http://hum.sagepub.com/Human Relations

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/60/8/1155The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0018726707081658

2007 60: 1155Human RelationsStefan Thau, Craig Crossley, Rebecca J. Bennett and Sabine Sczesny

The relationship between trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for    

  http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/60/8/1155.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Aug 15, 2007Version of Record >>

at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Moshi University on October 11, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The relationship between trust,attachment, and antisocial workbehaviorsStefan Thau, Craig Crossley, Rebecca J. Bennett and Sabine Sczesny

A B S T R AC T Three studies tested hypotheses derived from an integrative social

exchange – attachment model suggesting that employees’ trust in an

organization or its authorities predicts antisocial work behaviors,

which should be mediated by the extent to which employees feel

attached to the organization and/or its members. Study 1 showed

that perceptions of workgroup cohesion mediate the relationship

between trust in senior management and antisocial work behaviors.

Study 2 suggested that intentions to stay with the organization

mediate the relationship between trust in supervisor and antisocial

work behaviors. Study 3 found that the relationship between trust

in organization and antisocial work behaviors was partially mediated

by perceptions of workgroup cohesion. In sum, results provide

converging evidence that trust relates to antisocial behaviors in-

directly, through feelings of attachment to the organization and its

members.

K E Y WO R D S antisocial work behaviors � interdependence � social bonding �

social exchange � trust

A disturbing truth of organizational life is that many employees spreadrumors, verbally assault their co-workers and customers, take longer breaksthan are allowed, and steal or damage merchandise, personal property or

1 1 5 5

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726707081658

Volume 60(8): 1155–1179

Copyright © 2007

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London,

New Delhi, Singapore

http://hum.sagepub.com

equipment needed for efficient production (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).These antisocial work behaviors are clearly harmful for co-workers (Aquino& Byron, 2002; Hoel et al., 1999) as well as being counterproductive for theorganizations’ financial well-being (Bensimon, 1997). Arguably, they are alsodetrimental to those engaging in antisocial work behaviors because they jeop-ardize relationships with the organization and its members. Whereas thedesire for positive, rewarding relationships appears to be a basic humanmotive (Baumeister & Leary, 1995); why do employees engage in such anti-social actions?

One possible answer to this question is that employees interpret theirrelationship with the organization and its members as an interdependent,social exchange (see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, for an overview).According to this perspective, organizational relationships, like many othersocial relations, are defined by a risk of non-reciprocity and exploitation(Molm & Cook, 1995). Under conditions of substantial risk, people are morelikely to pursue immediate self-interest over the interests or concerns of theexchange partner (Homans, 1961; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), increasing thelikelihood of self-serving, antisocial work behaviors (Greenberg, 1997).

One key variable that reduces the doubts, worries, and anxieties aboutbeing exploited in a social exchange relation is trust (Rousseau et al., 1998).Broadly defined, trust is an expectation that reflects an employee’s confidencethat his or her exchange partners (e.g. management, supervisors, the organ-ization) will behave in a manner consistent with the employee’s needs andinterests (see Robinson, 1996). If employees believe that the intentions of theorganization or their representatives are positive, this belief can transforman employee’s self-interest into other-concern (Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996).As social exchange relations build trust over time, trust prohibits antisocialwork behaviors by reducing self-interest and promoting other-concern.Trusting employees will be more inclined to promote the well-being of theorganization, their authorities, and fellow co-workers (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001)as a result, and will be less inclined to engage in antisocial work behaviorsthat would harm the organization or its members.

How trust counteracts antisocial conduct, however, has yet to beempirically examined. Indeed, prior research on the role of trust in organ-izational settings has chiefly examined main effects of trust and made onlytacit assumptions about how trust actually affects behavior in the employ-ment relationship (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). The goal of our article is toexamine how trust affects antisocial work behaviors. We propose that oneof the mechanisms whereby trust relates to antisocial behavior is through asense of attachment to the organization and its members. We anticipate thattrusting employees are more concerned about the organization and its

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 5 6

members and express greater attachment as a result. We define attachmentin this study as a desire to remain employed in the organization and to feelthat workgroup members make up a cohesive social group. We posit that itis this attachment which motivates the employee to refrain from behaviorsthat may harm the relationship to the organization and its members.

In the following sections, we first review research on antisocial workbehaviors. Then we develop the argument that social exchanges which arehigh in trust promote other-concerned motivation and that social exchangeswhich are low in trust promote self-concerned motivation (Holmes &Rempel, 1989; Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996). Next we discuss how thesemotivations relate to employees’ attachment to the organization and itsmembers. Then we argue that feelings of attachment may motivateemployees to refrain from engaging in antisocial behaviors that harm theorganization or its members. Finally, we present three studies, in which wetested the hypotheses that trust is negatively related to antisocial work behav-iors and that this relationship is mediated by attachment.

Antisocial work behaviors

Antisocial work behaviors are actions that demonstrate a lack a concern forthe interests and needs of the organization and/or its members (Aquino &Douglas, 2003). They are purposeful, norm-violating behaviors of organiz-ational members which have the potential to damage the organization and/orits constituents (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, 2003; Fox & Spector, 1999;Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Robinson & Greenberg, 1998). Variouswriters refer to them as organizational retaliatory behaviors (Skarlicki &Folger, 1997), workplace incivility (Pearson et al., 2001), counterproductivework behaviors (Fox & Spector, 1999), and workplace deviance (Bennett &Robinson, 2000). Although these constructs differ somewhat in whichspecific behaviors they comprise, they share the notion that these behaviorsare norm-breaking, intentional, and show a lack a concern for the interestsof their targets, often in favor of one’s own interest and benefit. For thesereasons, authors have generally subsumed these individual constructs underthe broader construct of antisocial work behaviors (see Andersson &Pearson, 1999).

Previous explanations of why these behaviors occur have proposed thatemployees’ antisocial behaviors are an adverse reaction to unfair procedures,treatment, and/or rewards (Aquino & Douglas, 2003; Aquino et al., 1999;Greenberg, 1990). For example, when employees feel that they are nottreated with dignity and respect, they often engage in norm-breaking,

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 5 7

destructive behaviors, such as retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), deviance(Aquino et al., 1999), and social loafing (Murphy et al., 2003). Perceivedmistreatment from superiors can strengthen employees’ confidence that theorganization has negative intentions towards them (Robinson, 1996). Thereis support for the inverse premise as well; pro-relationship behaviors posi-tively influence a person’s attribution of positive intentions in the partner andbuild trust (McAllister, 1995; Wieselquist et al., 1999).

Nevertheless, the role of trust in explaining antisocial work behaviorsremains relatively unexplored (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Whereasprevious research has provided compelling evidence that trust directly influ-ences pro-organizational behaviors, such as citizenship (Konovsky & Pugh,1994; McAllister, 1995) and information sharing (Dirks, 1999), less isknown regarding how trust may influence behaviors that hurt the organiz-ation and its members. This is an important question for a number ofreasons. For instance, antisocial or deviant work behaviors represent adistinct form of discretionary workplace behavior (Rotundo & Sackett,2002) and are only modestly negatively related with citizenship behaviors(Dalal, 2005). Therefore, the empirical question remains whether trustinhibits antisocial work behaviors. Further, models based on social exchangetheory have not fully answered the question of how trust influences dis-cretionary behaviors which jeopardize or maintain the exchange relationship.However, understanding potential process variables is important to gain amore detailed picture about the role of trust in organizational settings(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Trust and antisocial work behaviors

Within social exchange theory, trust has been characterized as a relationalschema that motivates social behavior consistent with concern for the needsand interests of others (Holmes, 2000; Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Rusbult &Van Lange, 1996). In the employment relationship, trust hinges on pastexperiences with the exchange partners, beliefs about what the exchangepartners are like (e.g. benevolent, honest), and an interpersonal script regard-ing the nature of anticipated future interactions (Baldwin, 1992). If trust ishigh, the employee considers the exchange partner as predictable andpositive; whereas if trust is low, the employee considers the exchange partneras unpredictable and negative (Holmes & Rempel, 1989).

The assessment of the exchange relationship as predictable andbeneficial often results in cooperative behaviors that maintain and buildrelations (Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996). Therefore, employees who trust their organization or organizational authorities will likely comply with the

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 5 8

normative requests of their exchange partner, as this contributes to themaintenance of the relationship. For instance, top managers who trust theirhead office are more likely to comply with the head office’s strategies (Kim& Mauborgne, 1993). Because trusting employees believe that theirexchange partners will not exploit them, they are likely to engage in volun-tary, pro-organization behaviors (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002). At the sametime, trusting employees are likely to refrain from antisocial behaviors thatwould harm the exchange partner and the relationship and may even bewilling to administer sanctions to those who do (Hardin, 1985; Rusbult &Van Lange, 1996).

However, when an organization or its representatives are perceived asunpredictable and negative, employees are likely to have little trust in theirexchange partner and are more likely to act in self-protective and self-interested ways. In line with social exchange theory, complying withrelational norms when there is little or no trust can be irrational as the defaultmotivational orientation in a situation defined by risk and uncertainty aboutbeing exploited is to pursue immediate self-interest (Homans, 1961; Kelley& Thibaut, 1978). Therefore, if someone believes that this risk is high (low trust), then it is inconsistent with one’s self-interest to engage in pro-relationship behaviors and consistent with one’s self-interest to displaybehaviors that have an immediate benefit for the self (e.g. stealing companymaterial, coming in late, etc.). This suggests that trust transforms self- intoother-concern, leading to pro-relationship behaviors and resulting inrestraint from behaviors that jeopardize the maintenance of the relationship.Behaviors that violate the concern for others, such as antisocial work be-haviors, are thus more likely to occur in exchange relationships in which theemployee is primarily self-concerned. This is consistent with research on non-cooperative games. For example, Axelrod (1984) argued that it is rational topursue self-interest in a situation where one is aware of the self-interestendorsed by the other (low trust). Thus, under conditions of low trust, self-concerned employees may disregard the organization’s norms and activelyengage in (Greenberg, 1997), or at a minimum be less inhibited from (Fox& Spector, 1999) antisocial be-haviors. Based on this theoretical and empiri-cal foundation, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Trust in the organization or in organizational authoritiesis negatively related to antisocial work behaviors.

Attachment as a mediator

One of the most influential explanations for why people deviate from normsis social bonding theory (see Aday, 1990, for a review). According to Hirschi

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 5 9

(1969), one’s compliance with norms is conditional upon several factors,including a person’s attachment to his or her social group. Social bondingtheory suggests that if this bond is strong, people will be motivated to refrainfrom behaviors that jeopardize their bonds to the social group. If the socialbond is weak, however, people will care less about the maintenance of socialrelationships and thus will be more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors(Hirschi, 1969; Hollinger, 1986; Sims, 2002). In the workplace, employeesmay display their attachment to an organization in several ways, includingan expressed desire or intention to remain with the organization, or byforming normative bonds of attachment or cohesion to co-workers (Maertz& Campion, 2004; Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Trust represents one important antecedent of social bonding and hasbeen linked to various forms of attachment to the organization and itsmembers. For instance, in their recent meta-analysis, Dirks and Ferrin (2002)found that trust in supervisor was positively associated with commitment tothe organization and negatively related to intentions to quit and trust ingeneral management was negatively related to intentions to quit. Further,Porter and Lilly (1996) found that trust was negatively related to conflict inteams, suggesting that distrust may undermine group cohesion. Related tosocial exchange theory, trusting individuals may be more satisfied with theirco-workers and organization, are more committed and willing to remain inthese relationships, and to overlook alternatives (Costa et al., 2001). Con-sequently, partners are more willing to engage in behaviors that serve tomaintain the relationship and to refrain from behaviors that harm theexchange partner (Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996, for an overview).

The link between trust in leadership and attachment to organizationsis rather straightforward in the sense that organizational authorities controlresources, work assignments, promotion and advancement opportunities,and other factors that directly shape employees’ feelings of satisfaction andattachment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). If the organization or its representativeshave employees’ needs and interests in mind, employees will feel moreattached and more likely to desire a long-term relation. The anticipation oflong-term employment may also promote cohesive relations to others,whereas the anticipation of short-term employment may prohibit cohesionand encourage withdrawal in anticipation of severed relations that occurwhen leaving the organization. Further, when there is no longer a sense ofattachment, trust may no longer transform self-concern into other-concernas the exchange relation has no anticipated future, thereby mitigating thedirect relation between trust and anti-social behaviors. Taken together, theliterature on trust, attachment and antisocial behaviors suggests that trustfacilitates attachment through positive social exchange and the anticipation

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 6 0

of favorable employment outcomes, and that the resulting feelings of attach-ment prohibit antisocial behaviors through the desire to build and maintainsocial exchange relations, and increased other-concern. This leads to thefollowing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between trust in organization or itsauthorities and antisocial work behaviors is mediated by an employee’sattachment to the organization or its members.

Overview of studies

We conducted three studies to evaluate these hypotheses. In Study 1, weexamined the relationship between employees’ trust in senior management,perceptions of work group cohesion, and self-reported antisocial workbehaviors in a United States health care organization. Study 2 extended thesefindings by assessing employees’ trust in supervisor, intentions to stay withthe organization, and (supervisory-rated) antisocial work behaviors in aGerman food sector organization. Finally, Study 3 examined the relationshipbetween employees’ trust in the organization, perceptions of workgroupcohesion, and their (supervisory-rated) antisocial work behaviors in a Dutchhealth care organization.

Study 1

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants in this study represented a cross-section of employees from sixlocations of a multi-site care-giving organization in the Midwestern UnitedStates. In addition to facilities associated with assisted-living for the elderly(three), other locations were responsible for maintaining independent livingresidencies for seniors (one), group homes for disabled youth (one), andcorporate and financial services (one). Study measures were included as partof a larger organizational survey project.

Surveys were administered and collected by the study’s authors duringregularly scheduled staff meetings at two points in time, approximately onemonth apart. Trust in senior management was measured at time 1, whereascohesion and antisocial work behavior measures were collected at time 2. Inan effort to reduce common method bias and percept-percept inflation(Podsakoff et al., 2003), measures of cohesion and antisocial work behaviors

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 6 1

were included in separate surveys, and temporally separated by a 15-minutebreak designed to reduce fatigue and to create a cognitive interruption.Employees were assured in writing by the researchers and the organizationthat their responses would be kept strictly confidential, and would only bereported to the organization in aggregate form. Because of the sensitive natureof the antisocial work behaviors items, employees were ensured that theirresponses to this section of the survey would be used for research purposesonly, and would not be reported to the organization in any form.

Of the 616 employees of the organization 325 (53%) completed allthree sections of the survey and provided the necessary information to linktheir responses. From this sample, 82 percent were female; ages ranged from18 to 74 (M = 42, SD = 13.8). Participants’ tenure with the organizationranged from 1 month to 36 years (M = 5.8, SD = 6.97); 76 percent of par-ticipants held line positions; 24 percent held managerial or administrativepositions.

Measures

Trust in senior management was measured at Time 1 with an 18-item scaleused for this study, and currently under further development.1 This scale usedan adjective checklist with a ‘yes’ ‘no’, or ‘don’t know’ response format,similar to the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith et al., 1969). Adjectives wereselected based on Mayer et al.’s (1995) proposition that trust is based on theauthority figures’ benevolence, ability, and integrity. Sample ability relatedadjectives are: ‘capable’, ‘qualified’, and ‘makes poor decisions’. Samplebenevolence adjectives are: ‘concerned for others’, ‘unkind’, and ‘support-ive’. Sample integrity items are: ‘honest’, ‘breaks promises’, and ‘up-front’.Participants were asked whether each adjective described the senior levelmanagers and executives of the organization for which they worked. Similarto the JDI, a triadic scoring system was used wherein ‘yes’ responses to posi-tively worded adjectives (e.g. capable, supportive), and ‘no’ responses tonegatively worded items (e.g. makes poor decisions, breaks promises) weregiven three points. On the other hand, ‘no’ responses to positive items, and‘yes’ responses to negative items were scored as 0 points. ‘Don’t know’responses were given 1.5 points. High scores indicate high levels of trust ingeneral management. Because we had no a priori reason to believe that facetsof trust would differentially relate to deviance, responses were summed intoa single scale. Maximum Likelihood exploratory factor analysis suggested asingle factor solution (Eigen value = 9.68) that explained 53 percent of thetotal variance. Item loadings ranged from .62 to .86; α = .95.

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 6 2

Perceptions of workgroup cohesion were measured at Time 2 with thefive-item scale developed by Koys and DeCotiis (1991). The scale includesitems such as ‘people at this organization take a personal interest in oneanother’. Responses were indicated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = stronglydisagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .90).

Antisocial work behaviors were measured at Time 2 with the 19-itemscale developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000). Participants were askedhow often they had engaged in antisocial behaviors on a seven-point Likertscale (1 = never, 7 = always). Because antisocial behaviors may target theorganization (sample item: ‘intentionally worked slower than you could haveworked’) as well as organizational representatives and members (sample:‘said something hurtful to someone at work’), the person and organizationfacets were combined into a higher order factor of general deviance, consist-ent with how other authors have operationalized the construct (Aquino &Douglas, 2003; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Using ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis (CFA) via LISREL 8.5, a two-step approach was used to testfor the presence of a higher order factor (Oates, 2004). Results from the firstmodel representing two distinct factors (i.e. organization, people) indicatedthat the two first order latent variables did an adequate job of explaining thedata χ2 (151) = 580.67, RMSEA = .084, CFI = .91, GFI = .87, AGFI = .84.The latent factors of people and organizational targeted deviance correlated.75. The second model containing a second order factor demonstrated goodfit to the data χ2 (186) = 580.40, RMSEA = .072, CFI = .92, GFI = .87, AGFI= .87. Person targeted deviance and organization targeted deviance loadedon the general deviance factor γ = .87 and γ = .86, respectively. A compari-son of fit indices suggests that the model specifying a second order ‘generaldeviance’ factor met Brown and Cudek’s (1989) standard for good fit(RMSEA < .08) and overall appeared to provide a better fit to the study’sdata. Based on this finding, we combined all 19 items from Bennett andRobinson to form a composite measure of antisocial work behaviors (α = .85).

Control variables. In addition to variables of interest, we controlled forseveral demographic variables that may have impacted the results. Specifi-cally, we controlled for age, and job level (line, management, or executive,based on organizational charts) as younger and lower-level employees havebeen found to disproportionately engage in organizational deviance(Murphy, 1993). Tenure was also controlled, and was measured as the self-reported number of years the person had been employed by the organization.We also controlled for sample differences by dummy coding organizationallocation, using an assisted living facility as the reference category.

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 6 3

Results

Analysis

We tested the hypotheses using hierarchical regression analysis with robustestimation of standard errors (StataCorp, 2002) to account for statisticaldependencies among employees from the same location. We assessedhypotheses using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) test for mediation. Mediation ismet when: 1) the independent variable significantly predicts the dependentvariable, 2) the independent variable significantly predicts the mediator, and3) the mediator significantly predicts the dependent variable when control-ling for the independent variable. Partial mediation is met when in step 3 theeffect of the independent variable is weaker than in step 1. Full mediation isindicated when in step 3 the effect of the independent variable becomes non-significant. All three steps were examined with the control variables in themodel. Descriptive results are shown in Table 1.

Hypotheses tests

Table 2 shows the results of the hypotheses tests. Results show that controlvariables explained 8 percent (p < .001) of the variance, trust in seniormanagement explained an additional 1 percent (p < .001) of the variance,and cohesion accounted for another 4 percent (p < .001) of the variance inantisocial work behaviors. In support of Hypothesis 1, Model I resultsfound that trust in senior management significantly predicted antisocialwork behaviors (β = –.28, p < .05). Model II results further suggested that trust in senior management significantly predicted perceived cohesion(β = .44, p < .01). Finally, in line with Hypothesis 2, results from Model IIIfound that the relationship between trust in senior management and anti-social work behaviors became non-significant (β = –.18, p = .20) whencohesion (β = –.22, p < .01) was entered into the model, suggesting full mediation.

Discussion

Study 1 provided initial support for the idea that attachment to organizationmembers may explain the relationship between trust in organizationalauthorities and antisocial work behaviors. However, as with all studies, thisstudy has limitations. Although the zero order correlation between trust insenior management and perceptions of workgroup cohesion suggested anegative relationship between these two variables, the results of regressionanalysis supported the idea that trust is positively related to cohesion.

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 6 4

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 6 5

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. Job level 1.32 .622. Gender .82 .38 –.17**3. Age 42.03 13.60 .13* –.034. Tenure 5.87 7.04 .07 .05 .41***5. Trust in senior

management 11.93 17.58 .01 .05 –.13* –.25*** (.95)6. Cohesion 3.41 .85 .13* –.11 .02 –.02 –.13* (.90)7. Antisocial work

behaviors 1.51 .48 .03 –.06 –.06 .14* –.23*** –.15* (.85)

Note: N = 306. Cronbach’s alpha in parentheses. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female; job level was coded1 = line, 2 = middle management, 3 = executive.* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 2 Results from regression analysis

Model I Model II Model IIIAntisocial work Cohesion Antisocial work behaviors behaviors————————— ————————— –––————–———

Variable β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2

Location 1 .01 –.55** –.12Location 2 –.07 –.12 –.09Location 3 –.10 .22* –.06Location 4 .00 .22* .05Location 5 –.06 –.01 –.06Job level .03 .05 .04Gender –.06 .02 –.06Age –.17** .04 –.17**Tenure .17** .08*** –.02 .17*** .17** .08**Trust in senior

management –.28* .01* .44** .03** –.18 .01**Cohesion –.22** .04**R2 .09*** .20*** .13***

Note: N = 306. Entries are standardized coefficients from the last step of the hierarchical models.* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Further, mean levels of both trust and antisocial behaviors were relativelylow, whereas hypotheses suggested that antisocial behaviors would be lowunder conditions of high trust. One explanation for these apparent incon-sistencies may be that controlling for confounding variables such as age andtenure, which have been found to relate to antisocial behaviors (Murphy,1993), revealed a more accurate estimate of the true relation between trustand cohesion. Another limitation of this study was the self-report nature ofall study variables. Although attempts were made to assure confidentialityand to methodologically control for percept-percept inflation, commonmethod variance may have artificially inflated observed relations betweenstudy variables. In an effort to replicate findings and reduce common methodbias in ratings of antisocial behavior, we asked supervisors to rate employees’engagement in antisocial work behaviors in Study 2.

Study 2

Method

Sample and procedure

The relationships between an employee’s trust in organizational authorities,their attachment to their organization, and their antisocial work behaviorswere examined at the headquarter of a German food manufacturer. In thisstudy, we used self-report measures of trust in supervisor, intentions to staywith the organization, and supervisor-rated antisocial work behaviors.Ninety of the company’s 108 employees (83%) returned usable surveys bymail. Supervisors (with an average of 10 employees each) provided ratingsof employees’ antisocial work behaviors of 87 of these employees. Fifty-threepercent of this sample were female; ages ranged from 21 to 60 years (M = 39.97, SD = 9.88). The respondents’ organizational tenure ranged from.08 to 35 years (M = 11.37, SD = 9.27).

Measures

Trust in supervisor was measured with the following three items (Cook &Wall, 1980; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994): ‘I totally trust my supervisor’, ‘IfI got into difficulties at work I know my supervisor would try and help meout’, and ‘My supervisor can be relied upon to do as he says he will do.’Answers were provided on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree,7 = strongly agree). We averaged items to form a scale (α = .87).

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 6 6

Intentions to stay. To assess employees’ intention to stay with theorganization, we modified three items from Hom and Griffeth (1991). Itemswere ‘I am sure that I will stay with this organization for a long time’, ‘I amthinking about looking for a new job in the foreseeable future’ (1 = stronglydisagree, 7 = strongly agree) and ‘How long do you think will you beemployed by this organization?’ (1 = not very long, 7 = for quite a long time).The second item’s answers were reverse scored so that high overall scoresindicated a greater intention to stay with the organization (α = .76).

Antisocial work behaviors were measured with five items adapted froma one-dimensional scale developed by Kickul et al. (2001). Supervisorsprovided ratings on the following items. ‘This employee has been makingfrequent and/or long trips to the cafeteria to avoid work’, ‘This employeehas purposefully interfered with someone else doing his/her job’, ‘Thisemployee has been finding fault with what the organization is doing’, ‘Thisemployee sabotaged the work of colleagues’, ‘This employee has underminedthe work of colleagues to make them look bad.’ Supervisors rated these state-ments on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).Items were averaged to form a scale (α = .80).

Control variables. Because employees were organized into differentdepartments, department membership was dummy coded into eight dummyvariables. We also controlled for tenure and respondent age (both measuredin years).

Results

Analysis

Similar to Study 1, we tested the hypotheses using hierarchical regressionanalysis with robust estimation of standard errors. We assessed hypothesesusing Baron and Kenny’s (1986) test for mediation. Descriptive statistics areshown in Table 3.

Hypotheses tests

Table 4 summarizes the results of the mediation analysis. Results show thatcontrol variables explained 42 percent (p < .001) of the variance, trust insupervisor explained an additional 3 percent (p < .001) of the variance, andintentions to stay accounted for another 3 percent (p = .06) of the variancein antisocial work behaviors. In support of Hypothesis 1, Model I resultsshow that trust in supervisor significantly predicts antisocial work behaviors

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 6 7

(β = –.21, p < .05). Model II results further suggest that trust in supervisorsignificantly predicts intentions to stay with the organization (β = .51, p < .001). Finally, in line with Hypothesis 2, results from Model III foundthat the relationship between trust in supervisor and antisocial work

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 6 8

Table 3 Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Gender .46 .502. Age 39.97 9.88 .25*3. Tenure 11.37 9.27 .06 .71***4. Trust in supervisor 4.87 1.57 .12 .02 –.13 (.87)5. Intentions to stay 5.08 1.45 –.04 .22 .17 .44* (.76)6. Antisocial work

behaviors 1.89 .86 –.04 .00 .08 –.19 –.29** (.80)

Note: N = 87. Cronbach’s alpha in parentheses.* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 4 Results from regression analysis

Model I Model II Model IIIAntisocial work Intentions to Antisocial work behaviors stay behaviors————————— ————————— –––————–———

Variable β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2

Department 1 –.46*** –.03 –.45***Department 2 –.20* –.17 –.24**Department 3 –.19* .02 –.18Department 4 –.18 –.23 –.23*Department 5 .03 –.17 –.01Department 6 –.12 –.13 –.14Department 7 –.63*** .09 –.61***Department 8 –.10 –.04 –.11Age .01 .10 .02Tenure –.02 .17 –.01Gender .02 .42*** –.17 .21* .03 .42***Trust –.21* .03* .51*** .19*** –.10 .03*Intentions to stay –.21* .03†

R2 .45*** .40*** .47***

Note: N = 87 (Antisocial Work Behaviors) and N = 88 (Intentions to Stay). Entries are standardized coefficientsfrom the last step of the hierarchical models.† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

behaviors was non-significant (β = –.10, p = .37) when intentions to stay (β = –.21, p < .05) were included in the model, suggesting full mediation.

Discussion

The prediction that an employee’s level of trust would negatively relate toantisocial work behaviors via attachment to the organization was supportedusing alternative measures of antisocial work behavior, attachment, andtrust, suggesting that findings are generalizable across measures, source ofrating, and country. Although the zero order correlation between trust andantisocial work behaviors failed to reach conventional levels of significance,the results of regression analysis (controlling for several potential confound-ing variables) again suggested a negative and significant relationship betweenthese two variables. Together, Study 1 and 2 provide converging evidence forthe idea that the trust is negatively related to antisocial work behaviors andthat this relationship is mediated by an employee’s attachment to the organ-ization and its members. In a further effort to replicate findings, Study 3tested hypotheses among health care workers in the Netherlands.

Study 3

Methods

Participants and procedure

We examined the relationships between trust in organization, attachment,and antisocial work behaviors in a field study of two locations of a Dutchhealth care organization. In this study, we used employee self-reports oftrust in organization and perceptions of workgroup cohesion. To measureantisocial work behaviors, we asked supervisors to rate their employees’antisocial work behaviors. From a total of 318 employees, 129 respondedto a mailed survey for a response rate of 41 percent. We also received supervisor (N = 27, average span of control = 10 employees) ratings of antisocial behavior for 264 (83%) of these employees. Usable data forhypotheses tests was N = 106. From this sample, the respondents’ agesranged from 20 to 59 years (M = 40.23, SD = 9.65). Their organizationaltenure ranged from 1 to 43 years (M = 13.21, SD = 9.94).

Measures

Trust in organization. We assessed trust with Robinson’s (1996) seven-itemmeasure of trust in organization. Sample items are ‘I believe my employer

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 6 9

has high integrity’, and ‘In general, I believe my employer’s motives andintentions are good.’ Employees provided their answers on a five-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .82).

Perceptions of workgroup cohesion. Participants’ perceptions of work-group cohesion were measured with the same five-item scale used in Study1 (Koys & DeCotiis, 1991). Responses were indicated on a five-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .88).

Antisocial work behaviors. We assessed employees’ deviant workbehavior with eight items from Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) scale, adaptedto reflect supervisor evaluations (e.g. ‘This employee took a longer or extrabreak than is acceptable in this organization’). Three of these items assessedantisocial behaviors targeted at persons and five of them assessed antisocialbehaviors targeted at the organization. Supervisors’ answers were providedon a seven-point Likert scale (1 = never, 7 = always). In line with Study 1, weconducted a second order CFA prior to combining items into a single indexof antisocial work behavior. The initial model linked the three person-targeteditems to one first order factor, and the four organization-targeted items to thesecond first order factor. Although factor loadings (range .49 to .80) were allsignificant (p < .001), this model demonstrated relatively poor fit to the dataχ2 (19) = 123.82, RMSEA = .14, CFI = .82, GFI = .90, AGFI = .80. A secondmodel specifying a higher order general deviance factor demonstrated‘mediocre’ (MacCallum et al., 1996) fit to the data χ2 (32) = 124.00, RMSEA= .10, CFI = .84, GFI = .90, AGFI = .88. Person targeted and organizationtargeted deviance loaded on the general deviance factor γ = .80 and γ = .72,respectively. Based on these findings, and consistent with Study 1, we aggre-gated scores to form a single index of antisocial behavior (α = .80).

Control variables. Because the surveyed employees came from twodifferent locations, we controlled for location in the analyses. We alsocontrolled for employee tenure and employee age.

Results

Analysis

Consistent with Study 1 and 2, we used robust regression analysis and theBaron and Kenny (1986) approach to assess our hypotheses. Descriptiveresults are shown in Table 5.

Hypotheses tests

Results found that control variables explained 5 percent of the variance, trustin organization explained an additional 15 percent of the variance, and

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 7 0

intentions to stay accounted for another 4 percent of the variance in anti-social work behaviors. In support of Hypothesis 1, Model I results show thattrust in organization significantly predicts antisocial work behaviors (β =–.40, p < .001) (see Table 6). Model II results further suggested that trust inorganization significantly predicted cohesion (β = .38, p < .001). Finally, inline with Hypothesis 2, results from Model III found that the relationshipbetween trust in organization and antisocial work behaviors became lesssignificant (β = –.31, p < .01), when entering perceptions of workgroupcohesion (β = –.23, p < .05) into the model, suggesting partial mediation.

We tested the significance of the mediated effect with two differentstatistical tests. Results of a Sobel Test suggest that the mediated effect was

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 7 1

Table 5 Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Tenure 10.04 7.442. Age 40.81 9.32 .30**3. Trust 3.56 .82 –.17 .11 (.80)4. Cohesion 3.91 .79 –.01 .01 .32*** (.88)5. Antisocial work behaviors 1.30 .42 .07 –.03 –.35*** –.36*** (.82)

Note: N = 106. Cronbach’s alpha in parentheses.* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 6 Results from regression analysis

Model I Model II Model IIIAntisocial work Cohesion Antisocial work behaviors behaviors————————— ————————— –––————–———β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2

Location .29** –.23* .23**Age .01 .15 –.05Tenure –.08 .05 –.07 .02 –.01 .05Trust –.40*** .15*** .38*** .14** –.31** .15***Cohesion –.23* .04*R2 .20*** .16*** .24***

Note: N = 106. Entries are standardized coefficients from the last step of the hierarchical models.† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

non-significant (z = 1.71, p < .10). However, the Sobel Test is a problematicstatistical test to assess mediation because its two-tailed p-value rests on theassumption that the distribution of the mediated effect is both normal andsymmetrical. These assumptions have been challenged in the statistical litera-ture (Bollen & Stine, 1990; MacKinnon et al., 2002; Preacher & Hayes,2004). Preacher and Hayes (2004) have recently developed an alternativetest, which involves bootstrapping the sampling distribution of the mediatedeffect. When applying this test on our data, we found that the size of themediated effect is –.042 and the 95 percent bootstrapped confidence intervalfor this effect was –.13, –.01. The results of this test (in contrast to the SobelTest) suggests that there is partial mediation at p < .05.

Together, these findings provide evidence of partial mediation, andconsistent with findings from Studies 1 and 2, suggest that at least part ofthe relation between trust and antisocial behaviors may be accounted for byemployees’ attachment to the organization and its members.

General discussion

Results of three studies suggest that an employee’s attachment to the organiz-ation and its members (partially; Study 3) mediated (Studies 1 and 2) therelationship between trust (in management, supervisor, and organization)and antisocial work behaviors. Building on theories of social exchange(Molm & Cook, 1995; Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996), and social bonding(Hirschi, 1969), we argued that greater levels of trust increase employees’attachment to the organization and its members, motivating them to refrainfrom antisocial work behaviors. This prediction was supported by studiesconducted in three separate countries. Methodological strengths of ourarticle are that we were largely able to replicate study findings across differ-ent countries, across a variety of validated measures, across referent of trust(i.e. supervisor, general management, organization), and using both self- andother-ratings of antisocial work behaviors. Together, these studies providefurther evidence of generalizability and support the notion that trust andattachment are important across cultures. These findings also providesupport for Currall and Inkpen’s (2002) argument that trust is an iso-morphic construct and operates similarly across organizational referent.

Although the negative relation between citizenship behaviors and anti-social behaviors, and the fairly robust positive relation between citizenshipbehavior and trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) is suggestive that trust may be nega-tively related to antisocial work behaviors, there remains a paucity of researchempirically addressing this relationship. A theoretical contribution of ourarticle is that it suggests that trust is linked to antisocial work behaviors via

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 7 2

a sense of attachment to the organization and its members. As one of thefirst to empirically examine the role of trust in predicting antisocial workbehavior, our study also advances previous research on antisocial workbehaviors and the role of trust in organizations. In addition, our study goesbeyond assessing direct relations to examine attachment as a mechanismwhereby trust may be associated with self-interested and antisocial workbehavior. One way this may occur is by transforming self-interest into other-concern, thereby increasing incentives for cooperation and norm compliance(Kramer & Brewer, 1984).

Finally, our article also provides a methodological extension toresearch on antisocial and deviant work behaviors, in that we assessed bothself- and other- ratings of antisocial behaviors and obtained comparableresults across different contexts. This may suggest that supervisor ratings ofantisocial work behavior are a viable alternative to self-report ratings, whichhave long been the norm in deviance research. There are clearly more studiesneeded that address this methodological question.

Limitations

Because we used correlational designs, questions regarding causality remainunanswered. Whereas, our hypotheses were largely supported acrosstemporal separation (Study 1), multiple studies, countries, and raters issuggestive of an important trend in relations between study variables.Nevertheless, experimental studies are necessary before firm conclusions ofcausation and directionality of relations can be drawn.

Another limitation appears to be the relatively low levels of trust andlow levels of antisocial behaviors, which runs counter to the notion that lowtrust encourages antisocial behaviors. Nevertheless, after controlling forconfounding variables, the negative relationship between trust and antisocialbehaviors was as expected. Although these results may have been due tostatistical artifacts, the fact that control variables were significant in all threestudies, and in one study accounted for 42 percent of the variance in anti-social behaviors reinforces the importance of controlling for third variablesthat may suppress relations between variables of interest.

Another limitation is that our article focused only on the employees’perspective of trust. However, trust is the property of a relationship and isto some extent dependent on the choices of the other. Therefore, it would beinteresting for future research to consider the supervisors’ perspective.Finally, it may be argued that group cohesion represents attachment amongemployees, not feelings of attachment toward other employees, and that thisconstruct is an indirect way to assess attachment. Whereas satisfaction with

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 7 3

co-workers does not necessarily express a sense of attachment, and norma-tive commitment refers to the desire to remain with an organization due toa felt sense of moral obligation that may develop early in life, rather than asa function of work relations, there are limitations in using these constructsas well. Nevertheless, future research would greatly benefit from replicatingstudy findings using a validated measure of attachment to organizationalmembers.

Implications for future research

Findings from this study have several implications for research on trust andantisocial work behaviors. Whereas previous research has investigated trustas a mediating mechanism between perceived fairness and organizationalattitudes and behaviors (e.g. Aryee et al., 2002), our results suggestadditional outcomes of low trust relationships, namely detachment andreduced inhibitions of behaving in antisocial ways. Our study examinesboth organizations and its members as the target of attachment and anti-social behaviors; future research may more closely explore these targetsindependently.

There are many other avenues for future research on norm-breakingbehavior within work relations that might be informed by this research, suchas the development of incivility spirals, wherein lost trust and cohesion maybe associated with depersonalization and subsequent retaliation behaviors(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Indeed, a weak sense of attachment mayenable revenge responses to identity threats (Aquino et al., 2001), and thedevelopment of micro-organizational politics wherein employees prioritizetheir own selfish interests over the interests of other workgroup members.Although research on antisocial work behaviors has flourished over the past10 years (Fox & Spector, 2005), relatively little is known regarding charac-teristics other than frustration and injustice that predict deviance (Bennett &Robinson, 2003). Our studies highlight the role of trust and attachment asimportant relational concepts. Future research may further benefit from anintegration of the close relationships literature on trust and attachment toexamine conditions that may affect this relationship.

Conclusion

This study extends previous research on trust and attachment and suggeststhat actions taken by an organization and its leaders to enhance employeetrust and attachment may inhibit antisocial workplace behavior and therebyfoster more positive work relations between employees and management.

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 7 4

Acknowledgement

Items from the Trust in Management scale are currently under development andcopyright is owned by Bowling Green State University © 2002. Sample items arereported by permission. The authors thank Rafael Wittek and Helene Malherbefor helpful comments on previous versions of this article. The first two authorscontributed equally to this article.

Note

1 We explored how between-unit variance in antisocial work behaviors was explainedby trust. We did this by using Singer and Willett’s (2003) Pseduo R2 formula forbetween-group variances. The results suggest that 2 percent of the variance wereexplained by trust (with the coefficient for trust being γ = –.11, p < .05).

References

Aday, D.P. Social control at the margins: Toward a general understanding of deviance.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990.

Andersson, L.M. & Pearson, C.M. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in theworkplace. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24, 452–71.

Aquino, K. & Byron, K. Dominating interpersonal behavior and perceived victimization ingroups: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Journal of Management, 2002, 28, 69–87.

Aquino, K. & Douglas, S. Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: Themoderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchicalstatus. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2003, 90, 195–208.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M.U. & Bradfield, M. Justice constructs, negative affectivity, andemployee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 1999, 20, 1073–91.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M. & Bies, R.J. How employees respond to personal offense: Theeffects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconcili-ation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 52–9.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. & Chen, Z.X. Trust as a mediator of the relationship betweenorganizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 2002, 23, 267–85.

Axelrod, R.M. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984.Baldwin, M.W. Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological

Bulletin, 1992, 112, 461–84.Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 1173–82.

Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachmentsas a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117, 497–529.

Bennett, R.J. & Robinson, S.L. The development of a measure of workplace deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85, 349–60.

Bennett, R.J. & Robinson, S.L. The past, present, and future of workplace devianceresearch. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, pp. 247–81.

Bensimon, H. What to do about anger in the workplace. Training and Development, 1997,28–32.

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 7 5

Bollen, K.A. & Stine, R. Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates ofvariability. Sociological Methodology, 1990, 20, 115–40.

Brown, M.W. & Cudek, R. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1989, 24, 445–55.

Cook, J. & Wall, T. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment andpersonal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1980, 53, 39–52.

Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A. & Taillieu, T. Trust within teams: The relation with performanceeffectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2001, 10,225–44.

Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.Journal of Management, 2005, 31, 874–900.

Currall, S.C. & Inkpen, A.C. A multi-level approach to trust in joint ventures. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 2002, 33, 479–95.

Dalal, R.S. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviorand counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005, 90,1241–55.

Dirks, K.T. The effects of interpersonal trust on workgroup performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 1999, 84, 445–55.

Dirks, K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. The role of trust in organizational settings. OrganizationScience, 2001, 12, 450–67.

Dirks, K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications forresearch and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87, 611–28.

Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. A model of work frustration – aggression. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 1999, 20, 915–31.

Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors andtargets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2005.

Giacalone, R. & Greenberg, J. Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1997.

Greenberg, J. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costs ofpay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 75, 561–8.

Greenberg, J. The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. InR. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds), Antisocial behavior in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 1997, 85–108.

Hardin, R. Individual sanctions, collective beliefs. In R. Campbell & L. Sowden (Eds),Paradoxes of rationality and cooperation: Prisoner’s dilemma and Newcombs’ problem.Vancouver: The University of British Columbia Press, 1985, pp. 339–54.

Hirschi, T. Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.Hoel, H., Rayner, C. & Cooper, C.L. Workplace bullying. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson

(Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. New York:Wiley, 1999, pp. 195–230.

Hollinger, R.C. Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. DeviantBehavior, 1986, 7, 53–75.

Holmes, J.G. Social relationships: The nature and function of relational schemas. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 2000, 30, 447–95.

Holmes, J.G. & Rempel, J.K. Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Eds), Closerelationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1989, pp. 187–220.

Hom, P.W. & Griffeth, R.W. Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76, 350–66.

Homans, G.C. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1961.Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut, J. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York:

Wiley, 1978.Kickul, J.R., Neuman, G., Parker, C. & Finkl, J. Settling the score: The role of organizational

justice in the relationship between psychological contract breach and anticitizenshipbehavior. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 2001, 13, 77–93.

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 7 6

Kim, W.C. & Mauborgne, R.A. Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top manage-ment compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy ofManagement Journal, 1993, 36, 502–26.

Konovsky, M.A. & Pugh, S.D. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy ofManagement Journal, 1994, 37, 656–69.

Koys, D.J. & DeCotiis, T.A. Inductive measures of psychological climate. HumanRelations, 1991, 44, 265–85.

Kramer, R.M. & Brewer, M.B. Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulatedcommons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 46, 1044–57.

MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. & Sugawara, H.M. Power analysis and determination ofsample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1996, 1, 130–49.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. & Sheets, V. A compari-son of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. PsychologicalMethods, 2002, 7, 83–104.

Maertz, C.P. Jr & Campion, M.A. Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and contentturnover theory. Academy of Management Journal, 2004, 47, 566–82.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust.Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20, 709–34.

McAllister, D.J. Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal co-operation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 38, 24–59.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.

Molm, L.D. & Cook, K.S. Social exchange and exchange networks. In K.S. Cook, G.A.Fine & J.S. House (Eds), Sociological perspectives on social psychology. Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon, 1995, pp. 209–35.

Murphy, K.R. Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1993.Murphy, S.M., Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C. & Erdogan, B. Understanding social loafing: The

role of justice perceptions and exchange relationship. Human Relations, 2003, 56,61–84.

Oates, G.L. The color of the undergraduate experience and the black self-concept: Evidencefrom longitudinal data. Social Psychology Quarterly, 2004, 67, 16–32.

Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M. & Wegner, J.W. When workers flout convention: A studyof workplace incivility. Human Relations, 2001, 54, 1387–419.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. & Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases inbehavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 879–903.

Porter, T.W., & Lilly, B.S. The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on projectteam performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1996, 7(4), 361–76.

Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects insimple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,2004, 36, 717–31.

Robinson, S.L. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 1996, 41, 574–99.

Robinson, S.L. & Greenberg, J. Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants, anddilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds),Trends in organizational behavior, vol. 5. New York: Wiley, 1998, pp. 1–30.

Robinson, S.L. & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of workgroups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,1998, 41, 658–72.

Robinson, S.L. & Rousseau, D.M. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exceptionbut the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1994, 15, 245–59.

Rotundo, M. & Sackett, P.R. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counter-productive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturingapproach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87, 66–80.

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 7 7

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Camerer, C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 393–404.

Rusbult, C.E. & Van Lange, P.A.M. Interdependence processes. In E.T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York:Guilford, 1996, pp. 564–96.

Sims, R.L. Ethical rule breaking by employees: A test of social bonding theory. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 2002, 40, 101–09.

Singer, J.D. & Willett, J.B. Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and eventoccurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Skarlicki, D.P. & Folger, R. Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive,procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82, 434–43.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. & Hulin, C.L. The measurement of satisfaction in work andretirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Co, 1969.

StataCorp. Intercooled Stata 8.2 for Windows. College Station, TX: StataCorp, 2002.Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C.E., Foster, C.A. & Agnew, C.R. Commitment, pro-relationship

behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1999, 77, 942–66.

Stefan Thau is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at theLondon Business School. His research interests are workplace deviance,organizational justice, self-defeating behaviors, status and moral psy-chology. Stefan’s research has been published in the Journal of AppliedPsychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior and Social Justice Research.[E-mail: sthau@london.edu]

Craig Crossley is a post-doctoral research associate in the GallupLeadership Institute at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. His researchinterests include counterproductive workplace behaviors, leadership, anddecision-making. Craig’s research has been published in journals such asthe Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Economic Psychology and Journal of Vocational Behavior.[E-mail: craigdc@bgnet.bgsu.edu]

Rebecca J. Bennett is the Herbert McElveen Professor of Managementat Louisiana Tech University. The Herbert McElveen Professorship ismade available through the State of Louisiana Board of Regents SupportFunds. Her research interests are workplace deviance and responses toworkplace offense including forgiveness and revenge. Rebecca’s researchhas been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Manage-ment Journal, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.[E-mail: rbennett@latech.edu]

Human Relations 60(8)1 1 7 8

Sabine Sczesny is Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at theUniversity of Bern, Switzerland. In her research she focuses on basic andapplied aspects of aggression, stereotyping, language, gender, health, andleadership. Her research has been published in the European Journal ofSocial Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Sex Roles, Social Cognitionand Work and Stress.[E-mail: sabine.sczesny@psy.unibe.ch]

Thau et al. Trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors 1 1 7 9