Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What motivates deviant behavior in the workplace? An examination of the mechanisms by which procedural injustice affects deviance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examines the motivational and social-cognitive processes underlying the procedural injustice and deviance relationship. Based on psychological need and self-determination theories, it was hypothesized that intrinsic motivation would mediate the relationship between procedural injustice and deviance. Based on the general aggression model and social-cognitive theory, it was hypothesized that this positive indirect effect would be moderated by dispositional aggression. Two studies were conducted, including multi-wave and multi-source data, to test these relationships through mediation and moderated mediation procedures. Results supported both hypotheses: intrinsic motivation mediated the procedural injustice and deviance relationship; and this positive indirect effect was moderated by dispositional aggression, such that higher levels of aggression increased the magnitude of the indirect effect. Results were consistent across multiple measures of intrinsic motivation, aggression, and deviance (self- and other-report). Theoretical and practical contributions include support for a process-based theory of deviant behavior in the workplace and organizational interventions aimed at enriching one’s job to develop greater feelings of intrinsic motivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The dependent variable (organizational deviance) displayed moderate positive skew. Accordingly, we performed a square root data transformation and conducted hypothesis testing with and without transformed data. Formal test results for mediation (Kappa-squared) and moderated mediation (index of moderated mediation) remained unchanged (i.e., statistically significant results at the p = .050 level remained statistically significant). Therefore, we report the original non-transformed data in Study 1.

  2. As a comparison, we tested an alternative model by switching the causal sequence of the X and M variables. This alternative model had an identical indirect effect (K2 = .044, CI.95 = .025, .068).

  3. To minimize concerns of common method variance interpersonal deviance was assessed via other-report. However, considering that participants self-selected an “other” (i.e., coworker, spouse, family member, or close personal friend) who could rate them in a positive light, thus decreasing the actual reports of deviance, we compared our data with previously published data. Specifically, we found M = 1.97 and SD = 1.03 from n = 340 respondents. In comparison to the scale development data by Bennett and Robinson (2000), which found a reported score of M = 1.85 and SD = 1.26 from n = 352, a subsequent t test found that these values were not statistically different (t(672) = 1.42, p = .156). Additionally, a study that used the Bennett and Robinson measure on a 1-7 scale with a similar highly diverse sample (i.e., wide variety of industries, geographic locations, ages, etc.) found a reported score of M = 1.95 and SD = .90 from n = 373 (Thau et al. 2009). Again, calculating a t-test we found that these values were not statistically different from our data (t(677) = .29, p = .773).

  4. Similar to Study 1, the dependent variable (interpersonal deviance) displayed moderate positive skew. Accordingly, we performed a square root data transformation and conducted hypothesis testing with and without transformed data. Formal test results for mediation (Kappa-squared) and moderated mediation (index of moderated mediation) remained unchanged (i.e., statistically significant results at the p = .050 level remained statistically significant). Therefore, we report the original non-transformed data in Study 2.

  5. As a comparison, we tested an alternative model by switching the causal sequence of the X and M variables. This alternative model had a non-significant indirect effect (K2 = .002, CI.95 = .000, .005), further supporting the proposed model.

  6. We thank Editor Johnmarshall Reeve and an anonymous reviewer for invaluable comments and suggestions resulting in the adoption of an SDT-based dual-process model.

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. A., & Huesmann, L. R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 296–323). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1001–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, H. B. (1983). Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. (1994). Human aggression. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, K., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1459–1473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751–777.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beugré, C. D. (2005). Reacting aggressively to injustice at work: A cognitive stage model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. (1996). Beyond distrust: ‘‘Getting even’’ and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The effects of target attributions on responses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress, 25, 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1977). The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 2, 496–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 389–398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. (1993). Ways to curtail employee theft. Nation’s Business, 81, 36–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, Z. S. (1999, April–May). How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organizational outcomes? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

  • Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). History of organizational justice: The founders speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (vol. II): From theory to practice (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camara, W. J., & Schneider, D. L. (1994). Integrity tests: Facts and unresolved issues. American Psychologist, 49, 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., et al. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S. F., & Peng, J. C. (2008). The relationship between psychological contract breach and employee deviance: The moderating role of hostile attributional style. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 426–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crampton, S., & Wagner, J. (1994). Percept–percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. G. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management (Vol. 7). Londo: Sage Publications, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of Goal Pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of community violence and an organization’s procedural justice climate on workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, W. F., & Sayles, L. R. (1978). How managers motivate: The imperatives of supervision. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L. M. (2009). When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1345–1353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2010). Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management,. doi:10.1177/0149206310372259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Taylor, J. (2004). The dark side of behavior at work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geen, R. G., & Donnerstein, E. (1998). Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for policy. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M. (2008). Doe intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. E. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. E. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. E. (1997). Occupational crime (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. E. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargis, M. B., Kotrba, L. M., Zhandova, L., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). What is really important: Examining the relative importance of antecedents to work-family conflict. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23, 386–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. (1990). Spotlight abuse-save profits. Industrial Distribution, 79, 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavior Research, 50, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 21–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 525–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A. (2010). Getting even for interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: Triggers of revenge motives and behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Insidious workplace behavior (pp. 101–148). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Work motivation: Past, present, and future. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 644–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Kwong Kwan, H., Wu, L. Z., & Wu, W. (2010). Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: The moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 835–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. A., Kath, L. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Short, valid, predictive measures of work-family interference. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 75–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGurn, M. (1988). Spotting the thieves who work among us. Wall Street Journal, 7, A16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J. S., & Bowling, N. A. (2013). Does dispositional aggression feed the narcissistic response? The role of narcissism and aggression in the prediction of job attitudes and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents of work-family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 689–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J. S., Pace, V. L., Edun, A., Sawhney, E., & Thomas, J. (2014). Development and validation of an explicit aggressive beliefs and attitudes scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 327–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Pacific Grove, LA: Brooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Retail Security Survey. (2010). University of Florida: Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law. Retrieved on Dec 7, 2011, from http://soccrim.clas.ufl.edu/criminology/srp/finalreport_2010.pdf

  • Ng, J. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., et al. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts a meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breath self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Bernstein, J. H., & Brown, K. W. (2010). Weekends, work, and wellbeing: Psychological need satisfactions and day of the week effects on mood, vitality, and physical symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 95–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 422–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., Barclay, L. J., & Pugh, D. S. (2008). When explanations for layoffs are not enough: Employer’s integrity as a moderator of the relationship between informational justice and retaliation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 342–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41, 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271–360). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or job strain or both? The role of job control and social support. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Jesse S. Michel

  2. Department of Marketing and Management, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR, 72035, USA

    Michael B. Hargis

Authors
  1. Jesse S. Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael B. Hargis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse S. Michel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michel, J.S., Hargis, M.B. What motivates deviant behavior in the workplace? An examination of the mechanisms by which procedural injustice affects deviance. Motiv Emot 41, 51–68 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9584-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9584-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation