87
)
10
.
C
W
B
32
.2

7.
6
.3
2
.3
2
¡.
17
¡.
26
¡.
16
.4
5
.2
8
.3
5
¡.
25

(.
88
)
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
11
.
C
W
B
49
.6
11
.2
.4
0

.2
5
¡.
09
¡.
15
¡.
02
.3
0
.2
5
.3
7
¡.
05
.6
3
(.
96
)

P
er
so
n
N
o
te
.
N
D
29
2;
C
oe
ff
ci
en
t a
lp
ha
s
ar
e
sh

ow
n
in
p
ar
en
th
es
es
o
n
th
e
di
ag
on
al
. C
or
re
la
tio
ns
a

bo
ve
j:1
3j
ar
e
si
gn
if
ca
nt
a
t t
he
p
<
:0
5
le
ve
l.
C
or
re

la
tio
ns
a
bo
ve
j:1
5j
ar
e
si
gn
if
ca
nt
a
t t
he
p
<
:0
1
le
ve
l.

C
or
re
la
tio
ns
a
bo
ve
j:1
9j ar
e
si
gn
if
ca
nt
a
t t
he
p
<
:0
01

le
ve
l.
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR
TABLE 2
Analysis of Mediating Role of Negative Emotion
Organizational CWB Personal CWB
Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Constraints
negative emotion
R2 at each step
R2 n
F
.32¤¤¤
.10¤¤¤
.14¤
.39¤¤¤
.22¤¤¤
.12
40.5¤¤¤

.25¤¤¤
.06¤¤¤
.14¤
.23¤¤¤
.10¤¤¤
.04
16.5¤¤¤
Confict
negative emotion
R2 at each step
R2 n
F
.32¤¤¤
.11¤¤¤
.13¤
.39¤¤¤
.22¤¤¤
.11
40.3¤¤¤
.40¤¤¤
.16¤¤¤

.33¤¤¤
.13¤
.17¤¤¤
.01
29.81¤¤¤
Procedural justice
negative emotion
R2 at each step
R2 n
F
¡.26¤¤¤
.07¤¤¤
¡.08 ns
.42¤¤¤
.21¤¤¤
.14
38.44¤¤¤
¡.15¤
.02¤
¡.03 ns
.29¤¤¤
.09¤¤¤
.07

14.11¤¤¤
Distributive justice
negative emotion
R2 at each step
R2 n
F
¡.17¤¤
.03¤¤
¡.01 ns
.46¤¤¤
.20¤¤¤
.17
37.17¤¤¤
¡.09 ns
.01 ns
.02 ns
.31¤¤¤
.09¤¤¤
.08
14.09¤¤¤
Note. Standardized parameter estimates are shown. The
Distributive Justice–Personal CWB media-
tion test is not meaningful, as the original relationship is
nonsignifcant. In all cases, the beta of negative

emotion regressed on the stressor variable (constraints, confict,
procedural justice, and distributive
justice) was signifcant at the p < :0001 level.
¤ p < .05.
¤¤ p < .01.
¤¤¤ p < .001.
added to the regression model. A similar pattern of reduced but
still signifcant
stressor betas is shown for each of the remaining four CWB–
stressor relations.
Thus, a pattern emerged in all seven signifcant stressor/CWB
relations, suggesting
a mediating role of negative emotion.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that perceived control over work tasks
(autonomy), trait
anxiety, and trait anger moderate the relations between stressors
(constraints, con-
fict, and justice) and CWB (personal and organizational).
Tables 3, 4, and 5 present
results of moderated regression analyses. Alphas for these
hypothesis tests were
corrected for multiple tests to p < .01.
Contrary to expectations, the only signifcant autonomy–stressor
interaction was
for personal CWB. Even more puzzling, the direction of the
moderating effect of
autonomy was contrary to prediction, in that a higher level of
is associated with personal CWB when autonomy is high. In
contrast, a signifcant
and expected trait anxiety–stressor interaction was found for
personal CWB. Trait

TABLE 3
Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Autonomy as
Moderator
CWB organizational CWB personal
Step Independent variable Total R2 mR2 Total R2 mR2
1 Org. Constraints .10¤¤¤ .10¤¤¤ .06¤¤¤ .06¤¤¤
2 Autonomy .14 .03¤¤¤ .06 .06
3 Org. Con. £ Autonomy .14 .00 .07 .01
1 Confict .11¤¤¤ .11¤¤¤ .16¤¤¤
2 Autonomy .14 .03¤¤¤ .16 .00
3 Confict £ Autonomy .14 .00 .18 .02¤¤
1 Procedural Justice .07¤¤¤ .07¤¤¤ .02¤ .02¤
2 Autonomy .11 .04¤¤¤ .02 .00
3 P. Just. £ Autonomy .11 .00 .03 .01
1 Distributive justice .03¤¤ .03¤¤ .01 .01
2 Autonomy .08 .05¤¤¤ .01 .00
3 D. Just. £ Autonomy .08 .00 .03 .02¤
Note. N D 292.
¤ p < .05.
¤¤ p < .01.
¤¤¤ p < .001.
TABLE 4
Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Trait Anxiety as

Moderator
1 Org. Constraints .10¤¤¤ .10¤¤¤ .06¤¤¤ .06¤¤¤
2 Trait Anxiety .15 .05¤¤¤ .10 .04¤¤¤
3 Org. Con. £ T. Anxiety .15 .00 .13 .03¤¤
1 Confict .11¤¤¤ .11¤¤¤ .16¤¤¤ .16¤¤¤
2 Trait Anxiety .15 .04¤¤¤ .18 .02¤
3 Confict £ T. Anxiety .15 .00 .19 .01¤
2 Trait Anxiety .12 .05¤¤¤ .07 .05¤¤¤
3 P. Just. £ T. Anxiety .12 .00 .07 .00
2 Trait anxiety .10 .07¤¤¤ .07 .05¤¤¤
3 D. Just. £ T. Anxiety .10 .00 .07 .00
Note. N D 292.
¤ p < .05.
¤¤ p < .01.
¤¤¤ p < .001.
TABLE 5
Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Trait Anger as
Moderator

1 Org. Constraints .10¤¤¤ .10¤¤¤ .06¤¤¤ .06¤¤¤
2 Trait Anger .17 .07¤¤¤ .15 .09¤¤¤
3 Org. Con. £ T. Anger .17 .00 .16 .01
1 Confict .11¤¤¤ .11¤¤¤ .16¤¤¤ .16¤¤¤
2 Trait Anger .18 .07¤¤¤ .23 .07¤¤¤
3 Confict £ T. Anger .18 .00 .26 .03¤¤¤
2 Trait Anger .16 .09¤¤¤ .14 .12¤¤¤
3 P. Just. £ T. Anger .17 .01 .14 .00
2 Trait anger .14 .11¤¤¤ .14 .13¤¤¤
3 D. Just. £ T. Anger .14 .00 .14 .00
Note. N D 292.
¤ p < .05.
¤¤ p < .01.
¤¤¤ p < .001.
anxiety did not moderate relations between stressors and
organizational CWB.
Also, a signifcant trait anger–stressor interaction was found for
personal CWB, but
not organizational CWB. In each of these last two cases, the
pattern of signifcant
moderation revealed that when the trait was high, there was a
steeper slope between
stressor and CWB than when the trait was low. That is, for
individuals high in trait
anxiety, but not for individuals low in trait anxiety, higher
levels of constraints were

associated with higher levels of personal CWB. Similarly, for
individuals high in
trait anger, but not for those low in trait anger, higher levels of
confict were
associated with higher levels of personal CWB. Thus, only very
limited support
was found for Hypothesis 4. Personality characteristics (trait
anger and anxiety)
interacted as expected with stressors for personal, but not
organizational, CWB,
and weak evidence suggested that autonomy moderated the
confict–personal CWB
relation in the opposite direction as hypothesized.
DISCUSSION
Results of the current study provide some support for
predictions derived from
the stress/emotion/CWB model (Spector et al., 1998).
Specifcally, it was found
that job stressors, including perceived injustice related to both
negative emotions
and CWB (Hypothesis 1); that negative emotions related to
CWB (Hypothesis 2);
and that in most cases there was at least partial mediation of
emotions in the
relations between job stressors and CWB (Hypothesis 3). This
last test is critical
to the model and suggests emotions play a central role in the
process from stressor
to strain in general and CWB in particular.

Indeed, inspection of the mediator analyses in Table 2 shows
patterns of relations
that are generally supportive. In seven of the eight cases, the
stressor variable was
correlated signifcantly with CWB. Negative emotion was
correlated signifcantly
with all stressor and CWB variables. The regression results for
all seven cases
in which the stressor was related signifcantly to CWB showed a
reduction in the
regression coeffcient when emotion was added to the equation
containing only the
stressor as a predictor. In three cases the coeffcient for the
stressor lost signifcance,
and in fve of seven cases, the magnitude of the coeffcient was
reduced by more
than half.
In general, organizational stressors (such as constraints and
injustice) were more
closely associated with organizational than personal types of
CWB, and interper-
sonal confict was more closely associated with personal than
organizational CWB.
Yet, the results of post hoc z tests showed these differences to
be signifcant only in
the cases of autonomy and procedural justice being more
strongly associated with
organizational CWB and confict being more strongly associated
with personal
CWB. Similarly, support for mediation was somewhat stronger
for organization-
targeted than person-targeted CWB. Altogether, the tighter
linkage between con-
straints inhibiting job performance and CWB directed at the
organization rather

than other people, suggests the two types of CWB may follow
somewhat separate
paths.
The failure to fnd more evidence for complete mediation is also
not unexpected.
Spector and Fox (in press) discussed how causality is likely
multidirectional, with
background mood or emotional state predisposing people to
perceive or not per-
ceive job stressors. Thus, people experiencing high levels of
negative mood may
be hyperreactive to job stressors. This can result in a cycle in
which background
mood predisposes a person to perceive the work situation as a
job stressor, which
further induces negative mood and heightened strain.
In general, our results for Hypotheses 1 and 2 were consistent
with prior re-
search in showing a relation of justice with negative emotions
(Skarlicki & Folger,
1997; Zohar, 1995), and with CWB (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).
Justice also was
correlated signifcantly with both of the other job stressors
(interpersonal confict
and organizational constraints). These fndings lend further
support to the idea that
perceptions of injustice can be conceptualized as a form of
perceived job stress.
Situations seen by people as unfair are stressors that may lead
to negative emo-
tions and presumably to subsequent strains beyond CWB. For
example, justice
has been shown to relate signifcantly with job (dis-)satisfaction
(e.g., Moorman,

1991). Subsequent work should expand this area of inquiry to
look at other types
of strains (e.g., physical symptoms and ill health) that have
been linked to stressors
at work (Jex & Beehr, 1991).
Our proposed model suggested a moderating role for trait anger
and anxiety. In
general, the data were nonsupportive of moderation. Using a
conservative (.01) ®
(corrected for multiple signifcance tests), only the interactive
effects of autonomy
and confict, trait anxiety and constraints, and trait anger and
confict for per-
sonal CWB remained signifcant. Using a more liberal ® of .05,
however, patterns
emerged which suggest the usefulness of further investigation
of moderating roles
for trait anger and anxiety in stressor-personal CWB relations.
In these cases, as
expected, individuals higher in the affective trait reported being
more sensitive
to stressors in their personal CWB reactions. There was no
evidence of modera-
tion for organizational CWB or with the justice variables.
Perhaps organizational
CWB is more affected by environmental variables than
personality, whereas per-
sonal CWB is affected by both. Indirect support for this idea
comes from work

with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which in some
ways is the op-
posite of CWB. McNeely and Meglino (1994) found that the
personality trait of
empathy predicted OCB directed toward other people at work
but not toward the
organization. Of course, it should be kept in mind that we
looked at only two
personality variables and four stressors, and it is conceivable
that results would
differ for other variables. Furthermore, moderated regression is
known to suffer
from low statistical power, so future tests should have larger
samples.
One of the most surprising fndings was the failure of the data to
support the
predicted moderating role of job control (autonomy),
particularly in the relations
between task-related stressors (constraints and injustice) and
task-related (organi-
zational) CWB. It may be that the category of organizational
CWBs is too broad,
and contains many behaviors that are not task-specifc, such as
destroying com-
pany property. To explore this possibility, the moderator
analysis was performed
using a subset of the organizational CWB items, which appear
to directly in-
volve work sabotage. This post hoc test revealed a signifcant
interaction effect
of distributive justice by autonomy on work sabotage behaviors,
in the expected
direction. That is, for individuals who perceived low autonomy,
but not those who
perceived high autonomy, low distributive justice was

associated with high lev-
els of work sabotage behaviors. Future studies might
systematically divide the
CWB items into subscales according to their relevance to task
performance, inter-
personal relations, withdrawal, and so forth in order to
determine more specifc,
differential patterns of relations to organizational antecedents
such as job charac-
teristics.
Autonomy was found to moderate the relation between
and personal CWB, but closer examination revealed the
direction of interaction
to be opposite the hypothesized relation. For individuals who
perceived high but
not low autonomy, higher confict was associated with higher
personal CWB.
A possible explanation is that autonomy gave individuals
latitude to respond to
confict with personal retaliatory behaviors. That is, those
individuals who had
high autonomy were in powerful enough positions that they had
the latitude to
engage in personal CWB without having to fear retribution. This
may explain the
lack of overall moderation by autonomy. In a previous study,
Fox and Spector
(1999) found the belief that one has the ability to harm the
organization without
being punished to be one of the strongest predictors of CWB.
This may con-
found the theorized relationship, that individuals with greater
job autonomy are
less likely to experience stress and thereby less likely to

respond counterproduc-
tively.
Limitations of the Study
Reliance on cross-sectional, self-report methodology is always
problematic. It
is an ongoing concern in organizational behavior research that
the use of a single
source of data, such as self-report questionnaires, may result in
an overstatement
of relationships among the variables. However, given our focus
on affective and
behavioral responses to the perceived rather than “objective”
environment, the
diffculty of obtaining uncontaminated measures of
counterproductive behavior,
and ethical concerns with the possibility of putting research
participants at risk
in the accumulation of evidence of CWB, we believe that
anonymous self-reports
provide the closest available approximation of these relations
(for a more extensive
discussion of these issues, see Fox & Spector, 1999).
At the same time, we recognize the need for creative research
designs using
nonincumbent or more objective sources of data. Good
examples of such studies
include Perlow and Latham’s (1993) longitudinal study using
recorded instances
of abusive behavior as the dependent variable; and Robinson

and O’Leary-Kelly’s
(1998) use of peer ratings of workgroup climate as the measure
of environmental
factors. Yet, each of these designs is able to measure only a
subset of the model
we are considering. Future research might incorporate peer,
subordinate, and su-
pervisor reports of the incumbent’s counterproductive work
behavior (see Heacox,
1996), such as survey dyads consisting of an employee’s self-
report of perceptions
of stressors and a co-worker’s reports of behaviors by that
employee. An alterna-
tive might be self-reports of being the target of CWB, as in the
mobbing research
of Knorz and Zapf (1996). As the models become more
complex, tests of the data
certainly will require more rigorous analytic tools, such as
Structural Equation
Modeling. Finally, insights might be gained from a policy-
capturing investigation
of the circumstances under which employees would fnd various
forms of CWB
to be justifed or acceptable.
A further limitation to the generalizability of the results of the
study was the
use of a convenience sample of nonstudent employees and the
combination of that
sample with a sample of employed students. Yet, there was little
evidence that the
student sample responded differently than did the nonstudent
sample. Furthermore,
generalizability was enhanced in that the populations from
which the participants
were drawn were highly heterogeneous, covering quite a few

organizations and a
wide range of organizational conditions.
Finally, at the current time the model underlying this research is
rather general.
We chose specifc job stressors and other variables that prior
research suggested
might be important. We recognize that this was a piecemeal test
of parts of the
model. As evidence for linkages among specifc variables is
uncovered, it might
prove useful to conduct a more complete test rather than
investigating individual
linkages. Structural equation modeling could accomplish this
objective.
Nevertheless, the current study provides evidence to support
some of the link-
ages suggested by our job stress/emotion/CWB model. Perhaps
most importantly,
results for all signifcant stressor/CWB relations supported the
hypothesized me-
diator role for emotions, either fully or partially. The results,
however, do suggest
the need to refne the model; for example, personality seemed
more important as a
moderator of personal CWB than organizational CWB, and did
not seem relevant
for justice. The Spector and Fox (in press) model may provide a
general frame-
work, but additional work is needed to uncover specifc linkages

among variables.
Above all, this cross-sectional study cannot provide a causal
test.
Still, our fndings suggest that organizations may be able to
reduce the levels
of work behaviors that undermine their effectiveness by
developing human re-
source policies and practices that take into consideration their
possible emotional
effects on employees. This is not to say that all negative
situations can or should be
avoided, but rather that attempts to manage actively the
emotional effects of human
resources, operations and resource allocation systems are likely
to result in lower
CWB. The implications of this study suggest an alternative to
the predominant “se-
lection” solution to CWB, in which individuals with certain
personality tendencies
that may predict CWBs are screened out of the organization
during the selection
process. Consideration of justice, autonomy, and employees’
feelings needs to be
included in the design of jobs and human resource systems—not
because it is “the
nice thing to do,” but because of its ramifcations in the kinds of
behaviors that,
even in covert or subtle ways, may do serious harm to the
organization and its
members.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

67, 422–436.
Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and
perceived control. In A. Baum & J. E.
Singer (Eds.), Applications of personal control. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the
breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics
of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg
(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in
organizations (pp. 18–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Managing workplace
stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chen,
P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the
underlying cause of correlations between
stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398–
407.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work
stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft
and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
65, 177–184.
Cropanzano, R., & Baron, R. (1991). Injustice and
organizational confict: The moderating role of
power restoration. International Journal of Confict Management,
2, 5–26.

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, fndings, and
implications. In C. D. Spielberger &
J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessessment
(Vol. 9, pp. 177–201). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K.
Murmighan (Ed.), Social psychology in
organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161–183).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An
interpretive analysis of personnel systems.
In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel
and human resource management
(Vol. 3, pp. 141–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-
aggression. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Van Katwyk, P. (1997). Objectivity in
the assessment of control at work. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, St.
Louis.
Frankenhaeuser, M., & Johansson, G. (1986). Stress at work:
Psychobiological and psychosocial as-
pects. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 287–

Work & Stress Vol. 22, No. 3, JulySeptember 2008, 187200.docx

Work & Stress Vol. 22, No. 3, JulySeptember 2008, 187200.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Work & Stress Vol. 22, No. 3, JulySeptember 2008, 187200.docx

Similar to Work & Stress Vol. 22, No. 3, JulySeptember 2008, 187200.docx (20)

More from troutmanboris

More from troutmanboris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Work & Stress Vol. 22, No. 3, JulySeptember 2008, 187200.docx