Counter-productive workplace behavior (CWB) is defined as any intentional behavior on the part of an organization member viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate interests. A growing body of literature reveals that individual variables and pre-employment integrity tests can play a strong role in the prediction of CWB. The empirical literature has failed to clarify which type of individual level antecedents, or types of integrity test items, are more predictive of CWB. The current study evaluated data collected from restaurant employees (N=464) that measured items relating to personality tendencies, attitudes toward acceptance of counter-productive behaviors, work and high school background, and admissions of counter-productive behavior. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a mediocre fit to a typology of CWB (interpersonal CWB vs. organizational CWB). Correlation analysis revealed that only specific attitudinal items and empirically keyed biodata items were significantly related to CWB. Hierarchical regression analysis found that attitudinal items paralleling admissions of CWB contributed variance beyond that of other personality and work and high school background antecedents.

The Three-Component Model of organizational commitment (TCM) by Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997) is widely regarded as the most dominant model in organizational commitment research (Cohen, 2003, 2007). However, recent research by Solinger et al. (2008) questioned the legitimacy of the TCM as a general model of organizational commitment. More specifically, the authors criticized the TCM for grouping affective commitment as an attitude toward target with continuance and normative commitment as attitudes toward behaviors under one general label of attitudinal construct. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), Solinger et al. (2008) argued that we should consider organizational commitment strictly as an attitude toward the organization (i.e., affective commitment). Based on Eagly and Chaiken's (1993) composite attitude-behavior model, the current study tested the reconceptualization of organizational commitment as a unidimensional construct reflecting employees' attitudes toward the organization (i.e., affective commitment) in predicting several organizational behaviors (i.e., considerate voice, production deviance, and behavioral engagement). In addition, I also investigated whether these organizational behaviors could be better explained by adding different classes of behavioral expectancies (i.e., utilitarian, normative and self-identity expectancies) as antecedents. Finally, I tested the mediating roles of attitude toward behaviors in the relationship between affective commitment and three behavioral expectancies and the three organizational behaviors. A sample of 258 employees in a large-sized organization in China was obtained for this study. The results suggested that none of the hypotheses of the current study was supported by the evidence in the current study. In particular, affective commitment and three classes of behavioral expectancies did not significantly predict their corresponding behaviors. In addition, I also did not find the evidence for the indirect effects from affective commitment and the behavioral expectancies on the behaviors. Several alternative explanations were provided for the results. Among those, the lack of compatibility between affective commitment and the behaviors, the existence of moderators (e.g. national culture), the lack of necessary control to perform the behaviors successfully are key factors that might lead to the current findings. Although none of the hypotheses was supported, I found limited empirical supports for the reconceptualization of organizational commitment strictly as the attitude toward the organization and that organizational behaviors could be better explained by adding appropriate behavioral expectancies to the model (Solinger et al., 2008). Finally, theoretical and practical implications of the current study as well as directions for future research are discussed.